...may I ask you a question?
To me, it seems obvious that the main problem of a free market is the general lack of work. People need money to survive, they only get money if someone pays them. They get only paid if they can do some kind of job which is useful enough for someone to pay for it. That system worked well when the production output and efficiency of the people was awfully low. Everything had to be created with manuel labor and the only reliable source of power was the human itself (except for wind and water maybe, but they couldn't be used on a large scale in former times). So every person's work was useful, even if it was boring, simple and dull. But what is the result if there are no useful jobs for the masses anymore?
Labor is a commodity which is sold on the market like everything else. If you're a car manufacturer and the people don't buy green cars anymore, you simply cease to paint your cars green. But what if the only service some people can provide is not "bought" anymore? In a truly free market system, these economically "redundant" people would have to die. Yes, there probably would be charity organized by some of the people who actually have money, but that wouldn't change much, anyway. It's a fact that our technological progress both destroys and creates jobs. But the jobs that are destroyed are mostly those which require no or just basic training, while more jobs for highly skilled technicians and scientists are created.
I'm not entirely sure, yet, but it appears to me that every social security system there is, like unemployment benefit or pension, only serves as a security system for the state and the market system (whether you call it "free" or not). They could not simply let the unemployed people die off, this would certainly lead more people to question the system. So they decide it's better to drag these along for the sake of less problems with the citizens. You can even see that states periodically try to roll social services back to see "how far they can go" before people start complaining.
But that whole situation might become even more problematic in the future. If we assume that our technological progress facilitates production even further (which is pretty realistic judging from our past) even less people are needed to produce the things necessary for survival. Sure, you might say that we will have many more things to produce and buy in the furtue, but these things won't be necessary to survive or let's say to have a decent standard of living.
If we simply assume that 500 people are needed to produce the demanded things and offer the demanded services for 1000 people, how could the remaining 500 survive? They couldn't, if we only take the effects of the market itself into account. But their death would again affect the system and destroy it's equilibrium, because now, they would only need 250 people to produce the demanded things for the remaining 500 and so on. In the end, it would boil down to a tiny society in which everyone is almost indispensable.
How does the free market deal with this problem?