[readthenotes1]

Your idea of ownership is simplistic. Around me, the local government owns the home as can be easily found out if you don't pay your annual rent called "property tax".

Even if you are not a homeower, you still are not free and clear...

[baseballdork]

I would say that _your_ idea of ownership is simplistic. You seem to be implying that ownership is only possible if you can own something in perpetuity without any related responsibilities. It's the same idea as "taxation is theft" and other libertarian nonsense.

[valbaca]

> and other libertarian nonsense

Hacker News subtitle

[readthenotes1]

I'm not a libertarian by any means, nor do I think of tax as theft.

But if someone can legitimately take away property because you don't pay them, I don't think it's yours.

[baseballdork]

Which is why that’s an extremely simplistic view. It’s literally the simplest possible idea of ownership.

[readthenotes1]

Well, it's certainly less simplistic than "I claim I own it therefore I do"

[baseballdork]

And if that was an actual statement people made, then you'd be right to say that. However, I think we can dispense with the strawman. Ownership exists in the real world, which means it necessarily conforms to the laws of the society in which it resides. Your view is a child's perspective on ownership.