Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Natural resources are initially unprotected under the maximally permissive view
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Nozick's own Lockean proviso requires that appropriation leave 'enough and as good' for others, imposing baseline constraints even on initial acquisition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A view permitting unlimited appropriation collapses into a position Nozick explicitly rejected, making 'maximally permissive' a mischaracterization of libertarian orthodoxy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Hillel Steiner and left-libertarians argue that natural resources have equal moral standing as unowned commons, grounding enforceable collective claims prior to any appropriation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If pre-appropriation resources carry inherent equal-access rights derived from self-ownership's symmetry, then 'unprotected' misidentifies their initial normative status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
The maximally permissive view places no constraints on appropriation of natural resources
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.