I'm not talking about abundance versus scarcity. I believe that resources are abundant enough (we're a long way from "overpopulation"). I'm merely talking about

I'm not talking about abundance versus scarcity. I believe that resources are abundant enough (we're a long way from "overpopulation"). I'm merely talking about how the resources are used: ie, who earns their keep and who expects to be kept through other people's hard work. Ultimately, if you want food on the plate, you either need to grow the food, or you need to trade some of your time or other commodities with somebody who has already grown it. The food won't grow itself. (Well, some will naturally, but in very limited quantities compared to the harvests that can be made through deliberate labour). Similarly, houses won't build themselves. Somebody needs to labour to take the raw materials gathered from the earth and turn them into shelter. If this isn't you, why would you think you "deserve" to be sheltered? Nobody is entitled to other people's labour. If you consider the case where one person takes 100% of the proceeds of another person's labour, we can safely say that this relationship is one of a master and a slave. If this is the case, what percentage of another person's labour can be taken where they are no longer a slave? Is it 60%? 50%? 40%? Who knows - some arbitrary figure. Of course the correct answer is 0%. Only if you own the full reward of your own labour are you a free person.