In the hiker case, for instance, we might deny that the cabin owner really had a right that was infringed by the hiker.
Indeed, isn't this what the tort law already does with cases that greatly resemble your hiker hypothetical.
Each hiker has possession of one of the vials.
The distance between two configurations is simply the distance between the two hikers.
And suppose that rather than just taking the food, the hiker asks for the owner's permission.
Two hikers are both bitten by a poisonous snake.
She was an ardent hiker, gardener and traveller, and exhibited a joy for life in all that she did.
What if the hiker then simply tries to help himself to the property over the owner's objection?
