The Perils of Elon Musk's Ownership Ideology

The value of a typical American home with a white picket fence has surged by 16% over the past year. Financial advisors may see this as positive news for homeowners and investors, but it poses significant challenges for prospective buyers. However, the narrative around real estate encompasses more than just transactions; it also involves human ideals.

Over the past century, the notion of ownership has evolved into a key element of the American ethos. The "American Dream" came to symbolize the belief in the significance of owning a home. Rather than dismissing property as a relic of feudalism, modern economies celebrated the idea that anyone could attain the status of an aristocrat through homeownership.

As time has passed, this vision of universal ownership has diminished. The focus shifted from a collective dream to a more monetary one. In recent decades, the valuation of real estate has not reflected the demand from people seeking homes but rather the interests of affluent individuals and corporations aiming to convert properties into rental units.

Numerous attempts to democratize ownership have emerged, yet they have all faltered. Take publicly traded companies, for instance. Although they have a long history, the current rationale for their existence hinges on the idea of democratizing ownership. By giving shareholders a voice, ownership is supposed to extend beyond a privilege for the elite.

However, this notion was never sustainable. The ideal of collective ownership has faded, becoming merely a method for investment. Today, the wealthiest 10% of Americans control 89% of all stocks, reaffirming that ownership is once again a privilege reserved for the affluent.

A recent event underscored this reality when Elon Musk initiated a hostile takeover of Twitter. Earlier this month, he became the largest shareholder by acquiring 9.2% of the company's stock, disregarding SEC regulations in the process. Although he was invited to join the board, he later declined, likely because board members are limited to a 14.9% ownership stake.

In a tweet this morning, Musk declared, “I made an offer,” linking to an SEC document outlining his proposal. He stated, “I invested in Twitter because I believe in its potential to be a platform for global free speech, which is essential for a functioning democracy. However, I now realize that the company will not flourish or fulfill this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter must be transformed into a private entity.”

He further asserted, “Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.”

Musk's belief in "free speech" is not as absolute as he suggests. He has a history of blocking those who challenge him, including critics of his labor practices at Tesla and those who circulate the controversial photo of him with Ghislaine Maxwell. A more glaring instance occurred when a student used public data to create a Twitter account tracking Musk’s private jet. When the student refused Musk’s offer of $5,000 to shut down the account, Musk promptly blocked it.

Yet, these actions might not matter in the grand scheme. The key takeaway is that Musk's effort to bolster free speech by privatizing a public company represents a form of authoritarianism. He seems to believe that he alone can rectify these issues, dismissing any dissenting opinions as incorrect.

The essence of free speech is compromised when the plurality of voices is diminished, particularly if alternative perspectives are deemed wrong from the outset. True free speech could align with Karl Popper’s famous paradox of tolerance: a society that values tolerance must be intolerant toward intolerance. If one believes in tolerance, they cannot accept voices that advocate for the exclusion of certain groups from society, as this could lead to widespread intolerance.

Despite its shortcomings, Twitter has made efforts to adhere to this principle. Importantly, none of its policies have violated U.S. free speech laws. While Twitter’s public ownership has not exemplified “democratic” ownership, Musk's takeover attempt could worsen the situation.

I have often proposed moving beyond the concept of “human rights,” as they fall short in addressing 21st-century challenges. Yet, these ideas contain potential pathways toward future justice. Musk's actions illuminate the troubling ways in which power can exploit the concept of human rights to sustain unjust systems.

This incident highlights how a simplistic view of "free speech" can be used to impose harsh regulations on the unsuspecting public at the behest of a single individual. Additionally, it reveals the absurdity of the public company model, which was originally designed to safeguard aristocratic interests but is now manipulated by elites under the guise of promoting democracy.

Chapter 1: The Rise and Fall of Ownership Ideals

Section 1.1: The Shift from Collective to Individual Ownership

The transition from a collective vision of ownership to a money-driven ideology has had profound implications.

Subsection 1.1.1: The Reality of Public Ownership

Chapter 2: Elon Musk and the Paradox of Free Speech

The implications of Musk's actions on free speech and ownership ideologies are profound and warrant critical examination.