[annalex]

The test of rights is in what existing rights will the action in question violate. If oil exploration is not in the universe of actions that the Arabia local contemplates, and no activity he does contemplate is impeded by the oil exploration, then no right of his is violated by the Exxon drillers. That is why the intent is relevant.

Just cause of violence is to prevent an imminent threat of violence or retaliate for an act of violence committed against an individual. Abstract violations of sovereignty have nothing to do with just causes of war; concrete harm to citizens does.

The technological development is relevant to the extent that it allows us to grant the oil in the desert rights to Exxon, which has the technology.

[Demidog]

and no activity he does contemplate is impeded by the oil exploration, then no right of his is violated by the Exxon drillers. That is why the intent is relevant.

Then you admit that the Exxon drillers must succumb to the land owners. The right to be left alone and leave the oil right where it is excludes meddling by Exxon or any other technology company or nation. You're arguing in circles.

If there's oil in a zit on my forehead, you would argue that Exxon could "peacefully extract" that oil as long as they didn't intend to violate my rights. After all I left it there as a big white-headed invitation for Exxon to come pop it and turn it into gasoline.

Horsehockey. It's their nation. It's their desert. And it's their oil. They can leave it in the ground if they wish. That's what I intend on my property and I have had offers to come and get it. Thankfully I secured the mineral rights. The oil stays there as long as I retain those rights.