Roads and National Parks

[Hangnail]

Roads and National Parks seem to always be where my discussions with non-objectivists fall apart, I’m standing firm on the facts until I say something like “yes government’s should do nothing but enforce the law and protect it’s citizens. A government shouldn’t own anything, not even a road” and that’s were my argument starts to fall apart. Probably because I’m not convinced myself that this is true.

It seems that translating this philosophy of a government not operating the roads or owning land into reality could lead to some disastrous results. And as we all agree... there is not such thing as something that’s good in theory but disastrous in reality. So help me understand why these potentially disastrous consequences wouldn't happen...

If the government didn’t own, or at least regulate roads…

1. Wouldn’t there be huge amounts of confusion about how to interconnect roads, where they should go and where they shouldn’t?

2. Wouldn’t competition between road owners require that many redundant roads to exist? So if there is a lot of traffic between a and b, 4 roads would be built to complete with each other when one large road would be a more efficient use of space?

3. If many different road owners existed, wouldn’t the process of paying tolls between a and b require more time than paying taxes and therefore be a less efficient process for transportation than paying taxes?

4. What if road owners dispute each other? Similar to the disputes between Microsoft’s .NET platform and Sun’s Java platform. Two different development environments that programmers must choose between and focus their careers on. What if this happened with roads? What if certain cars only worked on company A’s roads and certain cars only worked on company B’s. Wouldn’t this also be less efficient? And wouldn't this lack of efficiency make our marketplace less effective? (less land to build on because more of it is dedicated to a less efficient road system)

Then there is the issue of national parks. What is essentially government owned land for the protection and preservation of “nature.” There is no question that we exist in order to conquer nature and there is no question that if dropped in a jungle with no tools for survival, most likely, you would die a miserable death being eaten alive. Nature is not our friend. However, nature is beautiful to look at (the grand canyon, Yosemite, etc.) and there are incredibly special parts of nature that make all life on earth possible (algae creates most of our oxygen, etc.). These things are very special for the reason that it takes millions or even billions of years to create them. So based on these premises, I ask the following questions…

1. What if a private owner of Yosemite discovered gold beneath the valley floor and because it was more profitable in his lifetime to strip mine the valley and close it to the public, he decided to go ahead with this? I understand that this would be his right to do this with his property, but doesn’t the rest of humanity loose something as a whole when this happens? Something that can never be replaced? Perhaps things that can never be replaced, shouldn't be bought and sold?

2. Isn’t it wise to promote the establishment of national parks in other countries and to lead by example… because our life requires that certain parts of nature continue to exist? (rainforests, oceans, lakes… etc) Wouldn’t it seem to be a wise decision to protect certain bare minimums of nature from clear cutting and development in order to preserve our own lives?

3. And if number 2 is true, then wouldn’t we actually be called upon to defend ourselves with force if, for example, Brazil wanted to clear cut the entire Amazon?

I'm really looking forward to talking out these issues...

[Hangnail]

OMG... that was long. Sorry about that.

[non-contradictor]

for the subject of roads, it already has a four page thread at this link

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=2520&hl=roads

[AisA]

Regarding roads:

There is no reason to assume that men become more creative and productive when working for the government than working privately. Indeed, one would be severely challenged to find a single instance of government doing something better and more efficiently than private industry.

Who is more likely to resolve problems efficiently: private individuals who can only stay in business by successfully meeting market demands in a timely and efficient fashion -- or government officials that are completely free of such constraints?

After all, if government did not own and control the production of shoes, would there not be massive confusion as to how many sizes and styles of shoes to produce? Would there not be disputes between stores that want to sell one type and other stores that want to sell another type? Would it not be terribly inefficient to have all those individual stores setting different prices and collecting all that money at so many different places? Who would decide where to put shoe stores? What guarantee would we have that anyone would ever produce shoes at all?

[Sherlock]

AisA,

The question is not whether or not "men become more creative and productive when working for the government than working privately"---usually they don't---but whether or not the concerns raised by Hangnail are valid. I think they are. Although the government may not be the most efficient entity when it comes to creativity and productivity, it may still be the most efficient entity to manage roads because of its size and coherence. I have the same concerns that Hangnail has regarding roads, and participated a little on the thread that non-contradictor listed. One of my concerns that I expressed there was the difficulty of small businesses being able to wield the necessary capital to secure their infrastructure, that is, their own roads. No one ever addressed that. Multiple owners with multiple fee structures all operating within the 2-mile drive it takes me to go to the local grocery store would be confusing and inefficient; that small stretch multiplied by millions and millions of road miles boggles the mind. Adding to the improbablity is that such a system would seem to require that everyone act rationally: I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Hangnail]

Adding to the  improbablity is that such a system would seem to require that everyone act rationally: I'm not going to hold my breath.

Thanks for the link to that old thread, I read it completely and I found the conversation to yield some interesting perspectives. However, it seemed to get derailed on the subject of what happens if someone buys land all around you and then denies you access to the outside world. This is a very valid point and I believe that irrational people will always exist in the real world, some of those irrational people will be trust fund babies and there will probably be at least one instance of this happening.

And even if this only happens once, a valid system of ethics should prevent a stranded man from starving to death on his own property. And I do think that if you can prove that the manner in which someone is disposing of their property violates your right to life, your self defense does supersede their right to do whatever they want with their property. This I believe, also applies to my question about National Parks… what happens when someone threatens a life preserving aspect of nature on their property?

Does the right to life supersede property rights? I hope so. I would have to seriously question my acceptance of Objectivism if it didn’t.

Also, rather than focusing on the narrow example above, there does seem to be broader examples we can see in everyday life of times when government monopolies provide a very stagnant, unchanging, and poorly operated but necessary service.

For example, electrical cables. The government may not own cables anymore, but it does regulate that you only have one going into your house and the cables in the air are organized neatly. This is because we all agreed that 14 different competing power companies competing with criss-crossing cable systems would be disorganized and incredibly ugly.

[Tom Rexton]

AisA,

The question is not whether or not "men become more creative and productive when working for the government than working privately"---usually they don't---but whether or not the concerns raised by Hangnail are valid.  I think they are. Although the government may not be the most efficient entity when it comes to creativity and productivity, it may still be the most efficient entity to manage roads because of its size and coherence. I have the same concerns that Hangnail has regarding roads, and participated a little on the thread that non-contradictor listed. One of my concerns that I expressed there was the difficulty of small businesses being able to wield the necessary capital to secure their infrastructure, that is, their own roads. No one ever addressed that. Multiple owners with multiple fee structures all operating within the 2-mile drive it takes me to go to the local grocery store would be confusing and inefficient; that small stretch multiplied by millions and millions of road miles boggles the mind. Adding to the  improbablity is that such a system would seem to require that everyone act rationally: I'm not going to hold my breath.

Why presume that that is the only way a private road system would or could work? Why presume that private entrepeneurs, engineers and scientists could never figure out a way to efficiently manage a private road system because it "boggles [your] mind"?

You ought to know better than to declare a problem unsolvable by anyone--even by the conjoined knowledge, intelligence, and initiative of millions of businessmen and scientists world-wide--because you cannot conceive of a solution.

Do you know how millions of private entrepeneurs manage the mind-boggling international system we call "the economy"? Think about the production of cars, computers, and other incredibly complex products. How in the world is the production of complex goods--whose thousands of parts come from and are assembled all over the world, and whose production takes years to complete--coordinated and accomplished by millions of businessmen world-wide?

Roads, or any other form of infrastructure, are no different in principle.

In any case, efficiency is no justification for the violation of rights. The government cannot act contrary to its sole purpose of protecting individual rights, just because it judges that certain individuals are providing certain services inefficiently.

The same could be argued over health-care. If the government did't provide or regulate health-care, wouldn't all kinds of quacks become doctors, blah, blah, blah?

[the tortured one]

Hangnail, regarding your questions concerning national parks...

is there any real difference between a man who digs for gold beneath the grand canyon, and Government politicians selling oil drilling rights on public property to the oil company they used to work for?

what makes you think the government is more resistant to corruption than private enterprise?

The United States government is far and away the world's largest polluter, and to make matters worse, Sovereign immunity makes them immune to paying for the damages. I'd rather have an entity that is bound by the law in charge of the environment then an entity that makes the laws running it.

[Tom Rexton]

Roads and National Parks seem to always be where my discussions with non-objectivists fall apart, I’m standing firm on the facts until I say something like “yes government’s should do nothing but enforce the law and protect it’s citizens.  A government shouldn’t own anything, not even a road” and that’s were my argument starts to fall apart.  Probably because I’m not convinced myself that this is true.

It seems that translating this philosophy of a government not operating the roads or owning land into reality could lead to some disastrous results.  And as we all agree... there is not such thing as something that’s good in theory but disastrous in reality.  So help me understand why these potentially disastrous consequences wouldn't happen...

If the government didn’t own, or at least regulate roads…

1. Wouldn’t there be huge amounts of confusion about how to interconnect roads, where they should go and where they shouldn’t?

What confusion? Whose? Or is it that you cannot conceive of an efficient method of establishing a private system of roads? What makes you think that because you cannot conceive of an efficient private solution, no one can and therefore the government should intervene?

2. Wouldn’t competition between road owners require that many redundant roads to exist?  So if there is a lot of traffic between a and b, 4 roads would be built to complete with each other when one large road would be a more efficient use of space?

What makes you think private entrepeneurs would opt for the multiple road scenario? Saying that redundant roads might exist is like saying redundant production plants may exist and waste resources. Have you forgotten how the market system works to make the allocation and use of resources as productive as possible?

3. If many different road owners existed, wouldn’t the process of paying tolls between a and b require more time than paying taxes and therefore be a less efficient process for transportation than paying taxes?

What makes you think that the only way to pay for roads is to pay tolls as you drive on that road? What makes you think that no one could possibly come up with an efficient solution?

4. What if road owners dispute each other?  Similar to the disputes between Microsoft’s .NET platform and Sun’s Java platform.  Two different development environments that programmers must choose between and focus their careers on.  What if this happened with roads?  What if certain cars only worked on company A’s roads and certain cars only worked on company B’s.  Wouldn’t this also be less efficient? And wouldn't this lack of efficiency make our marketplace less effective?  (less land to build on because more of it is dedicated to a less efficient road system)

What makes you think profit-seeking entrepeneurs would rationally restrict the kind of vehicles able to travel on their roads, especially if it resulted in very limited through-traffic and thus reduced revenue?

Then there is the issue of national parks.  What is essentially government owned land for the protection and preservation of “nature.”  There is no question that we exist in order to conquer nature and there is no question that if dropped in a jungle with no tools for survival, most likely, you would die a miserable death being eaten alive.  Nature is not our friend.  However, nature is beautiful to look at (the grand canyon, Yosemite, etc.) and there are incredibly special parts of nature that make all life on earth possible (algae creates most of our oxygen, etc.).  These things are very special for the reason that it takes millions or even billions of years to create them.  So based on these premises, I ask the following questions…

1. What if a private owner of Yosemite discovered gold beneath the valley floor and because it was more profitable in his lifetime to strip mine the valley and close it to the public, he decided to go ahead with this?  I understand that this would be his right to do this with his property, but doesn’t the rest of humanity loose something as a whole when this happens?  Something that can never be replaced?  Perhaps things that can never be replaced, shouldn't be bought and sold? 

Why? Humanity as a whole owns nothing. Only individuals have property. Remember, groups have no rights apart from the rights possessed by the inidividuals constituting the group.

If humanity truly valued the park so greatly, it would be far more profitable for him to make it into a park rather than a gold-mine. Do you know by what proccess consumer demand makes certain business activities profitable while others not? Or more profitable than others?

2. Isn’t it wise to promote the establishment of national parks in other countries and to lead by example… because our life requires that certain parts of nature continue to exist?  (rainforests, oceans, lakes… etc)  Wouldn’t it seem to be a wise decision to protect certain bare minimums of nature from clear cutting and development in order to preserve our own lives? 

What in the world makes you think that private entrepeneurs would plunder and destroy natural resources so that they will have nothing left in the future? This is totally against their self-interest. This if for the same reason that privately owned forests and lands are the best-kept and least plundered and wasted.

3. And if number 2 is true, then wouldn’t we actually be called upon to defend ourselves with force if, for example, Brazil wanted to clear cut the entire Amazon?

No.

One major suggestion: read up on economics. Your arguments on efficiency and wasteful competition and resource use sound too much like many common, fallacious anti-capitalists arguments. Ever heard of Marx's phrase "anarchy of production"? which he used to argue for CENTRALIZED economic planning--i.e., for communism, because he thought capitalism is wasteful and disordered, and that government control and planning would be ordered and efficient?

Specifically, I'd suggest Reisman's Capitalism. (It's free for download as a PDF)

[the tortured one]

This is an Essay by the Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Yes, I am aware that he's a Libertarian, but I try to be Objective in such things, and in this instance, he does make a pretty good case for private control of the Environment vs government control

Thirty years of competition between undue alarmism and unthinking skepticism have confused environmental issues in the minds of most Americans.

...

The first thing that we have to realize is that property rights and free markets are essential protectors of, not detriments to, a clean, sustainable environment.

The phenomenon was most pronounced in Eastern Europe during the heyday of the Soviet Union, but it's also discernible in America: Government is the biggest polluter, and the biggest facilitator of pollution.

If we're going to preserve and redeem our environment, we must understand that pollution isn't mitigated by policies which legitimize it and even facilitate the trade of "pollution credits"—a quantified, qualified "right to pollute." Pollution, properly understood, is an offense against the property rights of those whom it affects, and should be treated as an actionable tort to be adjudicated by the legal system.

Secondly, we must do away with corporate welfare and its kissing cousin, "public property." When we vest control of our wild lands in government, why are we surprised when politicians turn around and sell timber and mining "rights" -- at below-market prices, with taxpayer-subsidized roads to facilitate exploitation thrown in—to the corporate interests which support their political aspirations?

When an individual or business owns property, there's a built-in incentive to steward that property. When "the public" owns property, the only incentive is for everyone to "get theirs"—and the corporations wield more influence in deciding how much is "theirs" than you or I do...

[Sherlock]

Tom Rexton,

Your responses seem to be heavily laden with scorn (what makes YOU think...YOU cannot conceive of a solution...) so it hardly seems worth responding to. If you could offer likely alternative scenarios instead of squirting attitude around, that would be more constructive, but I won't hold my breath...

You wrote: "What in the world makes you think that private entrepeneurs would plunder and destroy natural resources so that they will have nothing left in the future?"

Geee, how about "because it's happened in the past"? Have you ever heard of Passenger Pigeons? They were overhunted and completely wiped out. The market hunters who depended on them destroyed that natural resource. This is where the weak link is in all of this: people don't always act rationally.

[the tortured one]

But the point he makes is unmistakably evident, don't write something off just because you can't think of a solution. Remember when they wanted to close the patent office around the year 1900 because they felt that everything which could be invented, had already been invented.

You're right, people don't always act rationally. But what makes you think that the government is made up of nothing but rational people? What makes you think the government can be trusted to always make the rational decision?

[Sherlock]

The tortured one,

You asked: "But what makes you think that the government is made up of nothing but rational people?"

But I don't think that. Where did you come up with that one?

You asked, "What makes you think the government can be trusted to always make the rational decision?"

Nothing makes me think that, because I don't think that at all nor did I say anything to that effect. What makes you ask a question based on assumptions that are incorrect?

Fallible people make up governments and so governments are (duh!) fallible. My point was that despite its fallibility, the government, because of its size and coherence, may be the best entity for managing roads. Provide me with logical and (most importantly) possible alternatives and I'll re-consider. Hint: don't give me a scenario that depends upon everyone acting rationally, because that won't happen.

[ex_banana-eater]

There are already many threads on the workability of roads, hangnail. As to the incentive of owners to create an efficient intertwined system, (re)read my post here

Fallible people make up governments and so governments are (duh!) fallible. My point was that despite its fallibility, the government, because of its size and coherence, may be the best entity for managing roads.

The government is the absolute worst entity for managing roads since it operates on coercion. End of story. Secondly, it is inefficient compared to capitalism, as is any monopoly. Coercive monopolies create deadweight.

[Sherlock]

ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "Secondly, it is inefficient compared to capitalism, as is any monopoly."

And that raises again a question which I asked about on that "roads" thread but was never answered: how are small businesses going to be able to have the capital to ensure their own infrastructure? It seems to me that it is far more likely that big companies with lots of capital can buy most of the infrastructure and drive their smaller competitors out of business. It seems to me that what we would end up with would be road monopolies.

[the tortured one]

You asked: "But what makes you think that the government is made up of nothing but rational people?"

But I don't think that. Where did you come up with that one?

You asked, "What makes you think the government can be trusted to always make the rational decision?"

Nothing makes me think that, because I don't think that at all nor did I say anything to that effect. What makes you ask a question based on assumptions that are incorrect?

you implied that because people make irrational decisions, private enterprise can't be trusted to maintain roads or the enviroment. Using deductive reasoning, I gathered that you ment to say that even though we can't trust private enterprise, we can trust government, since the only two types of property besides private are public and common property, and the notion that roads can be consigned to common property is quite frankly, absurd.

here are some good essays on road privatization, because to be honest, this is not a topic I have researched with any degree of depth.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan76.html

here is a more scholarly work, done by Thomas Dilorenzo

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf

as for the Enviroment, even Llewellyn Rockwell, himself being a Christian subjunctivist anarchist, confessed that the only group of people who have a consistent view on the Environment are the Objectivists (or the Randians, as some like to call it for whatever strange reason)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/envirohate.html

heres a another good one on the environment.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds33.html

In case anyone is wondering why I am drawing sources from Libertarians, is because their philosophy is a variation of the popular altruist philosophy, they must defend Capitalism on grounds that it is the greatest good for the greatest number, and as a result, must resort to proving that economically as opposed to morally. And since the questions you are posing are economic problems as opposed to moral problems, then I will draw my my sources which best serve my interests..

[ex_banana-eater]

how are small businesses going to be able to have the capital to ensure their own infrastructure? It seems to me that it is far more likely that big companies with lots of capital can buy most of the infrastructure and drive their smaller competitors out of business. It seems to me that what we would end up with would be road monopolies.

Infact, why wouldn't this happen with all industries? Why isn't everything a monopoly right now, is it because we have anti-trust to save us?

Yes, big companies are more efficient than little companies. Big box stores are replacing expensive mom and pop stores, and grocery chains are replacing corner grocers. Before I bother answering your question further, define what you mean by "infrastructure." Do you mean land a road would be built on, or do you mean money to pay for cement trucks and contractors?

Also, please remember to differentiate between coercive monopolies and natural monopolies, which operate under different economics. The natural one must keep its prices low to ward off competitors and keep customers from going to a related field.

[the tortured one]

actually Ex, current trends in the market show a higher concentration of Entrepenurial jobs, more larger companies are cutting employee numbers and more small businesses are opening up. My theory is that this is caused by technology, which is making operations which typically took a team of people feasible by a single man and his computer. The spreadsheet comes to mind. Higher technology is actually making it more difficult for the larger companies to establish market dominance, because techniques that were typically only reserved for the companies that could afford them are now available to smaller companies thanks to technology.

not that I am contradicting you, because I feel it complements and supports your arguement.

Regardless, the only immoral monopolies are the ones that use coercion. Such as the unions' monopolies on labor when they lobby for the government to make non-union workers illegal.

[Tom Rexton]

... This is where the weak link is in all of this: people don't always act rationally.

Gee, and that's your rationale for government ownership of roads?

Of course people don't always act rationally--on any and all business activities. One can always come up with examples of corrupt business deals and practices. But does that justify communism?

Government is far more prone to corruption and irrationality--not to mention despotism.

[Tom Rexton]

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that just because a certain service may be inefficiently provided for by a private business compared to government, that is in NO WAY a rationale for government-ownership of businesses that provide such services. Efficiency is NOT a justification for violating rights, or for allowing the government to act beyond it sole purpose: to protect individual rights.

Your argument that efficiency (in providing non-defense services) justifies government intervention and involvement is a very dangerous premise. It could be argued that many services, such as healthcare and education, could be provided for more efficiently by government, and therefore government should provide such services.

----------[edited, added the following]

I have a specific question for Sherlock.

My argument against government-ownership of roads is not based on concrete scenarios postulating the operations of a private system of roads; it is based on the following principle of Objectivism:

The sole purpose of government is to protect the individual's rights.

In order for the government to own and operate roads to provide an efficient transportation infrastructure, it must be first established that the individual has a right to such efficient transportation infrastructure at the expense of other individuals.

I sincerely believe that the individual has NO SUCH RIGHT. I am rather scornful of people who believe otherwise because the notion seems downright deleterious to me--just like the notion that people have a right to healthcare, education, job, welfare, etc...

[AisA]

Tom Rexton is correct. To assert a right to a man-made product or service -- whether it is roads or medicine -- is to assert a right to the efforts of others, i.e. the right to dictate what others must produce. This is nothing less than declaring a right to slaves.

[Sherlock]

ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "Infact, why wouldn't this happen with all industries? Why isn't everything a monopoly right now, is it because we have anti-trust to save us?"

No, it's because smaller companies are more creative and flexible, and able to deliver goods (and especially services) in a way that ensures their continued existence in most sectors (not all). Small business fosters entrepreneurship; big business stifles it. However, in order for small businesses to survive, they need relatively equal access to roads. If roads were owned by big companies (the only ones likely to have the capital to buy the land, build the road, and maintain it), I can see the gradual snuffing out of competition by those big companies. (And in answer to your other question, yes, I am referring to roads in this case when I speak of infrastructure.)

You wrote: "Yes, big companies are more efficient than little companies."

Only in some ways: it's true that big companies have more capital at their disposal and have the advantage of bulk purchasing, but they are not as efficient in other, very important, ways.

So far, no one has seen fit to address this other than to rail at me for positions that I don't, in fact, hold.

[Tom Rexton]

ex_banana-eater,

...

So far, no one has seen fit to address this other than to rail at me for positions that I don't, in fact, hold.

So do you think that roads should be privately owned?

[AisA]

ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "Infact, why wouldn't this happen with all industries? Why isn't everything a monopoly right now, is it because we have anti-trust to save us?"

No, it's because smaller companies are more creative and flexible, and able to deliver goods (and especially services) in a way that ensures their continued existence in most sectors (not all). Small business fosters entrepreneurship; big business stifles it. However, in order for small businesses to survive, they need relatively equal access to roads. If roads were owned by big companies (the only ones likely to have the capital  to buy the land, build the road, and maintain it), I can see the gradual snuffing out of competition by those big companies. (And in answer to your other question, yes, I am referring to roads in this case when I speak of infrastructure.)

You wrote: "Yes, big companies are more efficient than little companies."

Only in some ways: it's true that big companies have more capital at their disposal and have the advantage of bulk purchasing, but they are not as efficient in other, very important, ways.

So far, no one has seen fit to address this other than to rail at me for positions that I don't, in fact, hold.

You have three premises here: 1) that individual companies would build roads to their businesses, and 2) that competing businesses would be located close to one another, such that the bigger, road-owning business would be able to deny access to its smaller competitor and 3) there will be no businesses dedicated to building roads.

None of these premises makes any sense.

1) Businesses are not going to spring up in the middle of nowhere and proceed to build roads to their plants. It does not make economic sense to do that. It in fact would put that business at an economic disadvantage relative to its competitors, who, having chosen to locate where roads already exist, do not have to shoulder the expense of creating them.

2) No business would move adjacent to its competitor if that competitor controlled the only access.

3) The capital required to build roads, the equipment, is highly specialized and is much more likely to be owned by companies dedicated to building roads. This maximizes the utilization of expensive assets and would be vastly more efficient than purchasing bulldozers, front-end loaders, earth movers and paving machines to build one road to one plant.

[Inspector]

...but doesn’t the rest of humanity loose something as a whole when this happens?  Something that can never be replaced?  Perhaps things that can never be replaced, shouldn't be bought and sold? 

Your confusion is in thinking, consciously or subconsciously, that Yosemite is owned by "the rest of humanity." I notice that when I eat a cheeseburger that I bought, you don't ask "doesn’t the rest of humanity loose something as a whole when this happens?"

This is because you see that the cheeseburger is mine, and I am the only one that can derive value from it by right. Someone else might smell the deliciousness of my cheeseburger as he walks by, and derive a value from it, just as someone who does not own the grand canyon might derive a value from seeing it on TV. But that does not give either of them a right to those values.

Any time any resource is consumed, it is transformed; often losing some value that it had once held. Ownership is the rational concept that man has created to deal with this fact of reality.