• AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think taxes negate ownership.

    If you rent you need permission for every modification, every pet, even for something like planting a garden.

    Ownership can be conditional; you can own a domain, but if you don’t pay the renewal fee it can be taken away; you can own a car, but if you drive it without paying your registration it can be impounded; you can own a business, but if you don’t pay your license renewal it can be revoked.

    Owning something doesn’t mean it can never be taken away or that you don’t need to do anything to keep it.

    • DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      your interpretation of the concept of ownership practically renders the word meaningless.

      to most people it does in fact mean that it can’t normally be taken away, even though such a thing might be physically or legally possible.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        You could take the interpretation of “ownership” to many ridiculous conclusions, from “all ownership is theft” to “nothing is owned” to “all governent is crime” to “all taxation is theft” etc…

        From a practical standpoint, “ownership” is an arbitrary threshold of exclusivity that is generally respected by society under appropriate conditions. Where that threshold and what the conditions are will vary by the type of property and general social sensibilities.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s not meaningless, it’s about who controls a thing. What makes you think ownership must not have conditions?