Both don’t work for me.

Defending private property is coercion for those who don’t own property.

The question is not “Is life fair?”, but rather “Should we pursue fairness?”

Automation could replace all services, and only property owners would remain.

disinfecting agent - I squish a bit of that inside the toilet bowl and just leave it there. It smells good, and it gets rid of the bacteria.

Is that Pine Sol?

1. Because if they weren’t distributed equally, some people would unfairly have more capital than others, which means a fair trade where people exchange the precise value of an item leaves some people with inherent setbacks.
2. If I don’t own property, then I am forced into wage-slavery, which means I don’t have time to myself to innovate or property to innovate. Even if I manage to buy some property, I can innovate some, but larger players with more capital and resources can out-compete me. The more money you have, the longer you can take to turn a profit, and drive others out of business.

Doesn’t that assume that resources were at one point distributed fairly? If you have all the value, you can devalue everyone else.

Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent.

That’s the idea behind stochastic terrorism.