Locke's own proviso — that appropriation is legitimate only if 'enough and as good' is left for others — is systematically violated in a world of finite and fully claimed resources.

?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.

Locke(a historical philosopher being cited): John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher who argued that personal identity is based on memory and consciousness rather than just the body.
Systematically violated(as used in logical and economic analysis): Broken or not followed in a regular, widespread pattern rather than just by accident or occasionally.
appropriation(Used in the context of evaluating whether labor-mixing is sufficient to transfer an unowned thing into private property): The acquisition of ownership over a previously unowned object
enough and as good(Locke's condition for fair property ownership): Locke's famous requirement that when you claim something as your own, there must still be plenty left over for other people to use, and it should be just as valuable or useful as what you took.

Based on where you are in your exploration