As the Marxists put it.

Ownership of assets goes to the heart of the human condition. If nobody cares about a common asset, it can be neglected and degraded, or pillaged and destroyed. If someone owns something, they probably care about it and protect and enhance it.

But many owners of property or goods are not careful owners. So often we see the "dog in a manger" approach that someone will destroy an asset rather than allow others to benefit from it, even after their death. An owner of forest land who cuts the lumber for profit is obligated to replace the crop with something useful - either another crop of timber, or perhaps arable farmland. Of course, in many circumstance, trees will spring up again naturally, but if they do not, the owner SHOULD do something to restore the land to a useful condition.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE ownership of property, and against naked theft, but sometimes an asset must be repossessed by the state, for the good of the asset, and the society. of course, the previous owner should be compensated, but they should also be charged any costs of restoring the asset to a useful condition.

It's complicated, but not all ownership is good, and not all "theft' is bad, imho...