It was a pleasure wearing the "Rhetorical Mischief" medal, but I must now return it. You have performed that oldest trick in the book of rhetoric, switching labels.

I complained to your former self that we ought not simply reward effort, because not all effort is toward valuable ends. Now you object that you were only speaking of "productive" effort. Very well, who decides what ends are productive? Is it not other people, who not only say they support the ends, but prove it, etc.? It is not a stretch to suppose that thieves, rapists, and stomach-scratchers seek to improve their "productivity."

"Capitalism is indefensible as a means of achieving a morally equitable distribution of wealth."

This restatement is also not obviously true, to me. Since "equitable" does not mean "equal" but something closer to "fair," which implies a moral judgment, can we just say we are aiming for a "fair distribution of wealth" without dulling the point too much? What is a fair distribution of wealth?

One distribution is strictly equal shares for everyone. Capitalism won't get you there, probably some kind of authoritarianism is needed. But without capitalism probably very little wealth will be created anyway, so the authorities will simply have to ensure that everyone is equally poor, by taking away from the less poor and giving it to the more poor. Out of boredom or good nature, some people will do some work, and receive their one-seven-billionth portion of the proceeds. I imagine the authorities will expect to be a little less poor than the average in exchange for doing society this service.

Another possible distribution is that people keep the stuff that they themselves create, unless they choose to give or trade it. No need for a belabored explanation here; is there something in it that is not fair, or "morally equitable," young emcadwaladr?