Hillel Steiner and left-libertarians argue natural resources are initially unowned collective assets, making unilateral destruction a form of taking from co-owners without consent.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Collective assets(as the status of natural resources according to this view): Things of value that are shared by a group of people together rather than owned individually by one person.
Hillel Steiner(a scholar cited as evidence): A modern philosopher who specializes in property rights and political philosophy; he has written scholarly work analyzing Spencer's ideas.
Left-libertarians(as the group of thinkers making this argument): Philosophers who believe in maximum individual freedom (like traditional libertarians) but also think natural resources like land and minerals should be shared equally by everyone, not owned by a few people.
Natural resources(as what the argument claims belong to everyone initially): Things found in nature that people can use, like land, water, minerals, forests, and oil—things nobody created but everyone might need.

Based on where you are in your exploration