To which I will reply, you have never clearly laid out your premises. You have consistently failed to do so when I, Wilderness and Jack have all asked you direct questions which you continue to evade. When you did choose to respond, it was with insults, calling us lunatics.
Btw, the irony here is that you accuse others of ethical nihilism, but that is what collectivism, your Respectarianism resolves to. Klemm’s morality is non-existent, he is strictly a consequentialist driven by his own ends with no moral boundaries. Tom has no claim to morality or justice, because you do not believe any exists for him. Any system which resolves to one party having all of the moral authority in every situation, is a system where that one party has no morality, only authority.
In order for a rational rights system to work, both parties must maintain checks on each other, such that both parties have rights, and both parties can act without infringing the rights of the other. The very notion of infringements being different from violations is a meelie mouthed word game played out over and over by people who claim to be libertarians, but really do not believe that anyone has any rights except what is decided by the mob, or by emotion, or by need, and certainly none of those rights can be consistent, enduring and inalienable.
There is NOTHING which separates your position from that of a progressive liberal statist, except they want the state, and you demand emotion and need. There is nothing different about Klemm violating Tom’s property, than taxation for welfare wealth redistribution. Instead of the state doing the redistributing, you propose that anyone who feels poor, or threatened, or needy or cold should take what he needs, and because you allow that party to create their own need, it eventually becomes only about taking what one wants (skewed incentives).
Ultimately, your system has to necessarily lead to the end of private property rights, if you even had a conception of private property rights to begin with. And without which, I cannot fathom how you expect to have a market system of free exchange, commercial or social because again, you have distorted the incentives.
It’s an irrational semantic game in the manic style of a James Taggart. It is collectivism.
Your premise is flawed because when you were trying to find answers that make you feel good, you should have been asking yourself why the right answers make you feel bad.