I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there,

I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there, that is used, that is part of the local culture and used in a shared way without any sense of ownership. Saying the state owns the roads is fine, but it still strips from the community the possibility to do whatever with it. I don't think the article talks about privatisation, but rather talks about ownership, and more importantly, about lack of ownership. In a capitalist world, something owned by noone quickly get a flag planted in it saying "this is mine" by some organisation. And that how you transform public space, plant species, spectrum frequencies, ...