Is it me or is the OP just engrigh McCarthyism101, replete with false dichotomies and oversimplifications?
Look, Brainsucker. I know modern society bashes into our skulls from a very young age that laziness is the ultimate crime (sadly, intellectual
laziness isn't frowned upon, though) but have you ever examined that belief?
I used to think like you, when I was a teenager: ultra-capitalism "just made sense": it was a beautiful, self-regulated system with no discernible theoretical exploitable flaws (the past 4 years sure have proven the theory wrong on that aspect); but then I matured and discovered the meaning of "empathy": any system that leaves so many on its fringes, in dismal poverty, cannot be very good; any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good.
Nobody deserves the former man's fate; nobody needs the latter man's riches, diligence or lack thereof be damned*.
*Clarification: I am not implying the poor are lazy; just pointing out that even if that was the case, their fate is undeserved.
Truth is, not only is "diligent vs lazy" a false dichotomy, it's not even true.
Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).
Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome.