Sure, you don't want to design a system that lays benefits on so thick that it creates a strong disincentive to work. But any worthwhile safety net is going to have some level of abuse, which is a tradeoff that has to be managed with rules/enforcement/management. On the flip side, any system that allows unfettered capitalism will be abused by the unethical. So you create a system of regulations to ensure a fair market, while knowing that some people/companies are going to find ways to abuse the system anyway.
The point of the safety net in my opinion is to ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of ends. So you want to strive to ensure that children have an opportunity to learn and become productive members of society, in spite of the circumstances of their parents. You want to make sure that people who experience bad luck such as unplanned illness, economic downturns, natural disasters, etc. are not left totally destitute.
If "hammock" means a place you just comfortably rest in, then why should it?
Or, turn it around: Why should you take the results of my work and give them to someone who won't (not can't) work? Why should someone who deliberately chooses not to try be considered entitled to me supporting them?
Someone who needs help? Sure, let's help them. Someone who just wants to be lazy? It's really unclear why they are more entitled to my money than I am.
