Here's a good example of individualism going in the wrong direction: The Oprah Road Scandal.

Summary: While under a Tsunami warning, people on Hawaii weren't allowed to use a private road owned by Oprah Winfrey to get to higher ground for shelter.

Now people are discussing "privilege vs. public interest".

(Definition of privilege: A use or benefit granted by agreement, which is morally legitimate only if it violates no rights.)

Here's why this discussion is important: Oprah owning that road is not just a privilege, it's also a right. We don't want to get rid of the right to own private property, because that would also mean to lose the right to own your body. So, how do we solve this potential for conflict on a societal level?

Well, it's actually very easy. There's a simple rule in natural law, and it goes like this: If you use your property in a way that harms others for no good reason, meaning outside the context of self-defense, you lose your right to own that property temporarily, meaning until the harm ends.

You can find this rule in the Moral Code I posted here:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/74103-declaration-of-dignity#post-423360

I called it the "Principle of Forfeiture": A sapient individual that acts aggressively temporarily forfeits the right it has violated.

Here's how to apply it to the situation:

People don't want to use the private road to violate property, but in order to get to safety. It's an act of self-defense against a natural disaster. Under these circumstances, Oprah not opening the road is an aggressive act against the people who want to get to safety. She abuses her property, her power, to violate the rights of others. Simply put: The right to survive a natural disaster is more worth than the right to exclude the public from using a private road.

And many countries have actual laws to take care of this. For example, here in Germany, if I want to escape a harmful situation that is forced upon me, I am allowed to trespass (violate private property) to get to safety.

Let's imagine people decided to overcome Oprah's security personnel by force, meaning actual violence occurs. Who should be held accountable for the consequences, like injuries? Well, in a just society, Oprah would be held accountable, because people fleeing to safety is not trespassing.

Now let's imagine some exploit the situation in order to steal or damage Oprah's property. Who would be held accountable in a just society? Of course the ones violating the property would be responsible, because they are only allowed to use the road temporarily for the purpose of getting to safety.

And what about people damaging the road without intention? Well, Oprah has the right to get her property back like it was before when the emergency situation ends. If the road was damaged by the people, those people would have to pay for it so it can be fixed (or fix it themselves). That's the reason why insurance exists.

So yes, people are mad at Oprah for a good reason, because she was willing to use her property to harm others.

Quote from the video above, timestamp 9:58:

"This is all about liability. All it takes is one idiot to cause an accident in which someone is harmed on private property and the property owner suddenly finds themselves in court."

Here's the thing: People treat situations like this as if everybody was a child. In reality, the property owner is not responsible for an accident they didn't cause, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable just because the accident happened on their property.

Also, finding yourself in court shouldn't be seen as a problem in a just society. When innocent people fear the courts, it's a clear sign that the judicial system doesn't respect rights (which is the case on this planet).

Only my opinion here - it is rather simple in times of great human turmoil a path must be made clear for safety. Anything else is trivial.