If you truly think that most people have "fairly equal" access to opportunities, you understand
extremely little of the world.
It's easy to vilify a straw man you've never met.
> "They aren't trying. They aren't taking the opportunity that sits before them. They are existing because government pays for everything for them. How is that even deniable?"
This is an extraordinary claim that requires substantial evidence. You are making a very serious accusation against a very large group of people, the least you can do is back it up.
A family of 4 on food stamps gets $688 a month to feed themselves. Do you serious think government "pays for everything" for them? Do you think anyone of sound mind would voluntary put themselves in that situation permanently? How many people do you think receive food stamps and think to themselves "score! This paltry sum that probably won't cover my barest expenses is a strong incentive not to seek work!".
Have you met someone on welfare or food stamps? I have. A whole lot of them actually. It's an extremely rough life - rest assured no one in their right mind is enjoying it. Those who stay in it long-term are unable to get away from it, not unwilling. This is a critical difference.
Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming the homeless are homeless voluntarily (sadly, a common argument amongst conservatives) - it comes from a complete ignorance of just how tough life is when you've stripped away the basics.
Your mythical American, who is lazy, good-for-nothing, and sits around doing nothing because the government is magically covering all of his expenses, I'm sorry to say, doesn't really exist. To be fair, it is possible for this person to exist in extremely small numbers as edge cases of the system.
But, just to humor you, let's assume this mythical creature does exist. How many of them are there?
Welp, there are 6.16 million Americans on long-term unemployment as of last month (there are actually more people unemployed than that, but they're not eligible to receive benefits, so for the purposes of identifying "leeches", they're not relevant). This is 2.5% of the total work force.
Only a portion of these people are actually lazy and idle though - naturally part of this 6.16 million are actually looking for work, but are unable to find anything. They are, by any reasonable measure, not leeches. There is also another portion which is simply no longer eligible for benefits (despite what you seem to think, they do expire, making the long-term plan of "sitting on my ass while the gov't bankrolls my life" a really poor one).
Let's be incredibly cynical, pessimistic, and presumptuous about our fellow man (that is your theme, it seems), and assume that a whopping half of all long-term unemployed folks are there voluntarily. Disregard the fact that a large portion of them would have lapsed benefits by this point.
So, maximally, assuming the absolute worst about everything, about 1.25% of the total work force is a lazy-ass sonofabitch that's getting benefits from the government (shitty benefits that in no way funds a comfortable lifestyle, but whatever, assume these people have third-world expectations for themselves).
You're getting your panties in a bunch, balking at taxation in general, and yammering on about the government stealing your treasures to fuel undeserving people... because 1.25% of the work force (0.96% of the overall population) fits that description?
"Unsustainable" indeed! You decry taxation in general as "redistributionist" because, maximally, 0.96% of the population is a lazy bastard? You balk at the public funding of roads, bridges, and public utilities because, heaven forbid, 0.96% of the population (maximally!) doesn't deserve access to it?
Oh my.
Allow me to dig a little deeper. You dislike taxation, you dislike the government forcing you to pay for things. So you take a tired, old stereotype to justify not paying into the public good, out of some notion that there are hordes of malicious people at the gates just waiting to take advantage of you. You play up and exaggerate this stereotype to make it seems like a bigger deal than it actually is - even though in reality this stereotype hardly exists at all, and certainly not in great enough numbers to justify the moral panic you're suggesting.
You started this argument by moralizing against these supposed malicious freeloaders, but when your emotional appeals are deconstructed, you try to twist your argument in the "public good" direction - by insisting (without basis) that the funding of said ill-defined freeloaders is unsustainable and will break us all, even though it doesn't stand a chance in hell of doing that.