"Not so," argued the editor.  If he, the editor, purchased stock in a corporation, he did so volitionally of his own free will and for profit.  Further, he received (or had the option of receiving) a stock certificate giving evidence that he was an owner in fact of however so many shares of stock.

If he, the editor, did not like the decisions made by the managers of the corporation, he could of course agitate for their removal.  However, he would also be able to sell his stock to someone else, whether it be for more than he paid for it or for less.  He could even refuse to patronize the corporation by refusing to purchase any of its products or services.  Neither of the latter options in this case were possible.

Further, in the case of the park, each taxpayer was compelled to "purchase" shares, whether or not he the taxpayer saw any profit in such a venture.

His purchases were not volitional, as he had no reasonable option under threat of force but to pay whatever fees and taxes were assessed against him, or against the property which he did in fact own within the city.

Further, he the editor had no certificate of ownership and no option to optain one (as the city manager had indicated), and so had no option to even dispose of his non-profitable "ownership" in the park.

The discussion expanded to include some of the park commissioners, appointed in this case by the mayor.  The conclusions reached were these:

1. The "owners" of the park (taxpayers) could make no decisions over what they owned.  They the taxpayers had no authority, and could not even obtain it by an election, even if they replaced the mayor.
2. The persons who exercised the decision-making powers, both elected and non-elected, were in a position to run up costs virtually without limit, and to compel the actual "owners" to pay for any such costs.
3. The persons who used the park did not have to be either decision makers OR "owners".

While those favoring government may argue some of the finer points of the above illustration, the point remains in that the above illustrates a property in a relationship entailing eventual and likely conflict.  Further, this is ALWAYS the case when we are confronted with what is euphemistically called "public" property.

Go to next lesson ...>>