eThoughts : “Ownership Society:” Who is in Charge?

Sometime around the end of January or the beginning of February, President Bush began talking publicly about an “ownership society.” Apparently the jargon is directed at allowing Social Security funds to be invested in financial markets.

I’ve been wondering what an “ownership society” really means. In the case of Social Security, does this mean Americans are supposed to take responsibility for their own welfare by taking charge of their money? Umm, what is the role of government then? And just how do those in government demonstrate this “ownership society” by the management of the funds entrusted to them?

I suppose the concept of ownership is designed to keep our rights intact (let’s avoid for now, but not forget, when “legal” ownership as defined by one culture or group collides with the concept of ownership in another culture or group). But our right to do what? Because we own land, do we get to do anything we want with it? Not hardly, nor should we. How about cars? Same issue, same answer. How about our money? Hmmm. Now we seem to be on a bit different playing field. Except that if one has lost all of their money or are otherwise unable to support themselves, parens patriae dictates that the government (that would be the rest of us that are able to support ourselves) should step in and help. I’m good with the basic principle.

Parens patriae is the notion that the state is a paternal figure, in charge of taking care of those that cannot otherwise take care of themselves. This is supposedly why the government regulates so many industries—because we need a watchdog or society will likely be the victim of some human malady or the other. But has the government actually taken ownership of such a charge? I guess we could argue such was the case in many instances, just as we could argue the opposite in other instances. After all, human foibles are not just a disease of the private sector. And perhaps Social Security is just one way that the idea of taking or granting ownership—in this case, the populace’s money is held in trust by the government—is not just a fix promoted by government, but a malady of government.

For example, what if I collected money from you to hold in trust until you were older or infirmed or the like? And then I made the announcement to you that it looks like the money won’t be there for you when you need it. “Why,” you ask. “Well, I spent it on others that were in need,” I answer. “But,” you query, “that money was mine, held in trust by you.” “Right, and we need to fix that,” I respond. “The way to do that is that you’ll still be required to give us some of your money, but now you can invest it so you’ll have a higher rate of return and this mess won’t come up again,” I proudly announce, clearly showing my concern and responsibility for that which has been entrusted to me.

Now that’s some serious spin. And I’m trying to imagine who among us would fall for that bit of bizarre “sense-making?”

Somehow, ownership seems so noble. We’ve got stuff. Much better than those that don’t have stuff—especially if we’re talking food, clothing, and shelter. Those are all good things to be sure. Are those things inalienable rights—are they entitlements? I guess we get to decide—and that seems like a good thing. But, if we need all of these laws because without them some (many?) people will regress to getting away with whatever they can (greed is not an endangered behavior), then shifting ownership of Social Security to enable people to invest some amount of it in the financial markets may require a law that everyone completes a course in Investing 101. That may not be enough however, as we can tell by the law requiring people to go through some modicum of testing to obtain a driver’s license.

So is the real idea to move the concept of ownership around so we can have responsibility until we don’t want it or it catches up with us, then we can shift who owns what and regulate the responsibility onto someone else?

Now that I think about it, that is a class some (many?) have taken. Or is it just our nature? Hmmm—if it’s the latter, it appears we’ve got the fox guarding the henhouse.