Some readers may object to the melting pot of property ownership implied by the definition of STATE PROPERTY. In particular, the lack of distinction between state-owned and privately-owned property may offend some advocates of free markets and private property. I fully realize that there are important differences between these two kinds of ownership. This is especially true with respect to the practical incentives and responsibilities involved with the stewareship and use of property such as real estate. However, for a philosophical comparison of the two general concepts of property described, this distinction is not important. Private property without coercion is legitimate; private property with coercion is not.
Copyright at Common Law, West El Paso Information Network, 1997