1.  Right (or rather a social opportunity or informal right – not necessarily a legal or formal right) to manage and to control property to one’s own personal advantage,

2.  Right (informal right) to alienate property or simply right to sell and exchange property and to appropriate proceeds of such selling, and

3.  Right (informal right) to appropriate some important income from utilization of particular property

In our investigation of the nature of State ownership or of State proprietorship rather than asking ourselves why State property does not belong to people (or why it does not belong to all people on equal basis) we must ask - what makes us think that State property does belong to the people. It is fairly evident to assume that under no circumstances people are the true real proprietors of state or “public” property especially if we would abstract from a cliché we all are grown up with and especially if we think about dictatorship, which comprises more than 99.9% of historical statehood taken both in time and in space. Any argumentation provided in this sense will probably seems somewhat extravagant and irrelevant. To explain why state property does not belong to people is almost the same as trying to persuade people to think that our planet is not flat-shaped. Those are not reason and rational arguments what keeps us to believe in opposite statement of things, but merely based on ancient tradition irrational emotional appeal. However, since there is still some misunderstanding on this matter - here are several logical observations.

1. First of all the category “people” means and explains almost nothing in social sciences unlike in cheap political propaganda. People are even hardly a sociological group – it is rather merely an unorganized set of separate private individuals, scarcely united at all, especially with vanished importance of national states and corresponding disappearance of national ideologies. Particular individuals are separated from each other, first of all, by a lack of any common (common for all people – for each and every single person) economic and property interests – we all are having different and quite often, unfortunately, even mutually exclusive interests.

2. Probably one of the main reasons why we suppose that there is such thing as “public” property, which belongs to people, is a proclamation of such statement of things in law or even in national constitutions (although even there this fact is not always entirely explicit) as well as by the entire social infrastructure. However, law is never determining either property relations or societal structure and is merely marking down on paper societal relations established by existing in society balance of power. For the sake of political economy or sociology we cannot be limited by legislative declarations as well as by any proclamations of the other elements of social infrastructure – in social sciences we must not trust them generally. Law just like any other part of social infrastructure normally is presenting things in a way, which is convenient for individuals and social groups in power and serves their personal financial interests.

3. People or rather welfare beneficiaries (which are only part of the “people” and so far not yet the biggest part) actually are not earning any income through the State (such income even for tax purposes is normally considered as “unearned income”) – their income is redistributed to them i.e. is being coercively taken away from other people and transferred to concrete beneficiaries whatever justification of such an action is. Unearned income more than anything else testifies that this is not an income of proprietor. Proprietor always has to earn his income at least somehow even if he is having exceptionally exclusive or monopolistic property rights – otherwise we deal with a pure case of robbery, which politically is very difficult to sell and which people do not tolerate long enough.

4. If we would abstract for a moment from reality and imagine that state property does belong to all people, then everybody suppose to make a living, partially or entirely, from this property. While even in our days of comprehensive socialism not yet everybody is receiving whatever income from the State. More like vice-a-versa - so far majority of people are receiving negative income from the State paying taxes. If people do not receive income from their property (which in fact does generate income and revenues), if some of them receive income from the State while the others do not, if some of them receive big while the others only crumbs, if majority is paying while minority is receiving what kind of proprietors are they?

5. Except for election of the government, people rarely, if at all, have any influence upon decision-making related to administration of state property and state revenues. Generally people even have no particular interest in such management mainly because so far they receive their major income from sources outside of the state property. It is almost the same as with small corporate and mutual funds’ shareholders. We do not care about management and control. It is not why we invested – we invest only for the sake of income and not in order to manage anything. People directly (especially if they are receiving their major income outside of the State) are having almost zero participation in management of the state property and almost zero interest in such management. If people have little possibility and little interest in management of the state property (the latter fact also exhibits general disbelieve in affirmations that state property belongs to them) and if in their majority they receive negative income from the State (although State gets permanently growing revenues) what kind of proprietors are they?

Even if it is hardly credible that people are true real proprietors of the state property as well as that state property does not belong to anybody (it is not a characteristic of property - not to belong to anybody), still remains a question why do we rather tend to promote for this role top-level State bureaucracy and representatives? Actually a main obstacle for proper apprehension of who are real proprietors of the State is our faithful and inexorable belief in the nature of “public” property and in hypothesis declined above. Once we are skeptical that state property is people’s property – very few reasonable doubts remain about nature of the state property and about who controls it. However, since there is some misunderstanding on that matter either - here are several logical observations.

1. First of all, we must clearly differentiate between private property rights upon the State under dictatorship when dictator does not have any limits for his control over state property (as well as over mechanisms of coercion) and between social group property claims upon the State as a production factor monopoly under democracy without private property rights upon the state property on behalf of particular bureaucrats. State property rights under democracy are merely more dispersed than under dictatorship, just like property rights in corporation are more dispersed than in private company.

2. State property management. Strategic and operational management of the state property is a fundamental and explicit task of the top-level state bureaucracy. If it is not – what else is State bureaucracy good for and what it is all about?

3. Alienation and appropriation of state property. One particular limitation related to the state property creates certain misunderstanding – impossibility to sell property on behalf of particular public officials and to appropriate direct gains from that, which is based upon the fact that any separately taken public official is not yet a proprietor of any part or of any subdivision of the state property. At the same time, right to alienate property, even though we have historical examples of various restrictions on that account, is usually integrated in our understanding of property rights. Particular corporate shareholder (as a proprietor) taken separately has no any rights to sell corporate property either (unless he holds a majority of votes). It is a joint prerogative of all proprietors. While representatives or top-level State bureaucracy can sell State property in the very same way. Sometimes it takes only two persons - a head of the government and a minister responsible for particular domain; sometimes even only one person – the minister. The other thing is that particular bureaucrat cannot sell and even does not have his particular “share” of State property. However, any production factor monopoly, not just the State, because of its scale rarely belongs to one person (whoever he is – it is very difficult for him to fool and to coerce an entire society long enough) and is controlled by particular people united in social group. While top-level state bureaucracy taken as a group and comfortably small as it is can and always does alienate or acquire any state property with a sole guidance of its own interests and first of all of the consequential possibilities to appropriate in different ways the main proceeds (including political ones) from such actions. In this case we are very close to a story of a landlord under feudalism, who probably might sell his land (though extremely unlikely because of a variety of social and economic constraints) but who still cannot alienate his exclusive rights and privileges as a member of particular social group of land aristocracy. Even selling his land, he still remains to be a part of this social group with its particular privileges (easily transferable in direct financial gains such as attractive and not too troublesome position with king’s administration or in military service, etc.) owing to his origin, to his social status and to his noble descent.

4. Income appropriation. Income and associated benefits of the top-level state bureaucracy unlike income from the State of welfare and social protection beneficiaries (which is big as a total but quite insignificant taken separately per person) are rather impressive. Besides socially allocated (relying on mechanisms of coercion) personal income we can also see socially allocated indirect financial and non-financial benefits as well as resources appropriated within implementation of different State functions – luxurious office related benefits such as transportation (cars, traveling, etc. related to particular positions), office premises, dining and wining, social events; employment possibilities for friends and relatives; opportunities for promotion of affiliated organizations and political parties; political, social and economic influence including contracting influence and bargaining power; after-the-office benefits; personal affirmation, pride, self-esteem etc.; information transferable in financial gains for example on stock market and so on, and on, and on. Besides, income of the state bureaucracy is rather permanent and permanently growing. Not only this income is permanent for bureaucracy as a whole but in fact for every single top-level public official as well. Even if somebody is loosing his current position, he is usually getting another one either inside or outside of the State unless he does something terrible.

5. Allocating State revenues. State bureaucracy is not only determining income connected with the state property of the rest of society, but with a much higher degree of autonomy or with insignificant influence on behalf of any other people and social groups they are establishing their own incomes and evaluating their own economic and social contribution. State revenues and level of taxation are almost in exclusive prerogative of top-level state bureaucracy. They only have to make sure that their greediness is not crossing a line of tolerance and social illusions. And even that is not so important as long as they can provide voters with a permanent stream or even growth of redistributed benefits

6. Marking price of state services. Price of the State or level of taxation, although experiences influence of a large variety of special interests, is permanently growing and whatever are motivation and reasons for such growth, it is definitely and absolutely in favor of the state bureaucracy. State bureaucracy is always pushing level of taxation up in the sky, artfully utilizing to its utmost personal advantage the entire welfare ideology.

7. Paying the costs. Paying costs or state expenditures for the state bureaucracy is not only a burden, which is deducting financial resources from state revenues and therefore is diminishing a share left for distribution among top-level public officials. State expenditures, which quite often are exceeding state revenues, actually form an enormous part of the state influence and of state domination in society and therefore also of the influence of state bureaucracy. State expenditures are under exclusive control of the state bureaucracy and serve considerably to its direct and indirect advantages.

8. Managing mechanisms of power and coercion. Exclusive rights on application of coercion are an unshared and inseparable prerogative of the state bureaucracy. People cannot apply coercion against themselves – somebody else has to apply it for them. Those who apply coercion and those against whom it is applied normally are absolutely different groups of people.

9. State bureaucracy as a social group. State bureaucracy is a very organized group with a straightforward logic of unification and hierarchy, while all other individuals and social groups, which pretend to have any claims upon state property normally are just sets of certain numbers, hardly united at all.

It is natural that claims towards the state property just like any other property rights are having their limitations. However, first of all, property claims of top-level state bureaucracy upon the State are absolutely exceeding property claims of any other individuals and social groups and secondly neither throughout human history nor in our age of an uncontrollable socialism economic rights of any particular proprietor completely correspond to a pure definition of property. Property rights are always limited and restricted by mechanisms of power and coercion at societal level or by societal balance of power.