Private Property or Framework for Human Behavior III

 

Why Don’t We Do It In The Road?

No one will be watching us
Why don't we do it in the road?

Is the fact that people will be watching us the only reason why we don’t do it in the road?

I have previously proposed three attributes as a framework for human behavior: Rights vs Duty; Nature vs. Nurture; Reality vs. Fantasy.  To these I would suggest one additional attribute: Public vs Private Property. Economists have also described Public Goods versus Private Goods.  Private Goods have a price, i.e. are rival, and are exclusive ( i.e. no on can use those goods while someone else is using those goods). Public Goods have no price, i.e. are non-rival and non exclusive (each person’s use of a good does not prevent another person from also using that good. E.g. sunlight.)  The problem is that most people are not economists and view property as being owned by an individual or owned jointly. There are goods that most people agree are individually owned, private property.  The disagreement appears to be in whether public property is owned by the public as a sovereign individual or are owned by all of the people in common.  Not everyone can be considered to be the sovereign at the same time.  We the people “ in order to form a more perfect union, etc.” are the sovereign in the United States.  Each person is not the sovereign and does not own this property jointly with all other people. The elected government of the people is the sovereign and owns this public property.

A public road in the United States still has an owner of record.  It is owned by a unit of government: e.g. a town; a city; a county; a state, etc.  It is not owned by each person jointly.  Those governments can, and do, control who and how that property can be used. An individual can not say that this property is controlled by the people, and I as an individual am one of those people, and thus I am free to use that property by my individual rules, not the rules that the government has imposed.  That person has effectively said that there is no public property and that all property is private but jointly owned and that he is a co-owner of all property considered to be the public’s.  Thus grazing rights on public land could be ignored, or restrictions on access, of the U.S Capitol are meaningless, because that property is “co-owned” by the parties who are choosing to ignore any restrictions. However the property is not owned jointly by all people.  It is public property and its used can be controlled by the rights of the people.  Property owned jointly,  in common,  can not be controlled by the public since its does not actually own that property.  To avoid a tragedy of the commons, public property is not owned in common.  It is owned by the public acting as  a sovereign.  You don’t own the road, and the people who might be watching can dictate its use. So the fact that no one will be watching you does not mean that the owners of that property, the public, can not tell you that you can do it on their roads. If you believe that there is only private property, then you are trespassing because you are not the owner of that property.  You might get away with trespassing but that does not mean that you are not guilty of trespassing. If you believed that there is public property then you must believe that the public has a right to control the use of that property, even if that use prohibits your use.  You might be a member of the public, but in this matter, you are not the public as a sovereign.   So the fact that no one will be watching you does not say mean the owners of that property, the public, can not tell you that you can’t do it in their roads. Whether because are the owners, and you are not, or because you have no claim to the that property.