By David Morris, AlterNet, March 7, 2005.

This article can be used with Land and Freedom Economics Lesson 4, on Economic Systems, and 20, on Trade-Offs: Real and Fake.

In his second Inaugural Address, President George W. Bush declared once again his desire to "build an ownership society".

"By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny," he explained, "we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."

I'm bewildered by Bush's bizarre definition of "ownership." President Bush apparently does not believe one should be able to "own" one's body, certainly the most essential of all forms of ownership. He's sent federal agents into California to arrest a woman trying to reduce chronic pain by using a plant (marijuana) grown in her own backyard, an act the good citizens of California had declared legal by direct vote.

President Bush believes people can and perhaps should lose their jobs because of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. He has moved aggressively to overturn state laws allowing the aged to die with dignity under their own control.

Ownership of personal information? President Bush opposes policies that require companies to gain permission before they use my personal information for private gain.

Ownership of public information? The Bush administration has restricted access to public information -- information the public has paid to gather -- to an unprecedented degree. In his first two years in office, for example, he classified more than 4 times the number of documents as Bill Clinton did in his first two years....

A Clear Statement on Property Rights from Progress and Poverty (1979) by Henry George. What constitutes the rightful basis of property? What is it that enables a man justly to say of a thing, "It is mine?" From what springs the sentiment that acknowledges his exclusive right as against all the world? Is it not, primarily, the right of a man to himself, to the use of his own powers, to the enjoyment of the fruits of his own exertions? Is it not this individual right, which springs from... the fact that each particular pair of hands obey a particular brain and are related to a particular stomach... which alone justifies individual ownership? As a man belongs to himself... that which a man makes or produces is his own, as against all the world. No one else can rightfully claim it, and his exclusive right to it involves no wrong to any one else.        ...[T]his right of ownership that springs from labor excludes the possibility of any other right of ownership. If a man be rightfully entitled to the produce of his labour, then no one can be rightfully entitled to the ownership of anything that is not the produce of labour or of the labour of someone else from whom the right has passed to him. If production gives to the producer the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment, there can rightfully be no exclusive possession and enjoyment of anything not the production of labour, and the recognition of private property in land is wrong.... When non-producers can claim as rent a portion of the wealth created by producers, the right of the produces to the fruits of their labour is to that extent denied. There is no escape from this position.

The debate about Social Security illustrates the kind of ownership Bush views as central to his vision of the ownership society. His proposed Social Security reform, the centerpiece of his second term in office, will enable Americans to own shares in huge mutual funds that hold a portfolio of shares in many corporations.

This is a trivial form of ownership. It's more like having a piece of the action than having any of the rights or responsibilities that we normally associate with genuine ownership. There are, of course, many forms of business ownership. Some, like local ownership, cooperative ownership, worker ownership, or municipal ownership, allow individuals to participate directly in decision-making. These are structures where the loci of authority and responsibility merge. Bush's policies, on the other hand, vigorously support another less sanguine form of ownership: huge, absentee-owned, business structures where those who make the decisions are very distant from those who feel the impact of those decisions.

In the end, President Bush's ownership society turns the word "ownership" on its head.

He firmly believes that we don't own those things that most of us would indisputably believe we do own: our bodies, our privacy, our dignity, our bedrooms. And to add insult to injury, he just as firmly believes that we can own those things that most of us would argue are not ours to own: air, words, folklore....

In his marvelous recent book, Brand Name Bullies, David Bollier, a fellow at the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, offers abundant examples of the weird nature of the kinds of ownership George Bush vigorously endorses.

One of the most instructive occurred a few years ago. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) sent out letters to 288 camps in the American Camping Association, demanding that Brownies and Girl Scouts stop singing copyrighted songs like "Blowin' in the Wind" or "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" unless the camping groups ponied up thousands of dollars in licensing fees.

Bollier, and others such as Peter Barnes, Jonathan Rowe and Larry Lessig, propose that when George W. Bush talks about the ownership of property, we engage the discussion by talking about the commons, that is, property owned in common for all to use sustainably.

Bollier asks, "Who owns the internet? Who owns online knowledge? Who owns words, letters, and smells? Who owns the fictional characters of mass culture? Rather than granting fair use exceptions to the default norm of property ownership (on a parsimonious, case-by-case basis!), the commons reverses the terms of debate. It asserts that many cultural and creative intangibles presumptively belong to all of us, and that a strong case must be made before exclusive rights to privatize them are granted."

Under George W. Bush's ownership society, a person wracked with debilitating pain does not "own" the right to go into her backyard, pick a plant and eat it to alleviate that pain. But a non-person -- a corporation like McDonalds -- has the right to "own" phrases like "Play and fun for everyone" and, "Hey, it could happen."

There is a word that describes this kind of thinking and the person who engages in it. Unbalanced.

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn. and director of its New Rules project.

Things to Think About

1. Why does the author think President Bush has a bizarre definition of "ownership"? Do you agree with him on this point?

2. Why does the author think it was improper for Federal agents to raid the California marijuana-grower's yard? Why were the agents sent in?

3. Cite some examples of how companies might gain access to personal information, and use it for their own profit.

4. Why has President Bush proposed that some Social Security money be invested in the stock market? What is this author's position on that issue?

5. Do you think it is right for a songwriter to be paid royalties when his or her song is performed? Do you think the Girl Scouts should have to pay royalties on "Blowin in the Wind"? (If your answers are different, explain why they are.)

6. What is the "commons"? Cite some things that you think should be held as common resources and not be privately owned.

7. How does the quote by Henry George relate to the idea of the "commons"? Do you agree with George's point?