"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

In the free market Marx's line isn't just oppression.

If someone is incapable of being an entrepreneur, or generating wealth with his mind, then his remaining ability, physical labor, seeks it's own value level. You seem to think that folks are "owed" equality of income and yield from life, even though you agreed that it is immoral for one man to live off of the work of another.

At some point you have to reconcile the fact that humanity is not a set of widgets that all should be shaped in the same manner, have the same weight and be worth the same amount.

People have different worth to the world and the free market reacts to that. That's self-evident. Sure almost every mom loves their sonny and thinks he's the light of the world - even if he grows up to be a card shark, bank robber or carjacker. That's feel-goodism interfering with reality socialism is embraced by the naive while propagated by the self-servers whose only talent lies in looting others wealth - the "politician" mental ability level.

Marx wanted a state where feel-goodism equates with reality. That by wishing a person to be productive, hardworking and honest it is suddenly so. Afraid that's not ever going to happen and that's why all Marxist, communist and socialist states eventually fail or turn into the most hideous of brutally oppressive, monstrous slave states.

Marxists attempt to replace or "augment" the free market - which is based in objective reality by replacing it's objective value with wishful thinking and sentimentality.

Heck, I don't even wish for folks to be equal. I fully know what a hell such a thing would be. The infinite universe is infinite solely by the fact that it is infinitely diverse. Whenever folks want to control others in the name of equality or it's nom de plume, fairness, I see folks unknowingly working towards a type of non-existence. Non-existence already has a form in China and was self-evident in the Soviet Union.

Such non-existence was in the name of the collective good. The whole concept of collective good is actually immoral. The collective is made up of individuals and so the individual must be served first.

A great collective is the byproduct of free individuals.

Marxists never understand this and if they do, they are the exploiters who don't care because their free ride needs justification and mob support by panders to others selfishness and jealousy.

That's why America is the best nation on Earth. It was a republic founded on the principles of capitalism and the free market. It was spawned by men angry with unjust taxes and government intrusion into people's lives and freedoms.

America under a leftist President for the past 100 years always races to try and recreate the England of King George - the one the founding fathers broke away from - but these new "colonial governors" are smoothtalkers who can collect the wealth for the "good" of everyone.

Will people starve in a free market? Yes.

Will people starve in a collective? Yes. Many, many more.