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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Under the maximally permissive view, agents may appropriate, use, or destroy whatever resources they want

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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