3 ms·

It's a distinction without a difference. Some locales give the lien holder an incredible amount of power over the vehicle, some give slightly less. At the end o

by vkou 4y ago

It's a distinction without a difference. Some locales give the lien holder an incredible amount of power over the vehicle, some give slightly less. At the end of the day, though, it's not your car until you own it free and clear. The relevant law in Washington State: > Once you are in default, the lender may repossess your car at any time. They do not have to notify you before the repossession takes place. The lender cannot commit a crime, use abusive language, enter a home without permission, or take an item if you physically resist. Cars can be towed from public or private lots. If you default on payments, it doesn't sound like it's 'your' car anymore. You aren't the owner of something that can legally be taken away from you at any time.

mindslight 4y ago
And yet if you loan the car to someone who gets into a serious accident, it is you who gets sued, not the lienholder. Likewise, if the car appreciates in value you are the one who benefits. Concretely, your citation only shows that the owner-lienholder distinction is small for one specific aspect. And even with the law you cited there are still significant differences - for example, a traditional tow truck is unable to force entry into your garage and take the car, while a backdoored self driving car can open the door and drive itself away (it would necessarily be integrated with the door opener so you can summon it from elsewhere). Ultimately, talking about concepts like "ownership" is only useful as a lemma (I often call home mortgages on bubble prices "renting from the bank"). The larger argument here is the desire to keep ownership (aka capital) distributed throughout society rather than concentrated into a few centralized administrators. And yes, it's a quick hop from the trend of most people mortgaging capital goods, to most people leasing capital goods. But that's all the more reason to emphasize the distinction to keep it from being further eroded.

by vkou 4y ago

mindslight 4y ago

And yet if you loan the car to someone who gets into a serious accident, it is you who gets sued, not the lienholder. Likewise, if the car appreciates in value you are the one who benefits. Concretely, your citation only shows that the owner-lienholder distinction is small for one specific aspect. And even with the law you cited there are still significant differences - for example, a traditional tow truck is unable to force entry into your garage and take the car, while a backdoored self driving car can open the door and drive itself away (it would necessarily be integrated with the door opener so you can summon it from elsewhere). Ultimately, talking about concepts like "ownership" is only useful as a lemma (I often call home mortgages on bubble prices "renting from the bank"). The larger argument here is the desire to keep ownership (aka capital) distributed throughout society rather than concentrated into a few centralized administrators. And yes, it's a quick hop from the trend of most people mortgaging capital goods, to most people leasing capital goods. But that's all the more reason to emphasize the distinction to keep it from being further eroded.