M–I–N–E.

I am astonished. What is so tough about understanding “mine” versus “not mine”—the fundamental element of property rights? But a few conversations of late have me shaking my head in perplexity, as I find myself hearing strange things coming from individuals who claim to be pro-freedom and pro-property rights.

If you give something to me, it’s mine. That means I can do with it as I want. Your preferences and desires regarding that item don’t mean anything any more, unless I choose to consider them. Here’s a little secret for you, though: if you give me something, and then try to control what I do with it, I am much less likely to consider your preferences. Oh hell, let’s be honest: the probability is zero. If you are uncomfortable with that prospect, then don’t give me stuff.

The snolfs understand this principle, even if they don’t always make the best choices with respect to it—giver’s remorse, I suppose. And I grok that—there’ve been times when I’ve given something to someone, only to have regretted it (usually because the recipient didn’t seem to value the item as much as I thought he might). But if you give a person something that has a specific purpose, then tell the person not to use it for that purpose (yes, this has happened to me), what the fuck do you expect the recipient to do? Thank you profusely? Once something has been given, the giver cedes all right to control its fate.

It seems to me that there has been much muddying of these concepts in several areas. Many parents routinely “give” their children toys, for example, then insist that the child share the toy with a sibling or friend. They also may “give” a child his own room, but allow the child no say in how it’s decorated or maintained (or not maintained). The tragedy of the commons is really just a failure of the property owner to clearly delineate and enforce his terms for the use of his property, including the consequences for failing to adhere to those terms.

Perhaps worse, in the economic realm anyway, is the creeping use of the false concept “intellectual property” to slyly shift from consumers owning instantiations of creative works to renting them. That’s all that digital rights management is: record companies say they’re selling music, but what they’re really doing is allowing suckers to pay inflated prices for the privilege of listening to the music on the company’s terms. You want to copy your CD to your hard drive so you have a backup in case the CD gets damaged? Tough! You want to be able to shuffle your music between iPod and Zune and hard drive and car stereo system? No way, dude. Or rather, “Not easily, dude”, because as I understand it there are ways around pretty much all DRM crap. The fact that many of us have allowed our understanding of property rights to become so muddled is a large part of why the RIAA and similar monopolists have been able to foist their protectionism on to consumers.

I can practically hear again some of the lamentations I have received in previous exchanges with individuals on this subject. “A parent must maintain control”, or “Doesn’t everyone in your house walk around on tiptoe?”. Addressing the latter first, the answer is no—our house is pretty much like any other. Lobo has communicated the rules for using electricity for video games, for the treatment of his furniture, etc. All occupants of the house are old enough to understand them, so it’s rare that a problem arises. Regarding my property—most notably my kitchen equipment—the rule is that to use it, one must show that he can use and care for it in the way I ask. Thus, even some of the older individuals do not have permission to use my cast iron skillets, for example.

As for the former, I do believe that parents need to maintain control—of their property and of the lessons and examples they provide their children. I would be setting a snolf up for lifelong confusion of property rights if I were to follow the examples outlined above. What I have chosen to do instead is to clearly delineate a line between giving something to a snolf and allowing them use of it under certain conditions. This radical notion extends to their clothing, with good results. When I buy clothing for them, I tell the snolf one of two things: 1] it’s their clothing to wear as desired (often including suggestions on how to take good care of the item); or 2]. the clothing is for their use, but because I want to make sure it stays suitable for the use for which I bought it, I retain ownership. To help minimize confusion or accidents, I usually keep those items in my closet as well. It should be clear that option 2 is for special circumstances only, such as dress clothes for parties or other special functions.

Shifting from a more casual context to the one I’ve outlined can be a challenging process. But even among adults, it is worth it for averting misunderstandings. For children, I think it is essential in helping them to understand the true meaning of property and ownership. Having these concepts firmly in mind in the context of home will make it all the easier for them to see hypocrisy and collectivism in action in the world at large.