Here are my answers to the specific questions, so that they are actually some in the comment thread :-P (though I included more thoughts in my post)
- Every being is the creator of it's own reality, owner of it's body, and should not be infringed by another being capable of morality.
- I don't think the concept of private property is "violence or oppression". I do think that cultures which place accumulation of private property as one of their top measures of "success" are destined to suffer from unnecessary stratification, classism, and huge differences in mental & physical health, education, et al between those classes.
- N/A
- I don't think that the concept of "ownership" really needs to apply to food as raw materials (plants). Now if someone takes plants & puts in their own time, energy, and skills to create a dish (or they are from someone's garden, where they have put their own time & energy into growing them), obviously they get to choose how that is distributed.
- N/A
- One is "allowed" to do anything, as long as it doesn't harm or threaten to harm others. So as long as you "owning" (I find this to be a artificial, limiting, and outdated concept) things isn't causing harm/threat of harm to another being, it's fine.
- That's hard to say. From one point of view, since we are each creating our own experiences, we have the "right" to decide whatever we want about our experience. From another, every being is free to make their own decisions, and therefore none of us have a "right" to try to change how anyone else lives (including deciding that they should not have rulers, have slaves, etc). From another, if there is an absolute truth, then no being has the "right" to differ from that truth.
- I've already answered the purpose of this question I believe, so I would just like to point out that this sort of hypothetical, with a clear false-dichotomy, and so many assumptions about the level of competition/cooperation in the hypothetical culture, which is going to decide what is right/proper. This is also an example used often, which doesn't translate to everything. There is a difference between someone working hard, farming, and stocking up food, and someone say, owning a bunch of stock (or cryptos), having the value of those go up (without any input of time or energy from said owner), and then selling all of them and buying a bunch of food. Looking at it from another angle, what kind of human could see someone else starving to death and not share their food with them (unless they only had enough for the immediate survival of themselves & family).
- I feel like my response to number 8 covers this one. I would like to point out that food is not a scarce resource as soon as you remove corporations, GMOs, toxic pesticides/herbicides, transporting it 1000s of miles, and throwing away half of what is produced to maintain the illusion of scarcity. (Here's an example of how food production works when done in a reasonable manner)