Nobody is going to agree with me in FLOSS-land because people around here are too soft. I don't think anyone who has anything to say about this one way or the other can claim a neutral viewpoint.
The only right way is "to everyone according to their needs".
According to their needs? What if their "needs" involve certain standards of living that put a financial burden on society? Atlas Shrugged etc.
Really I'm not a bad guy. People have needs. Whatever. I'm just saying that some people's needs can very easily be pushed out of the way because they don't do as much for that individual as other things do for others, and there is the argument of how valuable people are relative to each other, as well as the survivalist argument. My viewpoint is less philosophical than those things; I would say that people who are more aligned to my worldview have more important needs as well as a greater burden to meet them. It would be dishonest to pretend I think otherwise.