I think our definitions of social might be the disconnect here, as it seems you're meaning it in a personal or conversational manner. I acknowledge that by those standards, your point would be correct!

I just think that the term "social" when used in a political context does not carry the same connotation. When you say socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone, it seems you mean that in the sense that you don't want people bothering you about more than is necessary for you to function as an individual (hence the soliciting or DMV example given). In this case, I don't think that a more socialist structure would infringe on that at all actually.

Your day to day life would likely not change drastically. It's not like the government would suddenly be knocking on your door monthly saying "hello would you like to give me your documented monthly contribution to society? Here is your monthly allowance". In the day to day it would function as it was currently and the government would basically "leave you alone" as much as they already do. The government currently does already take taxes after all on property, income, sales, capital, even gifts! They also require you documents for many things such as driving a car or owning property or getting healthcare.

To continue your point made based on the definition you gave, though: People may have "no soliciting" signs posted, and hate going to the DMV. Yet, I know of MORE people who upon encountering an automated system to reduce the social interaction to be done for government transactions, complain that they "hate these stupid robots and want to just talk to a real person".