Defining an Ownership Society

The Cato Institute ^ | 8/31/04 | David Boaz

[AdrianSpidle]

This is the new theme of the Republican Party that will be presented in the coming days of the Republican National Convention.

As a registered Libertarian I am absolutely thrilled to see the Republican Party adopt important Libertarian values.

Defining an Ownership Society

By David Boaz

President Bush says he wants America to be an “ownership society.” What does that mean?

People have known for a long time that individuals take better care of things they own. Aristotle wrote, "What belongs in common to the most people is accorded the least care: they take thought for their own things above all, and less about things common, or only so much as falls to each individually." And we all observe that homeowners take better care of their houses than renters do. That’s not because renters are bad people; it’s just that you’re more attentive to details when you stand to profit from your house’s rising value or to suffer if it deteriorates.

Just as homeownership creates responsible homeowners, widespread ownership of other assets creates responsible citizens. People who are owners feel more dignity, more pride, and more confidence. They have a stronger stake, not just in their own property, but in their community and their society. Maintaining dignity and confidence is no doubt difficult for those with few economic choices. Geoff Mulgan, a top aide to British prime minister Tony Blair, explains, “To escape from poverty you need assets—assets which you can put to work. There is a good deal of historical evidence…as well as abundant contemporary evidence, that ownership tends to encourage self-esteem and healthy habits of behaviour, such as acting more for the long term, or taking education more seriously."

Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher had that goal in mind when she set out to privatize Great Britain’s public housing. Her administration sold 1.5 million housing units to their occupants, transforming 1.5 million British families from tenants in public housing to proud homeowners. She thought the housing would be better maintained, but more importantly she thought that homeowners would become more responsible citizens and see themselves as having a real stake in the future and in the quality of life in their communities. And yes, she thought that homeowners would be more likely to vote for lower taxes and less regulation—policies that would tend to improve the country’s economic performance—and thus for the Conservative Party, or for Labour Party candidates only when they renounced their traditional socialism.

Margaret Thatcher saw that private ownership allows people to profit from improving their property by building on it or otherwise making it more valuable. People can also profit by improving themselves, of course, through education and the development of good habits, as long as they are allowed to reap the profits that come from such improvement.

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/defining_an_own.html

[Know your rights]

President Bush says he wants America to be an “ownership society.”

If federal spending isn't cut, somebody, either us or our dsecendants, is going to lose a substantial chunk of what they own to taxes.

[sergeantdave]

So, the RNC is finally going to do battle with the collectivist, socialist and fascist land thieves?

Good. Add them to the Axis of Evil.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[lelio]

She thought the housing would be better maintained, but more importantly she thought that homeowners would become more responsible citizens and see themselves as having a real stake in the future and in the quality of life in their communities.

I expect a little better from Cato. "She thought" -- come on it happens 20 years ago. What are the results?

[freeeee]

Give me a break. No one owns property in this country but the government.

Every single defining characteristic of the relationship between a tenant and a landlord is present in the relationship between our government and land "owners".

Your property tax is the rent you pay. If you don't pay, you are evicted.

Your landlord (government) can and will evict you (seize your property via eminent domain) if another tenant will pay a higher rent (generate more taxes).

Zoning laws, building codes, environmental regulations and a myriad of by-laws are the terms of your lease. You can't effect a single change to "your" property outside of them, and you will pay a fee for the priviledge of building or altering "your" property (building permits).

And no, you won't have anyone but who your landlord chooses working on "your" house (government licensed contractors only!)

Some localities even have the nerve to enter "your" home for inspections.

Is Bush proposing to change any of these? No? I didn't think so. This is nothing but election year propaganda.

[FateAmenableToChange]

So, the RNC is finally going to do battle with the collectivist, socialist and fascist land thieves? Good. Add them to the Axis of Evil.

Just until November. After that, it's back to business as usual.

[quietolong]

Bump