You're talking about opposites. When you say that the presence of scarcity is the absence of resources and therefore is non-existent, i.e. is nothing, you simultaneously negate that there is a resource. But scarcity and abundance speak of one and the same thing. The resource.

As a child I did not know that my body serves as a host to countless micro-organisms and provides a complex organic habitat for them. Despite the absence of my imagination, these micro-organisms lived within me.

If you translate absence literally, equating absence with non-being, I naturally agree with you. If a branch crashes down from a tree in the forest and there is no ear with a membrane near that the sound can hear, it means the absence of membranes on whose resistance the sound meets.

The colour red is absent for those who have no eyes, on which light strikes and refracts. Therefore the colour red does not exist.

Without resistance there can be no non-resistance. Everything objective and non-objective cannot exist unless it meets its opposite.

There is the logic of the "excluded third". When one speaks of justice and injustice, one excludes a third party. So what could this third party be in the example of justice versus injustice?