Guys, guys, guys. (S)he is right. We do not in fact own anything, given the large governmental powers of taxation, regulation, and eminent domain. We are merely living by the mercy of our slavers leaders.
But here is the problem in his(her) theory - because we don’t actually own anything, we must by necessity demand everything for free - for we have nothing to trade for something - because we don’t own anything.
So the premise is correct, but the conclusion is logically unfeasible. Unless we ought to all die.
As to the Dubai or Monaco (variants of the Somalia fallacy), see here:
Argumentum ad Somalium explained with a parable:
If you don’t like being raped, move away from your rapy neighborhood.
The implications are clear:
- If you don’t move and you are raped, you have consented to that rape and it’s your own damn fault.
- Thus, you have no right to complain about rape or demand the cessation of rape.
- Thus, you are a hypocrite if you stay but complain about rape.
Argumentum ad Somalium is a very powerful manipulative fallacy, because it combines a smear with a blame-the-victim, a false dichotomy, a beg-the-question, and a number of false assumptions.
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part10
Argumentum ad Somalium is a fallacy, because its core implication “love it or leave it” is a false dichotomy, quite manipulative and corrupt in nature. When a person rightfully complains about something he perceives as immoral. “Loving it” and “leaving it” are not the only options – other valid options are decrying “it” or seeking to end “it” without going anywhere too.
Of course, children are taught this fallacy in state schools as a defense of statism, so it is not surprising that it is so pervasive.