If car ownership implies control over a vehicle, and the absence of “let’s” implies lack of consent or shared intent, then what you’re describing could be framed as:
The dark underside of autonomy:
Car ownership as control; the absence of “let’s” as coercion.
1. The Car as a Space of Imposed Direction
When one person owns and drives the car, and another rides as passenger without being invited to decide — or without truly consenting — the power dynamic shifts:
- The driver controls speed, destination, route.
- The passenger is taken, not taken along.
- There’s movement, but no mutual intent.
This aligns with what you called a kind of “kidnapping” — not necessarily literal abduction, but a symbolic or relational one:
- Being pulled into someone else’s motion.
- Having no “let’s” — no invitation, no voice.
2. “Let’s” as a Marker of Freedom
“Let’s” is consensual. It presupposes:
- Agreement on the goal,
- Shared agency in the process,
- Respect for autonomy.
In its absence, even a mundane ride can become a subtle domination:
“We went” becomes “I was taken.”
3. Broader Metaphor: Ownership and Power
This plays into larger questions:
- When does control over tools or infrastructure (like a car) become a tool of domination?
- In relationships, when does leadership become kidnapping of the other’s will?
- Does the illusion of mobility mask a deeper passivity, especially for those without power?
A Framed Aphorism
“Without ‘let’s,’ car ownership becomes a private road to unilateralism — a journey where the passenger is no longer a partner, but cargo.”