Owning Something Vs Controlling Something
We live in upside down, inside out, backwards world.
Most people want to own something, rather than just control it. They feel safer, more assured of things, if they own something.
However, most people go a register their car with the state. Which means, they give the car to the state in exchange for exclusive right to drive it. Which used to mean something, but the state has failed to uphold its end of that deal, so all you are doing today is giving your car to the state. It is the reason that police officers can take your car. (else impounding your car would be grand theft. Also think about what "register" means, and what we do with babies just after they are born.)
The rich prefer to control something rather than own it. But the rich have enough money on hand that the problems of not owning a thing can be quickly taken care of by buying another one. And, controlling something rather than owning it allows for a lot of legal protections.
So, what did T.H.E.Y. mean when they said, "You will own nothing, and you will be happy".
The rich don't own anything
Take for instance, Hugh Hefner, creator and CEO of Playboy. He lived at the Playboy mansion, and most people assumed he owned it. But he did not. For very important legal and monetary reasons.
Hugh Hefner rented the Playboy mansion for $100 a month, as long as he didn't embarrass Playboy. But, why would they do this? Well, if Hugh owned the mansion, and he did anything, like marry a Playboy Bunny, who decided to divorce rape him, Hugh would lose the mansion. Or think about something bad happened to any of the people who stay at the mansion. It is all a financial and legal nightmare!
But, if a corporation owned the mansion, things are much different. The corporation, being a thing of fiction, would never hurt anyone, and thus couldn't be sued over such. In divorce, the mansion is clearly owned by someone else. Legal liability is serious reduced, if not eliminated.
Financially speaking this is so great, that it has been said that EVERY person should have a corporation. So, this corporation that owned the mansion also paid for the staff, the cleaning, the maintenance. All of this is tax deductible. It is all an expense of the corporation. (When you own your house, all those expenses are yours to bear. AND! you have to pay for them with after tax money) Everything is taken out of gross income BEFORE it is even considered for taxable income.
The problem with these schemes is that it costs money to maintain a corporation. A yearly fee. A lawyer on call.
If you can't afford a lawyer, you can't afford to do this. And no, you cannot do this by yourself. You HAVE TO keep everything separate. Hugh Hefner cannot secretly own the mansion. The corporation that owns the mansion cannot be connected to Hugh. However, your friend, the lawyer, or your married sister(different last name) could control the corporation. (get legal advice on this, because these rules are strict, and they vary from place to place)
And the other expense is that legal shenanigans happen. Someone could try a hostile takeover over the corporation that owns the Playboy Mansion. Then Hugh would find himself locked out of his "home" But Hugh was rich enough to go rent a penthouse suite at the hotel, in case of emergency.
HOWEVER! ALL OF THIS IS DONE BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE BANKSTERS SET UP THE COURTS.
What does it mean to own nothing, and be happy?
"You will own nothing, and be happy" is a very evil statement. But, of course, if you are of a Marxist bent, you will read it as something that is really good and beneficial, and why aren't we living that way already?
You will own nothing… but who has control of the things? If you have inalienable rights to using the things, then it really wouldn't matter who owns them. The question to ask is what will you do if your ability to use the thing, your control, is taken away.
Imagine, if you will, the spatula (yes it is in the advert) that you do not own, the one that is shared between everyone, and you can ask for it, and the system will deliver a spatula to you. So, what if the system is set to something like, you have 15 minutes to use it, because there are 96 people who need to use it, so you got a 15 minute slot. Of course, what happens is that you are making pancakes, and you just need an extra 30 seconds… Sorry, you will just have to finish without a spatula.
But, of course, "you will be happy". Which may be because of all the tranq's and anti-depressants you are forced to consume daily.
Now lets imagine that you do not have inalienable rights to control the spatula. That there is a social credit score you need to maintain to use the spatula? Burning the pancakes is -1000 points. Burn one pancake, and you can kiss your pancake eating days goodbye.
And, of course, there will come a day when all the spatulas are in use and you are SOL.
(Instead of spatula, replace with anything actually important like a place to sleep, or a car to get you home)
What a Marxist hears
This is the most insidious thing. Marx paints a wonderful picture… by leaving out all the horror, evil and should destruction out of the story.
"You will own nothing, and be happy"
Which means, you do not own a spatula, but you are now using one. Where did it come from? As a Marxist, you are taking it from someone else. So, you get to use it, and someone else pays for it. That is not very nice. Actually quite cruel, if you replace spatula with anything that is REALLY important.
The typical neo-Marxist sees this working out with everyone happily sharing the spatula. However, anyone who is familiar with sharing things, it usually means that you will never have it when you need it, or you will have an extreme form of scheduling which almost always puts someone in a state of living without, while some other person always has it when they need it.
In the neo-Marxist's mind, see all those people share a spatula is really heart warming. Everyone's happy.
Which is far from reality
In reality, a spatula is sooooo cheap, and we can easily make more than one for everybody (you can get a decent spatula at the dollar store. Unless you are a spatula snob) and then you can avoid most of the problems revolving around spatulas.
Also, in reality, if you do not own it, you do not take care of it. And soon, all the spatulas will be in very poor shape.
Also, in reality, there is one person who destroys everything. Say we had a person that threw the spatula in the incinerator bin after they were through with it. Because they could just order another one from the system. Never thinking that they were destroying all the town's spatulas.
And how many people have had problem with neighbors "borrowing" things and never returning them? This is the real crux of the issue, the real difference between control and owning. And if that neighbor was actually the govern-cement, you can see how bad things get.
No, not happy at all!