Moral values of the two systems are incompatible.
In socialism, the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" to take money from one person and give it to another. It is the belief that some people have a claim in the work of others.
In libertarianism the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" that a person gets to keep the fruits of their labor. It is the belief that people have no claim on the work of others.
Practical matters, like how the transfer of wealth is done in socialism, are totally secondary. Obviously you could make arguments for the "lesser evil" of non-coercive methods.
I think the basic moral values of the two systems are similar, it's just that socialists have a different definition of "fruits of labor". When they take from the rich and give to the poor, the justification is that it never belonged to the rich in the first place.
The problem with political ideologies, and that includes socialism and libertarianism, is that they base their arguments on ill-defined and messy terms and then at the end they pop out suspiciously clean and elegant conclusions. For example: What does "fruits of labor" actually mean? Labor is just another word for "doing stuff". Sure, if you do stuff it has consequences, but how do you decide which of those consequences are "fruits"?
Elegant moral theories that claim to have a definite answer for every conceivable moral problem should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if they are based on verbal arguments alone. The human language is incapable of capturing the complexities of the real world.
That's why I don't do ideology. I treat each moral problem individually, based on reason, evidence, and intuitive morality.