I was thinking about the Peano axioms when I wrote that (hence the working backwards thing). Obviously if you start with a ring, you don't have to impose it, you get that as a property. I think I mentioned that in a later post.
5·3 + 2·7
5·3 + 2·7 + 0·4
At that point you notice that when you say 5·3 means "add 3 five times", you forgot to say what you were adding it to. You're adding it to the identity, 0.
And finally we say that starting from 0 and adding something zero times leaves you where you started, at 0, so we can observe that 0·n = 0.
If you formalize that, you'll end up either deriving or postulating the distributive property, depending on what you start with. But it isn't arbitrary; it's not a coincidence that (as I mentioned above) exponentiation by 0 gives the multiplicative identity, and (as I haven't mentioned yet) exponentiation distributes over multiplication the same way multiplication distributes over addition.
(Asymmetry does start creeping in; aggregate exponentiation isn't as nice since exponentiation doesn't have the nice properties that addition and multiplication do.)
things that irks me
a**b * a**c == a**(b + c) != a**(b * c)
(ab)^x = (a^x)(b^x)
yes my mistake