Violence is usually an initiatory action; you don't commit violence against someone by refusing to do something, in most cases.
Let's say I homestead a small pond which has a 3m diameter and is 1m deep. For simplicity sake, we'll assume it is shaped like a cylinder; thus, it contains about 7.065 cubic meters of water. Homestead does not simply mean, btw, that I put a fence around it and say "mine" or draw a circle around it on a map. It means I mix my labor with it, in some way transform it, maintain it, etc.
Let's say, for example, that I decide to use this pond for three purposes. Firstly, I use it to drink from. Thus, I remove unsanitary things from it, as far as is possible, like the slimes and what-not that may float atop, using a sift. Secondly, I use it as a water-garden, and plant water-lillies and what-not in it. Thirdly, I maintain a school of goldfish in it, which I care for and provide nourishment.
Now, you, as someone who somehow comes accross my pond and is in need of water, else you shall die, have no entitlement to the water I've homsteaded in that pond. You have no right to drink it. Simply because you need something does not give you the right to take it from those who have it ("I need sex, therefore, I'm justified in taking it from any woman I see, whether she likes it or not").
This is where default assumptions come in. You could make the reasonable default-assumption that I would not be harmed, and would not care, if you drank some water from my pond. That would be a reasonable assumption; if I, as the pond's homesteader, knowing that such would be a reasonable default assumption, don't like it, then I should post a sign saying otherwise. However, an unreasonable default assumption would be for you to assume that you could pump out all of the pond's water, or kill the gold-fish I had cultivated. A key for property-rights violations is that demonstrateable harm actually has to be done. You, a single individual, having a few sips of water from my pond, does not arguably do any harm; thus, if I didn't want such, I'd have to specify on the sign.
A case where it may do harm, to me, is if I homestead the pond for another reason. If I homestead the pond to worship the Magnificent Godess of Water, and think that no human being is worthy of drinking from Her Waters, then it could be argued that anyone who drank from it did me harm. Never-the-less, it would still be my obligation to let other's know this. So, if you then came to my pond and found a sign saying, "Temple of the Godess of Water, do not disturb this holy water's tranquility", you would have no such reasonable expectation to drink from it. Now, if you are just about to die, it is difficult for anyone to expect you could spend the time trying to contact me to negotiate, so naturally you would drink from it anyways. The right to private property derives from the right to private property in one's body, thus private property in one's body takes precedence; however, simply because, in grave need, you may violate my property rights, does not mean that you do not have to compensate me after-the-fact (we would either voluntarily agree on compensation, or a private court would decide the matter).
A more interesting case would be if I had found and homesteaded a pond in a drought-plagued area. Now, hundreds of thousands of people would want to be drinking from my pond, which only had 7 cubic meters of water in it (or rather, taking water from it in large quantities). Never-the-less, it is still the pond that I homesteaded, and no-one would have the right to drink from it, unless me and them agreed on a voluntary price for that priviledge. A naive fool would say that I should let everyone drink from it for free. Yet, this would be short-sighted, as there would be no drive for conservation. On the contrary, if I made people pay for it at whatever rate the free-market (the interaction between me and the consumers) provides, then there would be a drive to conserve. Those who don't need water wouldn't use as much of it, leaving more for those who do need it; furthermore, my property would not be clogged with thousands of people waiting in line for water. The pond, furthermore, would not be drained, but rather conserved.
The naturally rational system would be for me to establish bidding for priority in access to the water; he who bidded the highest would drink from it first. I would devise a system to allow people to bid efficiently, and for me to notify people when it was their turn to drink, so they wouldn't have to waste time standing around waiting for their turn. Now, this is a monopoly situation, so wouldn't I be able to do anything I damn well please? In a word, no. I am not an island. If I start mandating a thousand pounds of gold for one ounce of water, I'm going to incur the wrath of other producers, who will band together and refuse to sell me goods that I need for my survival. In every way, I would become a social outcaste, unable to obtain any goods on the market, nor to make any social acquaintences.
Now that we've come to it, a few problems emerge with my system, which I glossed over. It would not be wise for me to start up bidding where the highest bidder gets first access to the water, and that's just that. For, he could take all of the water. Rather, I would likely mandate bids for, say, a gallon of water at a time. Alternatively, I would mandate bids for the highest multiple of the quotient "galons of water / placing in line". In such a way, an individual could choose to ration between getting less water immediately, or more water later, depending on his needs. In short, a rational system for intelligently allocating the resource would spring up because I mandated money for it. On the other hand, if I merely gave it away with no rules, it would quickly become exhausted and would not be efficiently allocated.
Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]