Yes, we are in agreement to what this so-called reasoning is. So let's criticize it then. I'll refer to your proposal by numbers if you don't mind. 1. is actua

Yes, we are in agreement to what this so-called reasoning is. So let's criticize it then. I'll refer to your proposal by numbers if you don't mind. 1. is actually two propositions, the first one unnecessary to the discussion. But useful to frame the second part as as self-evident as the first one. 2. is simply false. We could agree to a relation of dominance. Several non-violent ways of doing that through cultural, religious, familial, societal means have existed in the past. Luckily for you, 2. is also totally useless to the argument being made. 3. Yes, if you define private property as the act of eating and drinking, then it is consubstantiated with our human condition. That's not the definition generally admitted though. My son (who is 5 yo) does not own anything, yet he eats food I own, is sheltered at our place, receives water we pay for. Does it make him incapable of reasoning? He frequently argues, occasionally reasonably. Actually this jump from scarce to private property is the main problem of the argumentation. Scarce things don't have to be owned. That's the whole subject of the debate, you can't just assume it is true to prove it is true. 4. follows from 3 so I consider it invalidated. I'll just ask this: is a slave unable to produce arguments? Or do you consider a slave owns their body, food, water, shelter?