So your contention is that a moral obligation is created by the fact that pillage and plunder is no longer permitted? Since we are both protected from pillage and plunder, which of us owes the other?
Another thing I don't quite understand is this - you implicitly seem to treat the right to kill and eat whatever you like as the only "natural right". Is resisting those who might kill/eat you not a "natural right"? I.e., am I obligated to surrender to the cannibals? If not, then it's hard to see how modern society is anything other than a different strategy of resistance, in which case no moral obligation is owed to anyone.
I'm also confused by your change of topic. Previously you were contrasting the subsistence farmer to modern life. Now you seem to be contrasting hunter/gatherer/cannibal life to modern life. Can you explain?
Another thing I don't quite understand is this - you implicitly seem to treat the right to kill and eat whatever you like as the only "natural right". Is resisting those who might kill/eat you not a "natural right"? I.e., am I obligated to surrender to the cannibals? If not, then it's hard to see how modern society is anything other than a different strategy of resistance, in which case no moral obligation is owed to anyone.
I'm also confused by your change of topic. Previously you were contrasting the subsistence farmer to modern life. Now you seem to be contrasting hunter/gatherer/cannibal life to modern life. Can you explain?