Children have the right to a K-12 education. Do you consider the entire public school system to purely be slaves?
If I go to an emergency room, I have the right to life-saving treatments even if I can't pay. Are the doctors slaves?
No, of course not. They all get paid. They're all free to quit their jobs at any time.
Let's steelman GP's argument, which obviously was hyperbolic. But it's true that positive rights (or entitlements) are always paid for by the labor of others. K-12 public schools are generally majority paid for by local property taxes, and we all know what happens if you stop paying property taxes.
The average American worker already pays close to quarter of their earnings in labor-related taxes[0], which doesn't include property tax, sales tax, or any other kind of tax that people pay. I think we can safely estimate that at least a third of everyone's labor is already spoken for by various layers of government; this lines up with the pre-Covid US government expenditure as a percent of GDP, which was around ~35%[1].
Of course, all of that spending was decided by a democratically-elected government and people more or less buy in to the idea that it is for the common good of the country. But as that spending increases monotonically over time, and as people share fewer things in common with each other (I mean, try putting a 22-year-old college graduate working at a nonprofit in Brooklyn and a 22-year-old journeyman electrician in Iowa City in the same room), it gets harder and harder to believe in that common good, and you start to wonder why a third of your productive output goes to things you had no direct choice over, and why the people who make those decisions get richer and richer. Half of the top ten richest counties in the country[2] are suburbs of Washington, D.C. Does that make you feel good?
And guess what happens if you try to keep more of your productive output? You go to jail. That's what people mean by "slavery". Or at any rate, this is my attempt at steelmanning that argument.
[0]: https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-stat...
[1]: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
A rising tide lifts all boats, and that is what has borne out by historical fact for capitalism. The easiest way to see how it benefits everyone, even the poorest, is to look at the median person's living standards in places that don't have "capitalism" (which in this context is shorthand for rule of law, strong private property rights, and a market economy).
> a few thousand people hoard all the resources
The mega-ultra-rich (the top richest few thousand people in the world, like you said) aren't piling vaults with gold, Scrooge McDuck style. Their wealth is the productive assets they own, almost always companies that generate value for consumers.
Besides, the net worth of all American billionaires combined is about four and a half trillion dollars[0]. Even if you could magically confiscate all of that "money" at that same valuation (which you can't, since you cannot liquidate a stock and expect it to fetch the same price) and redistribute it to everyone, that's a whopping bonus of $13.5k to every man, woman, and child in this country. Do you seriously imagine everyone can stop working and live happy lives with that money?
Put another way, $4.5T is not even five years of Social Security. What happens next?
> we have to keep working
I'm not really sure what you think the alternative is. As pg said, wealth is what people want[1], whether that's an AC unit to keep yourself cool if you live in a hot place, or heating oil to keep yourself warm if you live in a cool place, or a flight to Paris for a vacation, or filet mignon, or rice and beans, or a can of Coke, or a glass of wine. Every single one of those things takes labor to produce. If all rich people ceased to exist, it will not change the fact that you cannot wave a magic wand and put food on your table.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291685/us-combined-valu...
To a point and then not, which is why capitalism in tbe narrow sense was rejected generally in the early-mid-20th century in favor of the modern mixed econony, which, like strict capitalism before it, is almost certainly not the end of the road on the advancement of economic systems.
This also misses that it does so by FORCING said highest boats to pay the state/federal taxes in which are used to ensure those with sinking boats don't turn into pirates to stay alive.
>The mega-ultra-rich (the top richest few thousand people in the world, like you said) aren't piling vaults with gold, Scrooge McDuck style. Their wealth is the productive assets they own, almost always companies that generate value for consumers.
Because we incentive investment. If we did not there would be plenty of ultra mega rich sitting on piles of gold pretending they were dragons.
Every damned discussion I see about this tries to pain everything in a binary when it's a far more complicated topic. The wealthy are far better off putting some sizeable portion of their wealth to ensure society works because it creates a feedback cycle where both their wealth, and the gross wealth of the society increases, and the society is one that is generally safer to take part in.