[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

People with food do not create the hunger in the people without food. They do not use force against them. If those people with food (and the food they have) magically disappear, the people without food are still starving.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not interested in a discussion about that. We agree about it. The whole point of the food-argument was to show what ridiculous results you can get if you start with an axiom we can agree on, and then list some related opinions you have and call it "deduction". It's not deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, instead of telling me I'm wrong, would you be so kind to show me why somebody doesn't become the rightful owner of natural resources by adding his labour in order to turn them into consumer goods?

The only point you have brought up was that he makes other people starve, but you yourself have already admitted that you were wrong on that.