from my reading of it, it just is a refutation of the idea that any other criteria for evaluating the right of property ownership besides the fact that the person can argue their case (eg, court, mediation, negotiation) should be treated as an equal. this is a philosophical argument against collectivism.

Right. The truth of one side must be presupposed in order to even proceed--and by the very act of proceeding against it, all opposition is thereby refuted. VanTil used a similar argument -- I believe a form of transcendental argumentation, or the 'synthetic a priori' -- to require the truth of Christian theism to even predicate... It's a fantastic argument.