No, and that it a terrible example. What i'm saying if your family are starving and there is an immediate hunger crisis which can be temporarily resolved in the short-term by seizing vacant private property, then you can and should be ethically excused in doing so. Kelloggs have abandoned their production facility and exited the country. They released a statement that they have "written-off" their assets in Venezuela. They have 4 months of raw materials sitting in a warehouse that would otherwise rot, and it is highly unlikely they will be returning anytime soon. Would you be happier to see them starve than produce cornflakes without a license? Would you be happy to see the stocks rot away to an inedible mush then let Venezuelans eat it? This is getting to be a life and death situation.
Let me put it this way, If your family was starving with no resolution in sight, would you not ethically excuse yourself to do whatever it took to feed them, including illegal activities? Maybe it is just me, but I care more about my family than I do about kellogg's private property.
This issue will be resolved legally through the world bank where Kelloggs have already made a claim, but in the mean time people are starving in Venezuela and have an immediate need for food. Venezuela have seized assets before and been made to pay compensation by Venezuelan courts. in fact, US corporations are in the process of seizing Venezuelan assets to recover this owed compensation whenever they possibly can.
And to your point about leaving your house, the USA (and many other countries around the world) can expropriate your home to build highway, rail service or mall - or whatever they loosely decide is in the public interest when it often isn't. You don't even need to "leave" it. I believe property rights should be respected, but this is an abandoned factory in a starving nation for gods sake - let them feed themselves without being criticized for it.
