The necessity of private property

I keep on filling my desert blog with my rubbish. Sooner or later I will learn how to get famous...

Private property cannot be avoided. Not in a world of scarcity: this fundamental and unavoidable condition of human existence implies that the fulfilment of all individual aims is impossible and that the problem of resource control is inescapable. Even public property is either the property of the men in power or total chaos (one outcome does not exclude the other, obviously).

First of all, two definitions, brought to my attention by the French libertarian economist Pascal Salin, two concepts derived from Roman Law. USUS and FRUCTUS. USUS is the control over a certain resource: it is about deciding how to, and for which individual end, employ the resource. FRUCTUS is the usefulness of the resource to the fulfilment of the individual aim. The raison d'etre of the USUS is the FRUCTUS.

For example, if I own a piece of land, USUS is my right to build on it, set it afire, turn it into a farm. FRUCTUS is the fact that I can now enjoy a new house, a great fire or a certain amount of food.

I think it's clear. Now we have to talk about scarcity: What is scarcity? Why is this condition unavoidable?

Scarcity is the impossibility of fulfilling some individual aims with the actual amount of (scarce) resources. For example, the time of our lives is scarce. If I wanted to learn all the languages of the world, I would grow old before succeeding. Scarcity exists also for the individual man (e.g. Robinson Crusoe), but it is relevant also (or, better, especially) when people interact. The necessity of laws is the result of the unavoidability of scarcity.

Imagine a world without scarcity: men wouldn't need to act (employing their own finite physiological energy, their own finite time, and their own finite physical means) to achieve their goals. Can you imagine it? No? It's ok, it's not your fault: even to think about this abstract concept, you need to employ your finite brain and your finite time.

Probably, it is better to use this resources in a less abstract way: let's draw our conclusions!

Because of scarcity, we must choose which individual aim is to be endeavored. Scarcity means that the total amount of FRUCTUS is insufficient for total fulfilment. Choice between aims means that the problem of who has the USUS is relevant. Who controls the resource has the right to decide who is going to reap the gains.

If a resource is scarce, laws are necessary to decide who has the USUS and, at least implicitly, who will benefit from its FRUCTUS.

Thus, we have private property: private control of resources, established to discriminate between mutually incompatible individual aims.

It is not possible to avoid the problem: scarcity is a necessity.

And it is non-sense to talk about public ownership: scarcity implies that somebody can't enjoy its FRUCTUS. Public ownership is fraud: it is not universal property, but only the USUS of the men in power.

Common properties are not everybody's property, but politicians' property.

If you don't believe it, try build a house over a public highway: you will find that you have no USUS over it, and you find that you will lose, temporary, at least, the USUS over your body, in prison.

When they say "the public is ours", "the debt is owned to ourselves" or "we are the state" remember: you're being fooled.