I'm not so sure I'm the right person to response for this because I think RevJim23 has a whole different understanding about what is to say "I don't like capitalism.". Basically I prefer the economic system based on workers' self-management and basic social income whereas many supporters of capitalism don't see any other alternative than planned economy or some sort of primitive system.
But here we go..

1. A coercion; what is a coercion? Many of those who don't like capitalism can quite rightfully argue that property is based on coercion. If there's something we can learn from Marx that is what he wrote about the ownership of land in England. Basically, those who are called "the noble" are nothing but the bunch of robbers and their sons. We may also recall Proudhon talking about the property in general: The property is theft.
So, because no one can justify to be a proprietor, at least not in the case of land, we may impose basic social income derived from the possession of land.

2. There's nothing wrong with safety nets. Equally, they are not capitalistic safety nets. By the nature, they are more profoundly socialist than capitalist. The fact that social security is (almost) universal feature of capitalist states doesn't imply that they themselves are capitalistic.

3. This question depends how do you define capitalism. For many people for example the market economy based on cooperatives or enterprises managed by workers themselves is not a capitalistic.
Some supporters of workers' self-management favor the experience of Yugoslavia after WWII. Yugoslavia was one of the most efficient economies in the world at that time.

4. By rejecting the ideology of work and property we can create a market economy system that distributes wealth somewhat equally at the first place. In some relatively big cooperatives, that are efficient enough to run even in capitalist system, differences between top and bottom wages are 1:3 or 1:5. Yes, there's still considerably big difference but it's remarkably less than nowadays.

5. Yes, that might be sustainable but there's evidence that charity is not enough. But that's a sort of reformism I don't want to talk about here. It all leads back to the ideology of work.. (and property).

6. This is very limited view of freedom. If we talk about workers' self-management and so forth, we don't see fundamental conflict between freedom and economic equality. When we reject the ideology of work and property we have a whole different perspective to the concept of freedom. (I don't go into this in detail I should because it's the notion worth of own node..)