Why do you assume that nobody would work? It's not humans all of a sudden started working with the introduction of capitalism.

You are way off based.... If go down this path that mean there is room for everything you believe to be ban and not tolerated. In a world where the vast majority practice one religion they would ban and abolish any other beliefs.  Where do you draw the lines and who is making this call? To ban beliefs and try to control it, is a infrigment of our freedom and rights.

The world is at war against extremist not because of what they belief but rather because of their destructive behavihors and promotion of violence.  

I think that violence, sexism, discrimination, destructive behavihors and lack of tolerance should not be tolerated. 

It is irrelevant if we have enough food and energy now, but will we have enough food and energy after everyone does what they actually enjoy, instead of working. And this was your suggestion.

The problems with food we currently have, are not because of efficiency or the lack of it, but because the poor people do not have enough money. 

There will always be unemployed people, but they're not the same people all the time, a spouse may be one that works and social welfare should keep the people from not needing to worry about if they get to eat and live when they're unemployed.

But so does communism rely on perpetual conflict. This is what people are pointing you out. There's no problem after people accept (and keep accepting) the ideology of communism or national socialism, or any other ideology there is. The rest are either dead or oppressed.

Don't effectively hurt the NAP, and you can believe in whatever you want.

By that logic, communism should obviously be in that list too, because estimulate violence among people just like any prejudice.

I thought that the outline that I tried to establish was fairly evident; any belief can either follow the rules or not, I don't see the ambiguity.

It also seems fairly impartial, in that the rules established simply outline the properties a belief needs to have to avoid harm to society without analyzing the validity of the belief.

Should they however be aloud to spread the belief? That is how I would define not "tolerating" a belief. It does not mean to attack people, simply an attempt to kill off the belief itself, in the long run.

The original manifest of tolerance (a letter concerning tolerance by John Locke) put the limit of the concept of tolerance to ideas that do not disrupt society. I attempted to make a list of general properties that a belief must fullfill to comply to that condition.

Because with true socialism or communism, apathy is rewarded by free stuff while working is punished by the government stealing what you worked for. What is the incentive to work or work harder if you taxed more for it while people who do nothing get your stuff?

Capitalism only further incentivises what people do naturally (provide for oneself and family) and it allows many paths for people to improve their life by rewarding their effort. You want to become rich, you can by being smart with your money, life choices and what you do as a living. If you're apathetic or dumb, you'll stay poor. It's fair to everyone because you reap exactly you sow good or bad. If someone is disabled to a certain point or truly unable to work, they're taken care of.

Then you're wanting a goalpost game where you decide what speech falls into those categories and then banning it. To those people, they may see what they're saying or believing into one of those categories.