> How do the different outcomes due to different contexts, which obviously will turn out very different in almost every single different context, make my statem

> How do the different outcomes due to different contexts, which obviously will turn out very different in almost every single different context, make my statement less valid? Because your statement is black and white. By your logic, if we don't provide literally 100% of everything needed to survive without requiring anything back at all for every person the system is evil. Real life is shades of grey. Society requires some incentive for people in it to work in order to function. Of course, we can argue about the specifics, but you'll quickly release that if we provide everything for everybody that there is nobody left to do the providing (at least with today's technology).