By Joakim Book
The socialist elites that dominate our institutions insist that private property is nothing more than a social construct held together by violence. As usual, they misunderstand that scarcity itself, which is the basis for economics, is also the basis for private property.

Excerpts from the article

Knut Svanholm:
Audio files were suddenly sharable among internet users because they had become small. A domino had fallen over that would soon make the entire record industry obsolete. And not only the record industry but the whole entertainment industry. Any computer file could now be shared with anyone on Earth over the internet for free.
Mises:
free goods as their ability to produce definite effects is unlimited. They can become economic goods only if they are monopolized and their use is restricted. . . . [Patents] are considered privileges, a vestige of the rudimentary period of their evolution when legal protection was accorded to authors and inventors only by virtue of an exceptional privilege granted by the authorities. They are suspect, as they are lucrative only if they make it possible to sell at monopoly prices.
yes, something that is scarce can be private
something that is abundant can also be private but not exclusive
private property can be something that is scarce and also something that is abundant
reply
The purpose of property rights is to allow peaceful resolution of disputes over resources. It only really makes sense for rivalrous things.
reply
yes i agree. enforcing then privateness of the property only matters if it is something scarce
reply
without formal laws, communities developed customary rules and norms to manage and resolve conflicts over scarce resources. These customs functioned as proto-legal systems that regulated property rights
reply