Money is just a means of indirect exchange; really all you’re doing is just complaining that people have to work to attain “access to all of lifes needs.” Sorry to break this to you, but this isn’t the Garden of Eden, & nature just stubbornly refuses to provide much in the way of readily-consumable goods; if we want to consume, we have to first labor to produce. Socialism does not magically cancel out the reality of natural scarcity. All it does is substitute all the value judgments & decisions regarding allocation of individual productive effort & capital goods, of a small gaggle of politicians & bureaucrats, for that of all the individuals (intrinsically legitimate owners of said labor & property) ourselves.
Regarding the kids working in the factories in third-world countries; yes, I do think they’re there by choice of themselves and/or parents. If not, then it’s slavery, and I categorically oppose it. But I don’t believe that’s the case & you’ll have to provide solid sources to prove otherwise to me.
But as to you’re argument, that “coercion of money” is a thing; it’s infantile nonsense. I apologize, I hate to be rude, but I have to be honest & direct. We ALL come into this world having to deal with the reality of natural scarcity. Bottom line, we have to be willing to put forth some effort to produce, or else we starve. Obviously, some people are lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family & get spoiled their entire lives, but that doesn’t change the fact that someone, at some point, had to work hard to produce wealth to eventually be passed down. Simple fact is though, to the extent we’re presupposing somewhat of a free market, each person’s share of the total “pie” of production is ultimately determined by the relative value-productivity we can offer to the rest of society through our efforts. And by setting up a factory in India, Walmart (or any of its thousands of suppliers, but whatever) give the people there an opportunity to increase the productivity of their labor, & thereby increase their own living standards. No one is forcing them to go work there as opposed to whatever else they would or could do if Walmart had never showed up & presented the opportunity; the fact they chose to work at Walmart is ipso facto proof they considered their best available option. You don’t help anyone out by taking away from them the option they’d already proven by their actions to have considered the best available opportunity.
Re: your last couple points - it was not government legislation or “regulation” (so-called) that ended widespread child labor in the Western World; it was the simple byproduct of the massive gains in general living standards which any (even relatively) free market system brings about. Until the industrial revolution brought that about, it was never a choice between send your kids to work, or else allow them to go to school and/or frolick about the playgrounds all day; it was the choice between send them to work, or else they starve to death. Capitalism changed all that; the general standard of living increased so much so fast that people were quickly able to afford to choose to have their kids get an education rather than have to pull their own proverbial weight in the household income.
But of course, when it had reached the point where the newly-established “middle class” represented the overwhelming majority, & only the very poor (including mostly immigrants, minorities, & whoever else was systematically precluded from the labor union rolls) still sent their kids to work, that’s when government stepped in -on behalf, of course, of the labor unions, whose interest was simply to eliminate competition, not to benefit “the common good”- and outlawed child labor. And of course, we’re all taught in government schools about how it was beneficent, civic-minded politicians who ended child labor, against the will of evil capitalist “robber barons” who only wanted to keep all out kids in a condition of slavery. It’s fairy tale peddling disguised as scholarly history. Really what it is, is statist indoctrination.
And to what right that exists that allows employers to pay workers whatever wage they both agree to? That’s the right of free association. Rights are, in fact, a negative concept; they don’t positively impose any duty or obligation on anyone (to do so would be self-defeating, contrary to their very nature), they only negate, they proscribe actions which invade against the equal & immutable rights of all others to be secure in their life, liberty & property from initiatory force & fraud. If you agree with another person to pay them $4 per hour to sweep the floor or your shop, you’re well within your rights. Where rights-violations come into play, is when some presumptuous, self-righteous third party comes along & insists that the contractual, mutually-voluntary agreement you made with the guy (or girl) be prohibited & punishable by the coercive power of the state.