What's your realistic alternative? Letting the unneeded starve? The only way to reply here is quoting Rosa Luxemburg: Socialism or barbary.
All this fighting between liberals and socialists seems like the old left-right-scheme rebrewn to me.
You basically want the same. A free and well life for as many as possible. To me, the disagreements seem to only be about how to achieve that goal.
The "inventor" of anarcho-capitalism, Rothbard, saw that the current distribution is based on thievery, and agreed that there's no way for anarcho-capitalism to work when that's not changed. So it's undisputed that we are in sincere need of redistribution.
As a practical matter, in terms of the ownership of land, anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few (if any) parcels of land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time obtained in violation of the homestead principle, through seizure by the state or put in private hands with the assistance of the state. [...]
Rothbard says in "Justice and Property Right" that "any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property." In the case of slavery, Rothbard says that in many cases "the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed."
His idea is to give basically all of the United States to the heirs of former slaves. That's some SERIOUS redistribution, and will probably cause a lot more trouble than a state led basic income.
And this kind of says what socialism means for many - that common property and efforts should be treated as such, and not for private profits:
Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms – not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor – not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.
(Quotes taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Property )
So when we remove the unfair distribution, what differences are left?
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" may sound like someone wants to take something from you, but isn't it really how we all act with our family and friends? And wouldn't solving the main problem (again, it's all about the current distribution, which is a result of theft) make most current "socialist agendas" unnecessary?