I've spent the past two days digging out cars under about 16 inches of snow. I dug out my car and my girlfriend's car yesterday. Today I dug out my parents' cars. As I dug out my parents' cars, I noticed that there were chairs, trash cans, and other objects in newly cleaned spaces. People put those objects there to let others know that the space "belongs" to someone else. It is easy to understand why people do this. After someone has spent 30 minutes or so removing snow so that he can drive his car, he would like to have the space when he returns home. He does not want to come home and see a freerider parked in "his" space. I say "belongs" and "his" because these are public streets and, thus, it is not clear who owns them. However, we can be sure that if the State is involved, the taxpayer certainly does not "own" them.
But I find the situation interesting because it illustrates two things. First, it demonstrates how the lack of clear property rights can potentially lead to conflict. Suppose I have cleared out a space and put a chair in it, but someone else removes my chair and parks his car there. I can complain or I could be diplomatic and use reason to persuade him to move from the space. But since I do not actually "own" the space, I have no right to use force to make him move his car. Even though I applied my labor and changed the nature of the land to accommodate my desires, I did not own the land upon which I mixed my labor.
One could argue that since I have "paid" taxes which were used to create the street, I do in fact "own" the street. But this is problematic. For one thing, this street was built before I was born. I cannot "own" something which was created before I was born unless it has been transferred to me by the legitimate owner. But if the street was built after I was born and I was earning an income which was taxed by the government to build the street, it is still not clear that I own the street. Other people have also "paid" their taxes and they would also have a claim to the street. My neighbors would definitely want to claim the part of the street which I cleaned. But such is the problem of public streets, public schools, or anything publicly-owned. It is not clear who owns the public street, but we can be sure that the State will simply assert that it owns it because it built it. The fact that the State received the money through the violence of taxation is irrelevant; the State has more guns than we have and and the will to use them against those who disobey its edicts.
Second, however, it demonstrates how people have a natural understanding of Lockean homesteading. People believe that mixing labor with land gives them "ownership" of the area which they dug out. And many neighbors accept this as ownership. In my parents' neighborhood, the neighbors will not park in a space which they have not dug out. They realize that the person who worked hard to clean out the space "owns" the space. After the snow melts, "ownership" is no longer recognized, but this is because good parking spaces are no longer scarce in my parents' neighborhood.
This is not the case with a publicly owned road. The "owner" who removed the snow will not be recognized as the legitimate owner of the street by the law; hence, if he were to remove the "squatter's" vehicle by force, he would be considered an aggressor. Of course, if the streets were privately owned, there would be no potential conflict. If the owner actually owned the space, he would not have to worry about someone parking in his space. If someone did park in his space, he would be justified in using force to remove the squatter's vehicle. Moreover, the law in this case would recognize that the owner does have this right and is justified in removing the squatter's vehicle.
So while publicly owned streets breed potential conflict, it is refreshing to know that many people have an innate understanding of Lockean homesteading. They voluntarily accept the idea of ownership of a parking space until the snow melts and the good parking spaces are no longer scarce. This innate understanding suggests that people do have an instinctive sense of natural rights and it gives me a small amount of hope for the future of humanity.