"If you change the flow of the river on your property such that it affects mine, then yes you have aggressed against me (it is easier to see in the reverse, it

"If you change the flow of the river on your property such that it affects mine, then yes you have aggressed against me (it is easier to see in the reverse, it is clearly an aggression against me if you flood my land even if you poor the water on your own land)." Once you accept this, things start getting very complicated. For example, if your factory spews carcinogens into air I breath, it follows that your factor is an act of aggression a la the flooding of the river. Now substitute carcinogens with any pollutant, (perhaps even noise pollution, or visual pollution (eg. I had a nice view before you built that ugly building there) ) and it can quickly get out of hand. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the place that the somewhere is drawn is kind of arbitrary. Very intelligent people can disagree whether or not the line ought to include greenhouse gases. Btw. I fully agree with the river example. I completely disagree with your second example though. Off in the real world, its very easy to leverage your wealth to extract unfair agreements from people. The 'all the food in the whole world example is silly', but history is full of examples of people hoarding commodities that are necessary for survival and then exploiting that hoard for ridiculous enrichment. I think at some point, people a right to do something about those sorts of hoarders.