Specialization means that you personally, do not need to grow your own food, cut your own trees for fuel, raise your own sheep for wool clothing, bake your own mud bricks to build your house. You clearly over-estimate the ability for a modern human to perform all the necessary tasks for survival and still have surplus energy to lead an intellectually stimulating existence, and have grossly narrowed the definition of "work" to not include stuff you do yourself, for yourself. If you do not place a value on your own time and labor feeding yourself, but value it because you feed others, then there appears to be some kind of special quality to time spent on your own, direct survival rather than earning money/labor of others that contributes to it, which I have to say, appears to be a viewpoint unique to you. You aren't growing food "for free", unless it magically appears on your plate.
A major part of our economies, which you deem paper shuffling, is posited on the creation of demand and desire for things we don't need for physical survival, for which we are able willing to exchange our time and labor because we produce an excess beyond what is necessary to survive, at least for the developed world. Certainly, a subsistence level existence is plausible and experienced by a quarter of the world's population. Alternatively, by reducing the level of demand you also increase overall happiness; i.e. if you are content with shelter, food and not much else then you're all set. I fail to see how either is desirable, but I believe Mormons, fundamentalist Muslims and some Buddhist sects share this point of view. Different strokes and all that.
For the rest of us, this mindset is anathema and backwards. I'd rather desire my toys and my air conditioning and my travel and my free time to read, play computer games, post on slashdot or whatever and put up with the occasional bout of existential angst. Since being a competent plumber is a simpler task than say, being a competent advertising campaign manager, there are more of the former than the latter. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it, unless you have some kind of magical view of the universe.
As for your narrow definition of "essential", again that's just your point of view. Obviously, someone else is prepared to pay for the services of say, a masseuse, even if you are not. If being a rice farmer in the paddy fields of Cambodia is your idea of essential human existence, once again it's all you. There's a commune waiting for you somewhere I'm sure.
Finally, separating out your theory on the distribution of land and natural resources. Granted, it isn't fair. Someone got there first, through no personal merit of their own, or even their ancestors. Presumably, you have a home of some kind. Obviously there are a lot of homeless people in Britain. It's hardly fair that they are homeless and you aren't right? So the only justifiable solution is that you share your home with as many homeless people that will fit. Admittedly this is a facetious extreme, but it illustrates the point that what you're suggesting is completely against human nature. If you think that whoever is sitting on a ton of oil right now is going to let it be distributed around the world to people they a) don't know and b) don't like, well... and if you don't believe that's possible then this little intellectual exercise appears to be moot.
Now, your magical thinking also appears to extend to the belief that the petrol you put in your car/motorbike/generator somehow magically transfers itself from the natural reserves and transforms into a form usable by your motor. You admit that raising cattle is hard, but by your reasoning the farmer is also exploiting a natural resource (the cattle, the land, water, and the sun via grass) to grow beef. So which is it? Why does the farmer deserve to be paid, but not the oil company? I can't figure out if you're just woolly headed or actually intellectually dishonest.
