Ken, your stance on social insurances etc can be explained with personal preferences.
This means your stance is not qualified for a universal truth, but for being a foundation for deciding on how to vote ... and in the end it's bound to lose, for most people have different preferences.

You're furthermore making your assessment by looking back at life, while philosophy uses the fiction of how a human would choose if he didn't know what lays ahead of him (=not being born into any family yet) for investigating what's right or wrong.

A rational approach includes a certain appreciation of the risk mitigation by insurances, and this means that someone who doesn't know whether #### will happen to him or not will see a value in an insurance (unlike some people who already know that they didn't need one).

There are furthermore many reasons to believe that maximum output does not mean maximum joy. Most people tolerate certain inefficiencies in favour of conditions that promise greater satisfaction. This is one of the reasons why transfer systems exist in countries that have a majority in favour of state-organised social transfers.

A well-run social state has great merit (way beyond mere wealth-related stuff; it also helps to keep intra-society conflict in small, such as strikes).
The problem is that running it well requires much effort, unlike just laying back and do nothing, hoping that the #### won't hit the fan for yourself personally.

Finally, there are certain national experiences that should be exploited as experiences by all nations. Such as having seen the destruction of wealth four times in a single generation (First World War 1914-1918, Hyperinflation 1923-1924, Great Depression 1929-1932, Second World War 1939-1945).
A country with such a national memory won't be inclined to dismiss a transfer-based retirement insurance easily.
Nor should others, for it's stupid to learn only from one's own experiences.