Hello Holla Forums, i myself am a liberal but im interested in your views, can you help me convert my ideology...

What obligation do the starving people have to not take your food?

What obligation does a thief have to the owners of what he covets? Nothing. That's why they are thieves, they take what they do not own. If they actually own the house I'm flipping, then they prove the ownership. Otherwise, by definition, it cannot be 'unjust extortion' if I am flipping a house and others don't have one to do so if they never owned it to begin with.

What obligation do they have to DIE rather than not take your food?

I'm not asking them to die, I'm saying that it is greedy of them to not only covet what they do not own, but to act violently against those who have more to atone for the poor life decisions of their parents/themselves. If the parents have not saved up a college fund for their child, why give birth knowing that your kid will not succeed in life? It isn't greedy for owners to defend against thieves.
Your statement also assumes that they have a rightful cause to my food. They do not. Just because they are disadvantaged doesn't mean they get anything they want. We already do that with welfare: people who are poor get money and services from the government. Starvation only occurs on mass-scale events in places like Africa and India, where privatization of industry doesn't exist.

My assertion is that you do not have a right full cause to deny them life, when it would not bring you harm to relinquish the food.
Your entire philosophy on this is inherently selfish. You assert that your desire to have the food is more important than their need to have it. And also that somehow a piece of paper gives you the right to deny it.

This is patently absurd when viewed in light of the fact that you have to use force to make them not touch "your" food. You are asserting that your act of violence is legitimate when it suits your desires, but their act of force is not legitimate when it facilitates their survival.

So again, what OBLIGATION do they have to simply die rather than eating the food that is in front of them?

Some free-states and occupied areas )like Catalonia or Luxembourg's revolution) were kinda communistic.
There were famines under him but he didn't cause them. When people talk about Stalin killing people, typically they are Kulaks, Nationalist anti-communist who hoarded food so other people couldn't eat.
It was and it wasn't. They were statist and therefore had more intrest in maintaining themselves over their people's good. Though, in terms of freedom, they are somewhat arguably better than the US in some regards. George Lukas said about it "I had to act in the interest of the state and the companies, Soviet directors only had to act in the interest of the state." So, in some terms the Eastern Bloc is better in terms of freedom, through they were materially poorer than the west.
It's a second world country. There is poverty and food is rationed, but like the Eastern Bloc it is also arguably better for artist and scientist. The healthcare in Cuba also prohibits large-scale health problems.

Personally, I feel converting conservatives is more worth-while than liberals, but it's nice to see liberals questioning propaganda.

Let's stick to assertions instead of namecalling me an "retard" before we agree to disagree, huh?
My entire premise is that your assessment of that which you do not own is irrelevant. I might think it mighty unfair that I lack in water or wealth to purchase water. That does not give me, or any have-nots, the justification to steal water from a Wal-Mart. Just a quick caveat to add that welfare usage disallows large-scale starvation of that calibre, at least in the US/first world, so this is just a scenario we're discussing.
So, if you think "meh, what is Wal-Mart to do if they lose one more water bottle", it is irrelevant. Your perception is not relevant because Wal-Mart owns the water, not you, and they have no obligation to you. They don't owe you anything to make you not be thirsty/hungry.
For wanting to keep what I own? Your entire philosophy is selfish because you promote theft based on arbitrary perceptions of what is being 'used' and non-existent obligations.
Yes. I have food because I own it, not them. I don't owe them to not starve. Before you become conveniently outraged, let's touch back into reality and remember the whole welfare state providing. But in our scenario with no welfare state, yes. I own what I own, not them. Any claim they make on my behalf is irrelevant.
In a court of law, yes. It is a deed proving ownership. That's my argument proving my case, the law is on my side. In a matter of individual property defense, it would be the loss prevention pinning you on the ground for trying to steal a water bottle that is the determining factor, not a piece of paper.
Yes, you have to use force to subdue thieves. Criminals don't magically disappear. That's the law enforced by the state and, in our Wal-Mart example, loss prevention kicking you out.
It is a reaction to the initial action. They don't go out and kick people out of the store they were never in and accuse them of goods they never stole. What a ridiculous statement. That's not how the law works and that isn't how loss prevention works in our Wal-Mart example.
I don't owe them anything. I'll make an educated guess based on no evidence and state that you have probably had something to eat today. I cannot accuse you of some unjust extortion you've committed against me simply because you had something to eat today and I didn't. People having things=/=violence against people not having things they never owned to begin with.
Like I said, thieves have no obligation to the law or to abide by Wal-Mart's code of conduct. Wal-Mart can kick you out of their stores because you attempted to steal something, which is exactly what they do. They have no obligation to allow your unsubstantiated ownership claims.

The thief is the one who uses force to deny the necessities of life to others to further their own greed. And I'm glad you brought up water, because this is an especially egregious case.
Water has, for almost all of human history, been a commons. The river, the stream, and the well we're all things owned by nobody, and available for all to use.
It wasn't until the 20th century that the practice of selling drinking water became commonplace. And of course, you can't sell it if it's freely available elsewhere. So those who would sell water took away the communal sources in order to force people to purchase it.
They created an artificial scarcity, and used it to extort a payment. And the consequence of jot paying is death.

This is a theft of the highest order, and simply hand-waving it away by saying "they bought it, it's theirs to do what they want with it" does not excuse the underlying violence. It is a criminal act that causes easily predictable and preventable death.

Until you recognize the violence inherent in claiming ownership of something, there's no point discussing this.

No. That is categorically untrue. A thief is somebody who steals another person's property. Something they don't own comes into their possession without actually buying it or trading it. So, if I come up to your apartment or house and steal the computer you're typing on because I don't have one and Internet connection is a human right, I am a thief extending my personal woes onto your possessions.
Yeah, until companies/the government began to utilize the technology for proper water filtration to provide the service to the people. I'll take water from a tap or a store in Japan today versus 100 years ago from some river in Japan.
1) You don't have to buy bottled water, it is far more cheap when you turn on the tap in your house. 2) The companies who do filter water have a process that is separate from "the rivers and streams" you mention. Those still exist, you can go find a river and drink from it if you choose to. I choose to pay for utilities and have water that has undergone reverse osmosis filtration or whatever it is they do.
No, rivers and streams still exist. You can choose to drink from them if you want. You don't have to pay for it, you can drink from them if you choose. There are also public water fountains, too.
No, the 'commune' didn't own it. Theft relates directly to unjust acquisition of something. You have to first have a claim to said thing. Without it, your claims are irrelevant.
There is no underlying violence because the obligations don't exist.
Lol, based on what criminal code? Can you cite it, please? In what first-world nation does such a 'criminal' code exist?
It assumes that everybody's original claim to ownership was justified, which it was not. That isn't even how things 'used to be', anyways. It is 'violent' in that it is a defensive act protecting you/your purchases against thieves just as a rapist getting shot is 'violent'. The whole premise is faulty and assumes the unjust, violent theft is actually theft. It's a defended property claim.

Where does your claim come from?
You bought it.
Where does the seller's claim come from?
He bought it.
Where does that person's claim come from?
He inherited it.
And so on down the line, until you get to someone who used force to exclude all others from using it. The initial claim was made by way of violence. All subsequent claims were enforced with the threat of violence. Therefore violence used to deny that claim is legitimate when the other person has need of its use, and you don't.

Let's not forget what we were talking about initially - peasants hoarding grain and burning it rather than turning it over. It was right to execute them, because they destroyed a life sustaining product that was already in short supply, just so that they could spite an authority that did not recognize their claim to it.