This is the issue which separates social and economic systems.
In a purely market system you're worth whatever you can get by playing by the rules (more or less). If you have talents or products or possessions which people wish to own or rent then the price which they're willing to pay determines your worth.
Well, what of those - and they are numerous - who have neither talents or possessions? The answer is that - in most situations - they're worth subsistance wages...or nothing.
That's why a strictly market system - laissez faire capitalism - has been consistantly and repeatedly rejected.
Rejected only by those that misunderstand what it is and what it does.
We produce and consumer two kinds of goods: private and public (there is also an intermediate category of so-called club goods). Everybody knows nowadays that markets do not exchange public goods. To produce such goods --- defense, highways, clean air --- we need a coercive force of government, which enables production through taxation. You are arguing thus against a straw man.
Where the significant error occurs is when people claim that markets fail to be best in the exchange of private goods, which are the focus of discussion here. You have heard, correctly, about the shortcomings of hte market system, but misunderstand what those shortcomings are and draw erroneous conclusions. The rejection of the market system in the production of public goods has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The second point that can be made, is that you once again assume that the shortcomings of the market system, especially when it comes to people and their well-being, must be corrected by the government. That is a purely socialist position, to which you appear to subscribe. Such position deliberately ignores other mechanisms, such as charity and inter-family transfers. It is also factually incorrect: in the hardest of times, people deed not die of hunger in this country --- precisely because churches and synagogues, neighbors and family took care of the needy. Every village had an idiot, but that idiot for centuries lived at home or at a convent. Nowadays, it is the government that is assumed to be the sole source of kindness.
Here too you apply logic to erroneous starting point. It is people like you --- the socialists --- that do their very best to kill first the religious values, and now the family values as well. Then it becomes a self-fullfiling prophecy: with those values destroyed the government increasingly does LOOK like the only source that can provide the safety net.