02-12-2017, 04:17 PM
Sam is in desperate need of food.
Perhaps someone has stolen his food, or perhaps a natural disaster destroyed his crops; whatever the reason, Sam is in danger of starvation. Fortunately, he has a plan to remedy the problem: he will walk to the local marketplace, where he will buy bread. Assume in the absence of outside interference, this plan would succeed: the marketplace is open, and there are people there who are willing to trade food to Sam in exchange for something he has. Another individual, Marvin, is aware of all this and is watching Sam. Marvin decides to pressure government to force Sam to hand over his bread and redistribute it among those less fortunate, because this is the way Marvin saw poverty handled in his home country. As a result, both Sam and Marvin return home with little more than crumbs, both dying of malnutrition.
What is the proper assessment of Marvin's action? Did Marvin harm Sam? Did he violate Sam's rights? Was Marvin's action wrong?
Flame away, lol