JGC said:

If you make property, or propery ownership a fundamental precept, (as opposed to a possible social good that falls somewhere below number 1, (the sanctity of the individual)), you get absurd results, such as choosing to let people starve literally to death if they cannot produce "something of value" in return for their use of resources.

You consider it absurd that a person should be required to undertake some sort of valuable activity if they expect to eat? Would you consider it absurd when a person who refused to hunt, gather water, or gather firewood starved to death or died of exposure?

The fact is that people accumulate property in an effort to insulate themselves from life's hardships and to ensure their continued survival through rough times.

If you accept the sanctity of the individual, then you must accept the propriety of that individual squirreling away resources in whatever form to stave off potential death from hunger or want in the future.

Once you accept that it is proper for an individual to accumulate property against the threat of future shortage, then you must also accept that taking the property away from the individual isn wrong since it violates their individual right to be secure in their person.

Let's say we were crossing a desert and were in the middle of the desert. If I had just enough food and water left to sustain myself, and you had none, do you think I would be obligated to share what I had with you even though it meant that we would then both perish? Is that moral to you?

Steve