hey tim, im not even right wing, i lean toward being an anarchist, but im not in actuality as im a part of a very capitalist community. So yeah im cool with reasoning this. ok immoral was perhaps the wrong word what i mean is not in the category of moral action rather than 'bad'. I personally do not believe in morality at all but that does not stop me from prefering an equal stake society. Ok so ill just tackle your hypothetical. First you changed diamonds for tomatoes so this is a different argument but anyway. I will take moral here in an economic sense to be fair or to a reasonable degree, equivical. Your situation what you describe is a sharing economy and that does not exist at present. In order for a sharing economy to exist you would have to universalise the doctrine or demarcate the sharing boundary and operate within that demarcation. This I would think would be unfair to those outwith the demarcation who are poor so then you would have to universalise the sharing economy. now here is where it gets tricky #stalin. Universalising a doctine designed on fairnes does as the right liberal wankers always state, an act of will over an innocently immoral being. like getting your dog not to eat a snack by shouting at it, its not the dogs fault. that act alone becomes immoral. ok I'm not saying we are dogs but in some circumstances we are all going to break rules...I would say that your example is two people existing in a bubble. I have known such bubbles and they are bubbles. self sufficient communites would not cope with population levels like that of new york (they can barely make it past 20). so bubbles are usually created by highly educated people who use the capitalist system to create their bubble. this is not moral, moral would be fair or exactly equivical. Now as an anarchist I believe that although the taking of ownership can never be fair or equivical, I can think that It can be so scrutinised that people can behave properly and thus creating an equal stake society. whats your take?