You have a fixed amount of already acquired property

You do specified labor on that

You exchange your labor + property for someone else’s labor + property

That’s commerce and has nothing to do with the question I’m talking about, which is: How you acquired the property in the first place is the ethical question.

What’s unethical is if your a neighbor was struggling to survive and instead of caring for him out of your property and labor, you convinced him to trade your excess money for a portion of his property in perpetuity.

So no, there is no more uncaptured “pie.” It should have never been caputured in the first place - it’s equally everyone’s right