And again, this was not about "stealing" the planet. No one was going to take the planet because it was going to be uninhabitable. SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions. They're not TAKING the planet, they're moving the inhabitants so they won't be harmed by a process that would harm them.
There's a village with a fresh water source. A company comes and claims that water source. They remove the village, pour the water into bottles and what was once free has now a price tag.
The Ba'ku wouldn't have had a problem with other people coming and building settlements and get the metaphasic radiation for free without harming anyone and without destroying anything. A planet is pretty huge.
Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc. Otherwise, the needs of the aristocratic few should prevail, and their wealth and power shouldn't be touched to give the masses greater control over their own lives. It continues to amuse me to see folks defending the property rights of an entitled few over the greater good for billions.
I rejected it because it didn't apply. The Son'a misused the Federation for their own plans. They wanted revenge on the Ba'ku, and they wanted the radiation for themselves. And by the end of the movie it was clear that Rua'fo would have NEVER EVER accepted "No" as an answer. It was only because the Ba'ku was inside the Federation territory that they even had to deal with relocation and all that shit. Had the planet been somewhere else, they would have just killed everybody. It never was about the many, it was always just about the few Son'a.
And then there's the thing again that the effects didn't last once you left the planet. Geordi says that. He didn't know if his newly grown eyes would last.
Which means they didn't even know for sure if relocation would kill the older Ba'ku.