Proving your argument faulty is trivial, in that it's just a bare assertion that free loading is wrong. That's not an argument at all; it's just a statement. T

Proving your argument faulty is trivial, in that it's just a bare assertion that free loading is wrong. That's not an argument at all; it's just a statement. There are plenty of positions from which it is immoral to allow a human being to starve in a world with so much food. That, too, is a bare assertion, but you've given no reason to think it's any worse than yours. Any time you find yourself appealing to "common sense", that's a red flag that you're really just asserting your opinions as facts. You'll never be able to prove an "ought" from an "is" -- and you should be skeptical of any moral argument that claims to ground itself in absolutes. You can, however, make your moral assumptions as clear as possible, and then you can investigate why others make different moral assumptions. Your moral assumptions seem to start with absolutist understandings of property. Those are difficult to justify in a world with a finite commons (all of your wealth involves some contribution from things you did not create), and where you cannot live without help from other people. That does not disprove your moral assertions, simply because they are moral assertions and cannot be proven or disproven. But I can say that your argument is faulty in that you take the assertion as if it were ground truth, and that you don't seem to have examined your assertion very closely.