This is not entirely accurate. It is the same position as borrowing some amount of money to buy the stock. If I buy a put and call and the price at expiry is exactly that strike I am guaranteed to lose money.

Agreed. One of the reasons is that the option has a risk and therefore there's a cost associated with managing that risk and taking on the trade.

Not quite. It's the 'risk-free bond' term that I dropped from my explanation of the put call parity.

To replicate the stock, you'd buy the call and sell the put. The risk exactly balances out in the sense that a total portfolio of 1 stock short, 1 call long and 1 put short would have zero risk and behave like a risk-free bond.

(If the risk premia of the long call and the short put would not exactly balance, you could make money with very simple arbitrage trades.)

Yes, my explanation dropped the bond term from the put call parity.

Economically, sure, but not literally. If you hold both a put and a call, for instance, you can't vote with them, or earn dividends. You would not say you're the actual owner -- whereas a short sale creates a negative actual stock.

And that's why voting rights get special treatment in share lending. Dividends are also handled by share lending agreements.

When we talk about naked shorts, they would still have to be covered before delivery (usually two days after the trade).

And when buying a normal stock, not from a short seller, you also can only vote once you take delivery. So everything is the same.