[scorchpt]

That is a fallacious argument. Food stealing (which you said) and food replication (which would be the fair equivalent) are different things, as are book stealing and book replication. I'm not making any judgements about neither of those, just pointing out the false equivalency.

Would you oppose if someone managed to buy just one single piece of food, then replicate it at a molecular level and at virtually no cost, and distribute it for free to the whole world, so that no one would ever have to starve ever again?

"Of course you can champion public food banks, and simultaneously oppose food replication and sharing. Don't be ridiculous! All it takes is either illogical, inconsistent thinking, or logically invalid thinking. There's no barrier to either of these, in theory or practice."