> You are in possession of your home, car, and business because these are things you actively make use of, and need for a decent life. I don't actively make us

> You are in possession of your home, car, and business because these are things you actively make use of, and need for a decent life. I don't actively make use of the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, does that mean I do not possess it and can be taken from me at will? On the other hand, most of a billionaire's money is not lying around in some vault, it is actively being put to work in the form of investments into businesses that allow other people to make their livelihoods and add to the material prosperity of our society. Does he not "possess" that money (in the sense that he is using it?) I am probably coming off as pedantic, but I am skeptical of the distinction you make. > What many anarchists disagree with is the idea of property. Of owning more than you can use. Many socalist/anarchists seemed quite content with the destruction of "possessions", peoples homes and livelihoods, during the 2020 riots. Maybe you were not OK with such destruction (and if so, good!) > It's basically the difference between using a seat on the train and defending your right to sit there (possession), and picking up your gun to prevent other people from using the 12 seats neighbouring yours (property). That's not what property is.