Yes....If that was the way things worked. But it is not the way things work!
Sorry, this is not an argument
One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.
Is this supposed to be where you explain your first point? This is nonsensical. Now explain how exchanging the fruits of your labor with somebody is a zero sum outcome. I took the time in my last post to use a simple example and the best you can do is this?
By the way, a zero sum means that when one person produces it necessarily deprives the other person. In other words, they cannot both create wealth simultaneously.
I produce socks, you produce knives. We exchange them at a price agreed upon by both of us. Inherent to that transaction is that we both must value what the other person has more than we value what we have. We both profited by this transaction, but the actual wealth was not created here. It was created because we both had excess production, which we could then trade for other things of value.
Now explain how one person was deprived? You failed to explain this about my example in my previous post. Now are you just going to keep talking over top of me or actually think and respond.