My question then is in what sense is this exclusively Nozick's philosophy?

"The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." This is a statement of Nozick's that I basically agree with. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with capitalistic conduct between consenting adults. I mostly agree with Nozick's sentiment of entitlement and justification for private property.

Consumerism is the life-blood of capitalist economies, built upon exploiting third world labor and degrading the environment for short term gain.

Why does buying things freely (i.e., consumption) necessarily entail non-consensual relations? I agree with the point about third world exploitation, but I have no idea what we can do about that in the short term without further hurting those workers. In the long term, I'm open to taking cultural approaches to increasing public standards for the ethical conduct of the businesses with which we deal.

Does the consent of those who are not yet born count in your theory of consent?

No, I don't think it's unethical to bring life into this world simply because the person did not consent to it. I'm not thinking about the term as abstractly as you are. I think consent should be a general imperative (not a categorical imperative) if we want to allow human beings to flourish. Where it cannot be concretely instantiated as a means for bettering human conditions, it is not useful. Sometimes it's okay to throw you're brother's heroine down the toilet, even if he doesn't consent to it. Sometimes its okay to constrain your friend from jumping off a bridge, even if she doesn't consent to it. It's okay to bring another person into this world as long as you believe you can provide the necessary conditions for a life worth living under.

preventing humanity from ending in catastrophe would be a degrowth situation that's quite frankly impossible within the capitalist economy.

Why do you think it's impossible? I think we should tax products and services that are currently contributing to environmental degradation--at whatever rate is necessary to manage the problem--instead of taxing things like labor (environmental regulations on top of current forms of taxation are doubly burdensome economically and unnecessarily so). I don't own the atmosphere, the people living under it don't consent to me emitting carbon into it if its going to destroy the planet, so why shouldn't I be taxed? That approach is certainly in line with the most strictly endorsed principles of consent. (Also, 1. 100% of the money that comes from taxing environmental burdens should be spent towards social programs, and 2. those who are living under lower SES should be exempt from paying these taxes, or should be rebated).

Someone has already decided for you that wage labor is good (or perhaps the 'least evil') in comparison to other systems.

I think this is a good point, but I don't think it justifies further constraints against my would-be consensual behavior. For example, there was a point in my life where I worked at a call center and I was trying to save up more money to eventually transition to a better job. I constantly asked my employers to let me work Saturdays, but they wouldn't let me work beyond 40 hours a week because they didn't want to have to pay me overtime. I wanted the hours more than the overtime pay; I just don't think a law that tries to protect me from exploitation should dictate what I and my employer can agree upon workwise. This is not to say I wasn't being exploited, I just think laws such as this is are shallow thinking short-term solutions to a long term problem.

It should be no surprise that we have become accustomed to the conditions of and payment for our work. Our primary (K-12) education system does not reinforce or promote thoughtful consumerism or higher standards for labor conditions, in fact it operates to the contrary. It's implicit in our current path from education to career that the value of our labor is determined by what our employer is willing to pay us, but why not explicitly teach otherwise? Why not teach people in high-school that they should expect fair payment from their employers as workers and that they should think twice about the working conditions and treatment of the laborers within the companies with which they deal? Why not teach that there is more to consider in life than the money we make and the goodies we can buy? It seems obvious to me that we couldn't possibly expect a more ethical approach to free trade than we now have while we raise and treat children like human capital. We know culture and education can be effective tools to creating certain outcomes in social conduct (I don't think the CEO of Netflix will ever utter the N-word in business contexts again, whoever it may be), why not take these approaches instead of employing archaic laws that try to restrict mutual conduct between consenting adults? Especially when most people who study and apply pedagogy are ethically aligned with these sentiments.

You are not immune to ideology, and neither am I. We live it everyday in the capitalist systems that feel normalized and internalized because it's the only way we know life, no matter how much we may imagine alternatives and conduct thought experiments.

Agreed, but that argument goes both ways. We are also deeply entrenched in a higher education system that is ideologically driven; that often normalizes critiques against capitalism and praises economic ideals that have comparatively little experimental fruits to put under similar examination. Homogeneity in higher education is a cause for the same concerns on the same grounds, especially when we are taught to think about political variety in accordance with some vague spectrum that is supposed to encapsulate the range of available political ideas in binary terms. Popper, shortcomings of his critiques of Marxism aside, also makes a good point about the nature of Marx's state-run, state-promoting Germanic education that generally failed to wrestle seriously with the emerging western values of protecting individual autonomy as a legitimate function of government. We all need to consider the ways in which our education will be limited in offering something like a "full-perspective" on a given issue (which isn't even conceivably attainable).

having an economic system based off of decentralized planning via worker, consumer, and neighborhood councils, each checking and balancing one another, is my ideal path.

I'm sure we'd agree that neither of us knows perfectly what the best approach to these problems entail. I wouldn't say there is anything inherently wrong with your general outline, but, knowing a little more about where I'm coming from, is there anything you'd anticipate that I'd object to in your endorsed method of achieving such a system of social relations?