Can anyone share some source information about any notable libertarian positions involving those occasions where scarcity exists only due to a localized scenario; i.e. If Person A is dying of thirst, and Person B has a bottle of water available - is it ethical for Person A to take the water, and then replace it shortly thereafter?
This question is related to an interesting post discussing the handling of a vaccine to save someone, where it is only available from someone's private source. [LINK]
While I am familiar with the Libertarian position that no government should assert any power over an individual, does this position hold up in a case where the scarcity can be alleviated relatively quickly? In other words, is it ethical to take something in a desperate situation if you are able to exactly replace it in full with minimal delay.
Is this a similar vulnerability for libertarianism as Nozick's "Utility Monster" was to utilitarianism? [LINK] I would argue yes because individual freedom is to Libertarianism as utility is to Utilitarianism. The will to live is perhaps the highest tenant required for freedom; e.g. a slave can be freed, but death is irrevocable.
1) Individual Freedom : Libertarianism :: Utility : Utilitarianism.
2) Preservation of life for one striving to live is a requirement to preserve freedom.
3) With the correction any inequality, the impact of any freedom lost to the original owner is nullified.
Can anyone share some insight as to the Libertarian position?
Please note some specifics.
I have specified water in the example because it is in abundance and can be collected with no financial means.
This variation differs because the scarcity is only about the immediate proximity. Not price, universal scarcity of resources, or control of the means of production.
In this example the original owner of the water was not in need of the water.