It all boils one to the same thing. A social structure which fails to balance rights with duties will be victimised by a few who use their rights, ignore their futies and then proeceed to strip away the rights of others. This happened in the so-called 'Communsits' and 'Socialist' governments of the East. It happendecin the Fascist states of Europe and it is happening on the Theocracies in the Middle East. Under these systms, the people have futies, but no rights, and their leaders have no obligation toward them.
Where you have an individuaistic system where everyone has rights, but no-one is placed under any obligation toward others, then power and wealth will accrue to those who are amoral, ruthless and predatory, and they wil use them to create structures which protect their privilege and keep others out. We see this today in capitalist societies where wealth is accumulating in fewer and fewer hands, and the gap between rich and poor is growing. In America, predatory capitalism has become so established that it is no longer possible for the poor to become rich or the rich to become poor. Unless there is radical change, the next step is corporatist authoritarianism, which is already present in embryonic form.
Money can be produced ad lib, at the cost of reducing its value. Resources, however, are and have always been finite. Money is of little use when there is nothing to buy, and in a world drained of natural resources, nothing can be produced. Certain resources are renewable but require careful management to be so, but it is not seen as profitable to manage them - more money can be made now by exploitation and capitalism has no appetite for deferred gratification. Big profits now are preferred to smaller ones over the long term.
A balanced system would see basic necessities, a minimum standard of living, gven to everyone as of right, in order to enable them to contribute to the larger community in the way that best suits them. People would be taught that it is their duty to contribute what they can. Those who cannot contribute, or have nothing to offer, remain on that minimum standard because a society shold hve a duty of care to all its citizens. Those who can and do contribute, should receive extra rewards based on the value of their work. By 'value' I mean social, not monetary. Only in a society built by psychopaths and sociopaths does an advertising executive earn more pay and higher social status than a nurse or a teacher!