One thing social media is good for is bringing up questions that need to be answered.
In a recent article someone was being jailed for refusing to testify against another party. Someone asked, “Under what circumstances, if any, is it morally permissible to compel testimony?”. My answer was, “You may be morally justified in a case where information is required as compensation for property violation”.
That brings up the question of what you are entitled to when someone violates your property. In the previous post, I brought up the example of someone having a tire blowout on the road, swerving to control the car and accidentally running off the road and damaging your mailbox. All things equal, that person owes you recompense, even though it was an accident. The fact is that they violated your property and now you have a claim on their property. Because value is subjective, you have the right to seek whatever you want from them as compensation, and they are morally obligated to make compensation.
People will try to say that that’s unreasonable, and I wouldn’t disagree. But that sentiment is an attempt to philosophize practicalities, which really can’t be done, logically. Yet, there are practical limits on unlimited philosophies. Technically, are you entitled to require literally anything as compensation for the mailbox incident? Yes. But, if you actually require something “ridiculous”, you’ll run into problems.
First, your reputation will suffer. “That’s the guy who took everything from Bob, after he accidentally damaged his mailbox!” That will come with social consequences. It could, even, endanger your property further. If you took everything Bob had for such a minor and accidental violation, which virtually everyone would agree was unreasonable, Bob might decide to retaliate. If he did, who’s side would most people take? How harshly would a judge rule against Bob in your subsequent claim?
Secondly, in a civilized society, you’d (because of social risks outlined above) have to receive a judgement from a credible judge who would be unlikely to rule that Bob give you everything he has, lest he hurt his own reputation in the market, since virtually everyone would see it as an unjust ruling.
Thirdly, you would set yourself up for being destroyed by anyone who might one day have a claim against you, since the chances are high that, at some point, you will violate someone’s property, even if by accident. If they knew what you’d required from Bob, you’d be more likely to have a similar compensation required of you, even if simply out of spite.
Last, you would make yourself a more desirable target for those who might seek unreasonable compensation now that you’ve become wealthier after taking Bob’s stuff.
There is no solid limiting principle involved in determining what is owed to whom after a property violation. That’s unsettling to folks (even me), but that doesn’t mean that there are no practical limitations and this is an important part of understanding; we live in the real world; a world bound by practicality, and the practical application of philosophy is bound by that world.