I was not being clear about the middle-ground, but it was just simply about those that (feel) benefited will defend the system while those that didn't (feel) benefited will attack against. Probably if you are/feel neither than it would be neither.

>> It just so happens that the only people who keep saying that money is evil are those who refuse to work while clearly being able to do so (so they can just milk "free money" from the entire rest of the population)
>> Those who refuse to work or have a student debt just love to attack money as a virtue signal (even if they don't realize this).
>> Because those who don't have money will get it from the state, which on its turn steals from those who work their asses off.
> Government indoctrination, I mean public schooling, would be my guess.

(some are quotes from older replies)
Yeah the states will shoot themselves in the foot, by denying its own system; and will happily allow you to live without "contribution"... Unless they are playing 4d chess?

I still don't get this "the only people who keep saying that money is evil are those who refuse to work while clearly being able to do so", and neither is this a common sense. Why is it "the only"?

Also you can't eat money as food or for other practical use. To eat (and do any other stuff) someone have to do the physical work, unless you exchange it with money. If money is evil (evil so that it should be abolished), can they achieve it without work?