There are lots of reasons. They discovered it. They extracted it. They refined it. It was given to them by someone who did any of the above.

So by definition since it was accumulated before they were born they did none of these things except possibly the last. I don't want to run an economy based on which living people now dead rich people decided to hand their fortunes off to.

Then by that logic neither does the order you suppose should exist. And most people will reject your proposed order because it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to gain something for nothing.

Well of course not - my ideas should be judged solely based on how they would actually effect people's lives, which is the same system I judge the current system on. There's no reason to think that the way things are organized now is the best possible way, so why not try to improve?

How convenient that you are absolved of the responsibility to actually build something for yourself, preferring instead to take what belongs to other people. You don't need to build it from scratch anyway. You can scrap together all of your money, buy tools, machines, material, anything you will need.

This is an incredible luxury compared to the people who first settled Europe. But, no, not good enough for you.

I'm actually having a fine time in this society, it's just that as someone who doesn't care solely about myself, I have concern for people not benefiting from the current order. People who are impoverished under the current system are not likely to have the resources or skills to build their own mini-society - again, if such a thing were remotely allowed. How do you think people would react if there was a mass exodus of the urban poor out to unused stretches of countryside to build new societies?

You're never going to change it because fair-minded and intelligent people aren't going to sign up for a system that hands things over to people for free while other people work.

So what you're saying is that some people should be allowed to do nothing while other people work.

I'm unclear whether you're making a moral or an economic point here with your outrage at the idea that not everyone needs to work.

If it's moral, remember that we already live in a society where plenty of people don't have to work a day in their lives: people who inherit a lot of money. Do you think we should go to a 100% inheritance tax to make sure those rich kids have an incentive to work hard? Of course most people with inheritances don't just sit around at the beach all day, just as people with a guarantee that the necessities of life will be provided for generally don't sit around all day.

That actually brings us to the economics: hopefully your objection is not moral, and you acknowledge that at least in principle, having the resources to survive even without working is a good thing. If this is the case, good news: it turns out the world is a better place than you realized, we can assure a better quality of life for people without having to collapse into whatever variety of chaos you're envisioning. Look into Mincome and other basic income experiments. This is a whole fascinating field of study, and what the data seems to show is that there are not a lot of downsides to using the state to improve the quality of life of the poor.

The suffering isn't caused by the people who are working for their wealth, but that's who you want to punish.

Well suffering is (usually) not caused directly by those people, but it is absolutely caused by the fact that they have wealth and resources while others do not. Money is only and always a social construct that says what proportion of the total resources of your society you have access to. There are various ways to make money, and there is a loose but real correlation between productivity and income, but there's no sense in which even those rich people who are very productive are 'creating' their wealth.

It's incredibly easy to earn enough money to survive. But the problem is that your threshold for what constitutes "survival" is much higher than nature's. In other words, you aren't just demanding resources for survival, you're demanding resources for comfort as well.

Well yeah, standards are increasing all the time: progress! The world is all sorts of fucked up, but that doesn't mean it isn't better off than it used to be. Capitalism was a solid step up from feudalism in most ways, but that doesn't mean it's the last economic system we'll ever have. As society gets richer and there are more resources to go around, people continue to deserve their fair share of those resources.

And again, you could always just go off into the wilderness and start a commune. If that's such a perfect economic system then there should be food aplenty.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think a commune is the perfect economic system. A tiny society is never going to be as productive as a giant one, no matter how much better it's economic system is. Specialization is important. Access to capital and raw materials is important. Whether it's a socialist commune outside of a capitalist society, or a capitalist commune outside of a socialist society, your little group is not going to be as productive as it's larger neighbor. This is why the option to leave society and go build your own is not a good one: no matter how much better your system is, you just can't compete on scale.

But guess what? Hardly anybody wants to do that, because it sucks. People like economies where they have a chance to build their own life, even if it means the possibility that they will fail. That is part of the human spirit - to take risks, to feel the satisfaction of a job well done, to build a legacy. Not to grind away in some communist shithole where there's nothing to aspire to, because you are forever chained to all of the other prisoners and all of their problems and needs.

So I describe a society where people don't have to work at all, and you envision a gulag?

But let's face it. You just want free stuff, and you've built up a complex rationalization for why working people should give it to you.

You're a very unpleasant person. I think this will be my last over-long response to your nonsense.