*work in progress*
I feel this is starting to run off topic, but I'll try to see if I can keep it focused:
The mistake you are making is looking at the present, while ignoring both the past and the future.
- [Scenario 1] - If person A takes the necessary steps and expenditures to prepare for hard time and ensure his own security; in no way are taking those actions causing the starvation of his fellow man (Person B).
- [Scenario 2] - If the property-ethic is dropped, Person-A will know that his property will be taken (by Person B) during hard times, and that preparation is of no benefit to him. The cost of preparation outweighs potential benefits of preparation, and as such Person A will not pursue that.
- [Scenario 3] - Person A is entrepreneurial, and stocks 20x as much resources as he'll need in a disaster scenario. If disaster strikes, or when it does, Person A may request other materials, resources, or labor in exchange for the resources he has available. For the person unprepared, he is better off laboring for an hour in exchange for 1 can of food plus 1/2 a gallon of water, even though this might be "expensive" during normal times. Not only does Person A's risky investment pay off, but it benefits around 20 other people, who now survive, and work towards rebuilding their lives.
- [Scenario 4] Person A prepares for a disaster which never comes - and as such is at a minor loss.
Before disaster strikes, it's impossible to know which scenario is likely to play out. It's easy to look at a road, money, food, apartment building, or movie and saying *"look it already exists, it should be distributed to the people where it will do the most good!"* To do so would steal the personal investment of one's life in the past, as well as undermine the capacity and incentives for that person (and other persons) to produce in the future.
The optimal solution therefore is to allow persons to keep and manage that which they produce - those who invest wisely and work hard will benefit all with positive externalities, while those who hoard or waste resources will simply do so to their own detriment.
/r/AnCap is pretty talented at making that argument for communists lately, but I won't poke at that ant-hill too much. ;) That aside, one must first accept the premise that *"stealing is not the initiation of force."* At points like this, it's sometimes useful to reexamine core ethics, and what makes them tick. Stealing is, in short, the *theft of one's investment of their life.* In that way, theft takes away a small part of a person's life, and is equivalent to an act of violence against the person.
- "Analysis of Desirable Relationships"
- Property as a Truce of Mutually Beneficial Human Relationships
In short, communists, capitalist, and mutualists aren't evil - but when interacting with another "system" one will have to answer the question (a) how does one make this relationship desirable and (b) how does one make this relationship mutually beneficial.