Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Ownership of labor does not entail ownership of every object with which labor is causally entangled, only the value added by that labor.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Value addition is often inseparable from the object itself, making the distinction between object and added-value incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without control over the material substrate, laborers cannot secure the fruits of their labor from others' interference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Determining what portion of an object constitutes 'added value' requires arbitrary, disputable calculations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Raw materials exist independent of any laborer's effort, so ownership should track contribution rather than causal contact.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Limiting ownership to value-added prevents unjust enrichment and respects prior claims to natural resources.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This principle enables multiple parties to have legitimate interests in the same object without contradiction.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42