You have a clever way of pointing at technicalities such as you do NOT want to "run a society." Who gives a flying fuck whether a person uses the word run or that the society is running on its own...
Ultimately, the point that I am making is that in the real world apart from your fantasy land of generalities (that supposedly is shared by others with similar visions of grandeur), the societal objectives are NOT going to be met. ... and net happiness will be down.. even thou some people may feel free an empowered by such a vague societal outline.... b/c supposed individualized liberty will be embraced and respected... Your whole outline seems much to vague.
And face the reality... you cannot "meet the needs of the helpless" without having various plans that outline such rather than relying on some amorphous concepts of voluntary giving...... and I am quite confident that the helpless will be a much broader category than you are contemplating in your vague outline of principles.
Is this less vague?
System A: 60% of the people vote for a 10% tax to help the needy. Tax collection and funds distribution is 50% efficient so the poor get 5% of society's income.
System B: 60% of the people voluntarily donate 10% to help the needy directly and the poor get 6% of society's income.
The poor are better off under system B but I suspect this is unacceptable to you because helping the poor is less important to you than forcing everyone to conform to your values.