Productive property that is properly managed for sustainable yields, like a family farm, is one thing. But common property, like public forests or (the best example) fisheries, is something else altogether. There is a difference between a copper mine and an apple orchard.

In the case of the mine, the concept of sustainability does not apply. New copper ore does not replace what is removed. But the land the mine is on, and the wastes it generates, do affect the commonwealth long after the mine is played out. Managing that should be part of the cost of mining. Furthermore, removal of the ore in such a way that profit is maximized but full, long term utilization of the resource is impeded is also a theft of communal property. So is destroying a forest in order to get at a few high-value trees of only a few species, or dragging trawls through a rich marine ecosystem in order to remove just one valuable fish stock.

No one, not even the Marxists, believes all private property should be publicly owned. Unlike the Marxists, I do not believe the means of production should be publicly owned. But the abstract concept of property rights cannot be automatically extended to real natural resources, especially in a time when these resources are diminishing while the demands on them become greater every day.