If a party cedes responsibility for a matter to another party, the first party will implicitly cede authority over that matter and all other matters that the second party requires to control in order to discharge that responsibility. Indeed it is a test of sincerity of a party accepting a responsibility, whether or not they also insist on or take steps to acquire the necessary authority. However, it is in the interests of the first party to to persuade the second party to accept and discharge responsibilities without authority as extensive as in fact required; in effect, this transfers much if not all the cost of the responsibility to the second party. As a result, the first party is often less than fully conscious of the fact that cession of responsibility is necessarily accompanied by cession of authority. Furthermore, they may not even sufficiently alert to to the fact that a second party may offer to take responsibility for a matter in order to acquire with justification authority that they desire in any case and for some other reason than discharging the responsibility.
For example, if individuals cede responsibility for health to the state, then the state must, necessarily, assume authority over a wide range of matters that affect the risk entailed by the responsibility, in other words the hazard multiplied by the probability of that hazard, which in this case is the probability of a particular demand on the health service, resulting in costs. Those ceding responsibility in this case often do not see why the state has become so interested in their diet and their behaviour; but it could not be otherwise. The state cannot plan, cannot budget, if it does not have the authority to control the risk of cost to the provision system.
The implied political effects of socialism are, therefore, authoritarian, as an administrative and a practical necessity. If the state were to provide and guarantee equal incomes, as honest and thorough socialists such as Shaw have realised is essential to their design, then the state must take authority over the entire economy to guarantee (and cap) wealth generation, and over the size of the population. Otherwise, the provision of income cannot be guaranteed,and since equal incomes are required, at least by Shaw, there must be complete control of both production and consumption in order to guarantee that equality of effect across all individuals. Nothing else would be feasible.
Similarly, if a a country such as the United Kingdom hopes to benefit from the socialisation of risk and opportunity offered by the European Union, assuming this to be real, then it is inevitable that the country must also accept the cession of sovereignty over all matters fiscal, and probably all matters economic, indeed, all matters whatsoever. Without that authority the responsible party cannot realistically offer the umbrella of protection that is required.
In considering this principle it is important to recognise that while taking responsibility may well have reasons for desiring authorities that go beyond those needed for the discharge of the responsibility, they need not have such ulterior motives. The authority is simply a necessary component of the procedure for successfully discharging a responsibility. However, any one faced with another party offering to take responsibility for some matter should be on their guard, lest it is the authority or some potential exceedance of authority that the party seeks. Indeed, in practice, the administrators of any responsible party will be motivated to exceed the necessary authority for reasons of their own.
Freedom from care comes at the cost of liberty, and the hazard of subjection.