You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others.

World average income equals the USA poverty line. That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive. Charity, yes indeed, but there's an unsupportably growing number who are quite capable of supporting themselves but demand others do instead.

The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely, not to put a gun to someone's head and demand what's not yours.

There are some exceptions. You don't have to work a single day in your life if:

- you inherited wealth.

- you are homeless and sustain yourself with whatever you can get without paying.

- you commit crimes and are put in prison.

- you are a woman and merry well.

- you build something as a hobby and it makes big.

> That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive.

That would be true if people were source of wealth. But source of wealth for many years now are the machines, and this wealth increased disproportionately to increase in population. If on average we are coming out of poverty at slower rate than the growth of wealth our machines produce then something is wrong.

> The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely

Almost no one gives anybody anything freely. Do you think your employer would give you anything for your work if he didn't have to?

The ones that have more have it often because they exchanged something worth less for something worth more. The ones that have less have it often because they exchange something worth more for something worth less.

Why they do it? Because exchange often is not free. Lot's of people have no choice but to exchange good that is very valuable for them and irreplaceable (such as hours of their life) for something as plain, abundant and worthless in our modern world as food.

Excuse me, but you're an idiot. (Unless your whole comment is meant as a joke.)

People exchange things that are worth less for things that are worth more. In such an exchange, both parties profit, always. In the case above, you exchange hours of your life for food so that you can live another day.

Also, people are the only source of wealth. Right now, machines are not capable of producing anything on their own, that is why there are no completely automatic factories and nothing gets created without human help, design or at least supervision. Once we create such a world, great! But capitalism dictates that once this happens, the price of goods will drop tremendously. The fact that this has not yet happened tells you that this spot has not yet been reached.

There are some goods that have so high a value it will be worth trading almost anything for it. Eating is one, medical care is another. This fact is routinely exploited so that those not in danger of losing those highly valuable things get more out of an exchange. The execs that run McDonald's don't have to worry about acquiring food or health care, they have the class advantage to securely have those things. And yet this same company puts out a spending guide to the workers that get low wages suggesting they have 2 jobs and that they put no money towards health care or heating their apt/homes. Those low wage workers can't simply stop working there, their ability to live and eat is in direct danger from losing that work. Is that a fair exchange?

> Also, people are the only source of wealth. Right now, machines are not capable of producing anything on their own, that is why there are no completely automatic factories and nothing gets created without human help, design or at least supervision.

It doesn't matter if machines are 100% automated and don't require humans. What matters it that as machine automation gets more efficient and requires less humans to operate, the more previously employed human workers lose their ability to work and therefore their ability to eat and have shelter. And yet the ownership classes don't suffer from this advancement, they still continue to consume and funnel money and resources into themselves. Is that a fair exchange?

2) However, the question whether this is socially or even globally fair is not a question of capitalism, but of politics/government. If things continue this way, sooner or later there will be too many unemployed people and there will be a revolt/class revolution. I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves.

You are an optimist then. I think more popular sentiment seem to be rather that elite will use its advantage to develop surveillance, law and prison system to detain whoever opposes them. After all they had one communist revolution to learn such things have to be actively mitigated.

You might argue that keeping poor in prison is a way of providing for them. And since less and less criminal people will go there it might some day become some sort support center for homeless/jobless.

Someone puts gun to your head and tells you to cut off your left hand in exchange for him not pulling the trigger. Both parties benefit from such exchange. You get the rest of your life, and he gets his amusement. Wouldn't you agree that such exchange wouldn't be exactly just and free?

Let's assume that this trade is unfair even though you might see it as benefiting both parties in some way so unfair trades exist. One might say that it would be illegal and all legal trades are free. But if law can so perfectly tell fair trade from unfair trade then why the law changes over time? And how do we know that now the law is perfect, not like it was 100 years ago or like it will be 100 years in the future?

My comments were serious, so I guess I'm idiot, at least from your point of view.

Also, you are imprecise to say that "people" are the source of wealth. If we go with your claim, labor is the source of wealth, in which case capitalism is indeed systematized exploitation and theft from the true source of all wealth: workers.

i dont believe this to be true (tho i'd like to see any reliable sources).

I find it more likely that a small number of people control so much "productivity" that the majority must either be "coerced" into cooperating in order to get some of the crumbs, or that they lack the basic resources to dig themselves out of the poverty hole. Its true that they aren't productive enough to support themselves, but i would imagine they would if they had the chance.