 This argument seems persuasive if we suppose that the only alternative to making the waterhole the joint property of P and Q is for P to prevent Q from using its water since in that case Q would die very painfully. But there are other alternatives. Members of P (Ps) can generously allow the members of Q (Qs) to use the water; or they can sell the water to the members of Q; or they can rent Q a piece of land next to the waterhole. These alternatives may be ruled out by Locke’s apparent opposition to arrangements that put some people in a position of extraordinary dependence on others. For example, he argued that a beggar has a “right” to a portion of a rich man’s surplus when she must have it in order to survive. If so the Qs must have rights to an adequate supply of the water in P’s waterhole. Otherwise if the Ps with ostensible generosity allowed Qs to drink they could also have demanded demeaning behavior from the Qs in exchange; or if they sold water to the Qs they could raise its price as much as they liked; and so on. But in any case, there are alternatives to the joint ownership of the waterhole by the Ps and Qs that do not turn the Qs into P’s dependents. We could, for example, divide the waterhole so that the Qs get an adequate supply of water and are not dependent on the Ps.