Ownership

Is there even such a thing?

I got to thinking about the concept of “ownership” today after seeing a video posted on X by Phoebe.

The video is about a letter she got in the mail (UK-based) informing her that she may be investigated for watching TV without a license. The letter stated that anyone “caught” watching TV without a license (the license is 180 pounds/year, by the way) can be fined 1,000 pounds and prosecuted. Prosecution, according to the letter, could be preempted by a “visit” to your home by strangers enforcing such “rules”. I couldn’t make out who sent the letter.

She crumpled it up, and good for her for doing so. Scare tactics can be very functional, but not so, if ignored.

Anyway, this got me thinking about her words at the end of the video about “watching a TV that she bought with her own money”.

Here’s the thing. That isn’t her money and that isn’t her TV. It isn’t even her property where she lives.

The money is controlled by the banks and was lent to her. The banks create money as a liability (the deposit) matched by an asset (the loan). Borrowers (us) spend it, and it is always subject to repayment obligations complete with interest.

When she bought that TV, she [generally] acquired legal ownership whereby the title passed to her as the consumer under a standard sales contract. But with so-called “smart TVs”, the telemetry accumulated from them is usable by whoever buys that data. Data buyers get licenses and rights (rather than absolute ownership), but regulation is a pathetic notion considering anyone can buy this data. Manufacturers (ie: Samsung, LG) control much of this data initially via software, but again, they can share or sell it to third parties (advertisers, data brokers), and you can bet your ass that they do.

Even though most private property is not state-owned, the state regulates said property heavily through taxation: council tax, building regs, inheritance tax, eminent domain equivalents. So even if she owns her property/land, it’s subversively controlled by the state, and thus one could argue that it is therefore not truly owned by her.

So, what is ownership? Does it have any meaning in today’s society?

I would say flat out “NO”.

Did you know that we don’t even own our names? These designations or personal identifiers that we carry around are just assigned to us at birth. We can change them, but it is the state (government) that registered and issued your official legal identity that owns our names, for all intents and purposes. The government (or the country whose laws apply to you) maintains control over your legal name on passports, national ID cards, tax numbers (SIN, SSN, NI number, etc.), driver’s licenses, and other official records. As mentioned, they not only also control the process for changing, correcting, or updating your name, they control how your name is used in legal contexts (contracts, court cases, banking, inheritance, etc.).

We don’t own our passports either. They belong to the government of the country of issuance. And we certainly don’t own any of these multitudes of “licenses” we are “obligated” to present for “identity verification”.

So in effect, I would go as far to claim that we own nothing of who we are here in this material world where society seems to have turned into a custodial surveillance state.

I mean, the WEF uses this same idea in their little catch-phrase that we all know and love, so there is that.

“You will own nothing, and you will be happy.”

Turns out, we’re pretty close to owning nothing as it is, aren’t we? That’s why I always root for true land-title ownership and the second amendment right to bear arms to protect it.

The good news is that we do truly own something that cannot be taken away from us: what we are. What we are is very different from who we are. It is what defines us as conscious beings. You know, that stuff you’re made of that’s “left over” after the material you “dies”? This perceived left-over stuff is so much more than the perception of something existing as a “left-over”.

It’s actually you.

It is ineffable. It is not controllable, buyable, alterable or governable. Most people aren’t even aware that they are more than the ego who that they embody.

You don’t even have to really believe this. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or metaphysical “left-over stuff” either, you just have to recognize that we are conscious beings, because from a purely secular view, consciousness itself is fundamental to our experience. It cannot be bought, governed, or truly taken - only distracted, suppressed, or clouded.

And boy-oh-boy, is consciousness ever distracted, suppressed and clouded.

Circling back to the reason this got me thinking (TVs) about ownership as a concept, TV is a perfect example. There’s a reason they’re called TV “programs”. Smart phones are also perfect examples of potential dopamine-hit brain rotting devices.

Don’t get me wrong. Everything can be useful. But the key is use and moderation is key to this key. Awareness of abuse is also vital. In my opinion, these smart devices should come with a warning label → even a Black Box warning with regard to third party data acquisition. Most of us don’t read constantly-amended “Terms of use” agreements, and just sign them to get on with using our new devices - the whole reason they were obtained in the place is to watch something, etc., right? But that’s your intention and point of view.

What’s theirs?

Think carefully and reasonably about how you orient your energy and time usage. Do think in terms of “ownership” and know and understand that the WEF are not making threats: they are making promises.

Opt out when you can, but more importantly, avoid opting in in the first place. Understand that those devices, and the money you are borrowing to buy them, are not yours.

I will end on a light note:

Do not resolve your beautiful existence to simply being a data point.