Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Under the maximally permissive view, agents may appropria... — Carmelics
    Home/Environmental Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Under the maximally permissive view, agents may appropriate, use, or destroy whatever resources they want

    Environmental EthicsRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The maximally permissive view denies there are any constraints on use or appropriation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The only operative constraint is that agents must not violate anyone's self-ownership in the process
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's proviso holds that appropriation is impermissible when it leaves 'enough and as good' for others, embedding sufficiency constraints in property rights from the outset.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nozick's weaker proviso still prohibits appropriation that worsens others' positions relative to a no-property baseline, contradicting maximally permissive use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any coherent libertarian theory of property must explain how initial acquisition generates legitimate title, and that explanation necessarily imports limiting conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Destruction of resources that others depend on for survival constitutes an indirect violation of self-ownership, since it forecloses the conditions for autonomous agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Environmental EthicsRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Any coherent libertarian theory of property must explain how initial acquisition...Destruction of resources that others depend on for survival constitutes an indir...Hillel Steiner and left-libertarians argue natural resources are initially unown...Locke's proviso holds that appropriation is impermissible when it leaves 'enough...
    +3 moreShow less
    Nozick's weaker proviso still prohibits appropriation that worsens others' posit...The maximally permissive view denies there are any constraints on use or appropr...The only operative constraint is that agents must not violate anyone's self-owne...

    Similar

    Natural resources are initially unprotected under the maximally permis...80%The maximally permissive view places no constraints on appropriation o...77%The maximally permissive view denies there are any constraints on use ...77%The maximally permissive view ignores the problem that property relati...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: libertarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    At one end of the spectrum sits the maximally permissive view of original appropriation. This view denies there are any constraints on use or appropriation (Rothbard 1978, 1982; Narveson 1988, ch. 7, 1999; Feser 2005). Thus, agents may appropriate, use, or even destroy whatever resources they want (assuming, of course, that they violate no one’s self-ownership in the process). As a result, this view sees natural resources as initially unprotected. However, this is not a very popular view, as it
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit