- the means of production naturally belong to all humans collectively
- resources should be allocated based on need
- being born entitles you to be kept alive by the rest of your species
I don't think anything "naturally" belongs to anyone. The whole notion of property and its ownership does not exist in nature - it's a social construct. So it's up to us to figure out the arrangement that works best, depending on our definition of "best". That is also inherently subjective - some people would claim that it's best for property rights to be absolute and inviolable, as a guarantee of stability, for example.
I think that long-term, some form of collective ownership is the only way to stabilize. But I don't know what form it would take. I doubt it would be anything similar to self-proclaimed socialist states of our age, which have clearly failed in that regard (indeed, many lefties argue that they don't actually have society-wide collective property ownership, but instead it's the collective ownership by the ruling bureaucratic elites - "the Party" etc - excluding your average citizen).
> being born entitles you to be kept alive by the rest of your species
We're clearly heading in this direction. In fact, I would even say that first world societies have already adopted this maxim in fullest, it's just not worded quite so bluntly. If you go around and ask people this exact question, many would probably say "no". But if you go around and ask the same people about specific policies like free healthcare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, ER not allowed to turn people away etc, that all add up to the same thing, you'll find a lot of people in favor.
> resources should be allocated based on need
This follows from the previous point, with the caveat that the "need" here is not some arbitrary subjective desire, but what's deemed to be a real need by social consensus. What this consensus is, exactly, will likely evolve over time - today we mostly talk about food, shelter and healthcare, but we're already starting to discuss e.g. access to Internet as a basic right. The logical conclusion to that is something like what Bujold described in "Barrayar":
“Poor?” said Cordelia, bewildered. “No electricity? How can it be on the com network?”
“It’s not, of course,” answered Vorkosigan.
“Then how can anybody get their schooling?”
“They don’t.”
Cordelia stared. “I don’t understand. How do they get their jobs?”
“A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly.” Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. “Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?”
“Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but . . . no comconsoles?”
Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. “Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?” he said in wonder.
“It’s the first article in the constitution. ‘Access to information shall not be abridged.’ ”
Curious: do you see these questions as anything more than questions about "what is consensus at this time?" Does it even make sense to seek an answer on a different level than an opinion poll?
In other words, can morality be more than popular opinion?
If a human is doing some work that a robot could do, the human is essentially being used as a substitute for that robot, and economics will inevitably result in them being treated as such.
If the sole point of having a human do that job is so that they can collect a paycheck, this is a thinly veiled form of a broken window fallacy - in this case, the hypothetical robot is "broken" to allow the human to step in and "fix" the problem. This is inherently an inefficient arrangement - it reduces overall productivity, which in turn reduces the total surplus value generated by the economy, that could have been used for things like welfare.
In essence, restricting automation for the sake of job preservation is welfare - except it's a very inefficient form of it, because you're wasting human labor in the process, and then there's the social cost of unhappiness for all those people forced to work shitty and meaningless jobs.
The only reason why this approach is even seriously considered is because we, as a society, can't divorce ourselves from the concept that you must work to earn a living. So when faced with technological progress that plainly invalidates this notion, we construct elaborate schemes that allow us to preserve the veneer of "propriety" as we understand it, while substantially redefining it - and we do so at the cost of considerable overhead.
It's insane. I don't expect it to change anytime soon, however.