一个简单的双重否定句，在网上被搞得如此复杂。

There are very few people who would not like to do it.= Most people would like to do it.

There are few people who would not want to work. = Most people would want to work.

There is no one but needs food. = There is no one that doesn't need food. = Everyone needs food.

这个句子之所以网上有那么多讨论，关键是最初的翻译不够准确，译者没有结合上下文。

A hundred years ago it was assumed and scientifically “proved” by economists that the laws of society made it necessary to have a vast army of poor and jobless people in order to keep the economy going. Today, hardly anybody would dare to voice this principle. It is generally accepted that nobody should be excluded from the wealth Western industrialized countries, a system of insurance has been introduced which guarantees everyone a minimum of subsistence (生活维持费) in case of unemployment, sickness and old age. I would go one step further and argue that, even if these conditions are not present, everyone has the right to receive the means to subsist (维持生活), in other words, he can claim this subsistence minimum without having to have any “reason”. I would suggest, however, that it should be limited to a definite period of time, let’s say two years, so as to avoid the encouraging of an abnormal attitude which refused any kind of social obligation.

This may sound like a fantastic proposal, but so, I think, our insurance system would have sounded to people a hundred years ago. The main objection to such a scheme would be that if each person were entitled to receive minimum support, people would not work. This assumption rests on the fallacy of the inherent laziness in human nature, actually, aside from abnormally lazy people, there would be very few who would not want to earn more than the minimum, and who would prefer to do nothing rather than work.

黑体部分是这么被翻译的：

这种假设是基于这样一种谬论：人的天性中就存在遗传惰性。而事实上，除了特别懒惰的人以外，几乎没有人愿意挣只相当于最低生活维持费的钱，也没有人愿意饱食终日，无所用心。

“几乎没有人愿意挣只相当于最低生活维持费的钱”这句翻译是错误的，是对the minimum的误解。原文第一段告诉我们即使一个人失业或年老、生病不工作也能得到最低的生活维持费，这笔钱是不用挣的，是不劳而获的。但如果一个人工作的话，他得到的钱就肯定多于这个minimum。多于minimum的这部分前是需要earn的。所以这个句子的正确翻译应该是：几乎没有人不想挣高于最低生活维持费的钱，或者几乎没有人愿意就守着最低生活维持费。也就是说大多数人都愿意挣高于最低生活维持费的钱，或者大多数人并不愿意守着最低生活维持费。

所以，这个句子其实就是一个简单的双重否定句，very few...would not want... =almost all would want. 

        该书作者的理解和原文略有偏差，你的理解更接近原文。There are very few people who would not like to do it.  这个句子的意思：不想做这件事的人没几个。正如曹老师解释的，相当于Most people would like to do it.的意思。

        我给这位网友一个个人建议：一般来说，凡是英语书的题目中含有速成暗示的，一般都是商业炒作的目的，通常学术含量不高，作者很多是培训机构的老师。你提到的《武峰十二天》，我没有看过，但我在知乎网上看了看评论，批评的贴子很多，指出书中错误几十处。如果你对翻译感兴趣，建议看庄绎传、张培基等名家的经典著作。本质上讲，翻译的好坏关键是译者英汉双语水平决定的，翻译技巧的作用是有限的。

提问前，不妨养成在本站先搜索关键词的习惯，看看其它老师的解答，可能对于问题的理解有一定的参考作用：

翻译问题 - 柯帕斯英语网 (cpsenglish.com)