My point is the same as what Sage said, only he said it better.
A person doesn’t need “a job” in order to live. He does, however, need to produce at least as much as he consumes in order to survive, less the amount that he receives from the productivity of others (consensually or otherwise). Of course, defining survival is itself an intellectual minefield. The only objective measure I am aware of is reproductive success. All other measures are subjective and individualist (presuppose the value of the survival of the individual for its own sake), which is a double whammy to the leftists who want an objective measure of value and collectivism.
A person does need standing room in order to exist, survive and produce. This is actually the starting point of one of the leftists’ favorite arguments - the socialization of rents. Since people have a fundamental right to standing room, therefore, rents are immoral since inability to pay rent entails death. But it is not rents that are the cause of a destitution of standing room, it is the monopolization of the State of all public lands that causes this. Look at the tent cities in LA and elsewhere which are springing up as a result of the economic collapse. These are people squatting on unused, public land. Who is driving them out? Not private landlords demanding rent, but the State. In a natural order society, there would always be free standing room in unused, unowned lands. The territorial monopolies that comprise the State are omnipresent - there is nowhere you can go, within the bounds of the State’s borders, to escape. You must go through the border to escape, but the State itself controls the border. How many North Koreans do you think want to stay in North Korea? I think there is some libertarian legal theory that deals with the problem of false emborderment, that is, emborderment for the purpose of closing off otherwise unowned resources or encirclement to trap and capture owned resources. The State’s territorial boundary, then, can be thought of as an unlawful* encirclement. It is, in itself, an act of aggression against all persons enclosed thereby. That the State might let you leave doesn’t make the encirclement itself lawful because the purpose of the encriclement is to extract resources and this is only possible because they State just might not let you leave.
Clayton -
*In the libertarian sense… [:)]