Who Owns What?

[Guest guest]

m

Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:10:49 -0500

Who Owns What?

 

 

 

 

Who Owns What?

 

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted March 7, 2005.

 

George Bush's ownership society leaves out the things we actually own

our bodies, our privacy, our dignity, our bedrooms.

 

 

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. "

 

Millions of words have been written about how the president intends to

achieve his goals. I'll refrain from adding to that output. For I'm

still bewildered by Bush's bizarre definition of " ownership. "

 

President Bush certainly 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.

 

Bush does seek to increase home ownership. Every president since

Franklin Roosevelt has sought to do so. None has done so little to

make that happen as George W. Bush.

 

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.

 

Over one of the entrances to the massive federal Department of

Commerce building in Washington is an apt and instructive quote from

Abraham Lincoln. " Patents fuel the fire of genius. " The patent and

copyright systems were begun so that one could monetarily benefit from

a successful invention or work. But today copyright has been extended

far beyond the life of the original genius, and even, in many cases,

the life of his or her heirs. This is a destructive, indeed dangerous,

form of ownership that cannot be justified on the basis of its

encouraging innovation.

 

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 Peter Barnes and Jonathan Rowe and Larry Lessig and many

others, 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.