The more important point in the analogy is that people who buy houses aren't in prison. The other important point is that a house free house forever without res

The more important point in the analogy is that people who buy houses aren't in prison. The other important point is that a house free house forever without restrictions doesn't exist - you're still beholden to zoning laws, fire safety laws, environmental regulations, you couldn't use the house as a meth lab or fly kites from it into restricted airspace, or broadcast from it into restricted radio bands, or a thousand other things. And for your own self-interest you want to keep it clear of insects, keep the roof waterproof, keep the floors from collapsing, etc. Then it becomes a lot clearer that there are tradeoffs around amount of effort needed, amount of money spent, amounts of freedoms, with many reasonable choices for different people and use-cases, rather than the implied binary choice.