The Jam of the Uber-Gang

Continuing its push to turn Houston business owners into criminals, on Saturday the Chronicle ran an OpEd that calls for outlawing many existing signs within the city:

Visual blight seriously damages Houston's public image, impairs quality of life and impedes economic development. It's important that the business and civic community work together to ensure that Houston maintains an appealing and visually inviting environment in an economically competitive marketplace. We look forward to additional efforts by the city to improve signage in Houston.

The article claims that the "business and civic community" should work together to address the sign "problem". This would be fine, so long as it remained voluntary. But that is obviously not enough for the authors, for they want "additional efforts" from the city--they want more controls, restrictions, and prohibitions.

The fact that some people dislike signs is hardly justification to criminalize their existence. I dislike the Chronicle's vendors badgering me at street corners to buy their rag; I dislike editorials and articles that attack individual rights; I dislike elitists who believe they have a right to jam their values down my throat. But my dislikes--no matter how many people share them--do not justify the use force against those who engage in such activities.

As is common, the article makes vague claims about Houston being at an economic disadvantage because of its proliferation of signs. Cities such as Boston, Charlotte, Denver, and Los Angeles have more restrictive sign ordinances, and supposedly our economy suffers because of it.

This argument evades the actual facts. As I have noted previously, Houston led the nation in job creation in 2008. If we are at some kind of economic disadvantage, how do these statists explain this fact? Actually, they don't attempt to address it--they simply ignore it and make absurd claims. The fact of the matter is, Houston has had a huge economic advantage because of its relative respect for property rights.

A respect for property rights means that property owners have the freedom to use their property as they choose, so long as they respect the mutual rights of others. Statists don't like the choices some individuals make. They believe that if they can assemble enough like minded people then they are justified to use force against the offending parties. They believe that might makes right.

The authors of this article are members of the Quality of Life Coalition's (QLC) steering committee. The QLC's web site describes its activities:

The Quality of Life Coalition works to affect policy and encourage change in order to implement the quality of life agenda to the benefit of those living in the Houston region. We work with elected officials, private citizens, organizations and agencies to ensure adequate funding, sound planning, and appropriate implementation of the agenda items. Collectively, these endorsing organizations are able to more effectively address issues than if they attempted to do so individually.

The QLC is nothing more than an uber-gang--a coalition of gangs. Each pushes its own particular agenda, working in concert to advance their common cause--more control over the lives of Houstonians.

I could not find any definition of "quality of life" on their web site, which isn't particularly surprising. The truth is, they can't define it. Somehow we are all supposed to just know, and agree with, the meaning of the term. After all, only an ogre could possibly be opposed to "quality of life". As I previously wrote:

The truth is, “quality of life” is a matter of personal values. We each define “quality of life” differently. Some individuals prefer a spacious back yard, while some prefer no yard at all. Some prefer proximity to parks, while others prefer to live close to shopping. Some prefer a short commute, while others prefer suburban life. All of these preferences and many, many more contribute to how each individual conceives “quality of life”.

Personal values, and the freedom to pursue them, is precisely what the QLC wants to extinguish. No matter the issue, they want to force their collective values down our throats and turn the recalcitrant into criminals. This, they would have us believe, will make Houston a better city.

Gang warfare is never pretty. It doesn't become more appealing, or less immoral, just because the thugs put on a suit and tie.

We Need Another Texas Revolution

The Economist has an article detailing the economic success of Texas and how it is weathering the recession. (HT: Houston Strategies) While the article paints a generally positive picture of the state, one paragraph is particularly interesting:

His [state senator Eliot Shapleigh] statistics are a lot less rosy. Texas has the highest proportion of people lacking health insurance of all 50 states; the third-highest poverty rate; the second-highest imprisonment rate; the highest teenage-birth rate; the lowest voter turnout; and the lowest proportion of high-school graduates. Mr. Shapleigh is not surprised that these figures are so terrible: Texas spends less on each of its citizens than does any other state. Being a low-tax, low-spend state has not made Texans rich, though they are not dirt-poor either; their median income ranks 37th among the 50 states.

Certainly, most of these statistics are nothing to brag about. But neither are they an indictment on the state government, as Mr. Shapleigh would have us believe. Health insurance, teenage pregnancies, and education are not proper concerns of government.

What caught my eye, and is worth bragging about, is the fact that Texas spends less on its citizens than any other state. In other words, Texas has not built a mammoth welfare state within its borders. Which means, more than other states, the state government is not in the business of redistributing wealth. While the article implies that this is a bad thing, this is a large part of the reason that the state's economy has done well. Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and its unemployment rate in May was 2.3% below the national average.

Businesses and individuals move to Texas because economic opportunities abound. With fewer regulations and no state income tax, individuals are free to pursue their dreams without begging for permission to the extent demanded in other states.

The quote cited above states that the median income in Texas ranks 37th in the nation. While this is an interesting statistic, it is very misleading because it says nothing about the purchasing power of that income. According to the Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, Texas ranks 8th in the nation for the lowest cost of living. Even though Texans earn less, their money goes much further.

To concretize this last point, according to CNNMoney.com an annual income of $50,000 in Houston is the equivalent of an income of $62,343 in Chicago, $68,385 in Seattle, $73,430 in Boston, and $81,133 in Los Angeles. While this is a city-to-city comparison, money clearly goes further in Houston than other major cities.

Despite the rather upbeat portrayal of Texas, the article concludes that the future may not be so positive:

A committee on education appointed by Mr. Perry [the governor] concluded in January that “Texas is not globally competitive” and gave warning that it “faces a downward spiral in both quality of life and economic competitiveness”.

The other, even more important, reason to expect change is internal. In 2004 Texas became one of only four states in America where whites are no longer in the majority. On recent trends, Hispanics will be the largest ethnic group in the state by 2015. Since they tend to vote Democratic, this has big implications for Texas’s political make-up and for national politics. And an increasingly assertive Hispanic caucus, in an increasingly Democratic state, also seems sure to demand better schools and health care for the people it represents...

This trend will take Texas in the direction of California--more social programs, more regulations, and higher taxes. It could spell the demise of Texas as an economic powerhouse. But this isn't a racial issue; it is an issue of individual rights. And individual rights apply to all individuals--white and black, Anglo and Hispanic, male and female, gay and straight, young and old.

More than most states, Texas has respected and protected individual rights, and this has served Texas well. It will continue to do so, but only if Texans demand that the government refrain from succumbing to the lure of trading votes for robbing the productive members of the state. To do that, Texans must reject the premise that they are their brother's keeper, that morality consists of service to others. If Texans wish to remain the envy of the nation, they must embark on a new revolution--a moral revolution. They must declare their moral right to their own life, their own liberty, their own property, and the pursuit of their own happiness. They must embrace rational egoism and all that it implies.

Blinding the Able

Advocates of expanding government control over the lives of Houstonians love to make claims about how visitors see our city. For example, in supporting more restrictions on billboards, the Chronicle recently claimed:

There’s no virtue in looking awful, and when Houston competes with other cities, our tackiness puts us at a disadvantage.

Anne Culver, executive director of Scenic Houston, an anti-billboard organization, told the Chronicle:

People come here and they are consistently shocked by the city’s appearance and they often ask us how we let this happen to our city. Site consultants say all the time that they’re told not to put Houston on their lists because of pollution, the heat and how it looks.

As I have pointed out, statists love to make assertions about how bad Houston is, while ignoring the actual facts. In the past year I have pointed out studies, reports, and articles that praise Houston. I have also pointed out articles that demonstrate the negative consequences of land-use regulations. Conveniently, the statists ignore the public, published findings and conclusions that cite Houston as a model for other cities, and instead make reference to private comments made by unnamed sources. Why?

On the political level, statists do not like the decisions made by others and seek to use government coercion to control the actions of others. They don't like the fact that some individuals choose to erect billboards on their property or use "attention-getting devices" to promote their business. And because they believe that force is a proper way to deal with others, they seek the power of government to impose their views on the community.

But politics is not a primary. One's views on the proper relationship between individuals is determined by one's views on what is proper for individuals qua individuals. That is, one's views on ethics determines one's views on politics.

While the specifics vary, statists agree that morality consists of placing the welfare of others before one's own individual welfare. They agree that the individual must be subservient to the demands of others, whether it is the community, or the majority, or "the public". They agree that morality demands that the individual serve others, that the individual does not exist for his own sake. They agree that the individual has no right to his own life, his own liberty, his own property, or the pursuit of his own happiness.

To the statist, those who refuse to sacrifice their values and place the "public welfare" before their own individual welfare are "selfish" and immoral. The statist believes that these recalcitrant individualists may properly be forced to be moral.

Fundamentally, statists believe that individuals should not be permitted to act according to their own judgment. To act according to one's own judgment means to choose one's values and the means for attaining them. It means to judge the facts and act accordingly. Government controls and regulations are, at root, an attempt to prevent individuals from acting as they determine best. This is what underlies every government control, regulation, mandate, and decree.

To justify such atrocities, government officials hold hearings and conduct meetings to determine "the will of the people". If enough people agree, then the idea must be true. If a consensus can be reached, then the proposal must be proper. In short, truth is determined by a vote.

This is what lies at the very foundation of the appeals to unnamed "experts". The actual, observable facts are not to be believed. That Houston led the nation in job growth or has affordable housing is a mere chimera. It isn't true unless "the people" declare it to be true. The testimony of individuals that Houston's relative freedom in land-use is a primary cause of its economic prosperity is insufficient, for it is based on the judgment of individuals.

Just as statists wish to prevent individuals from acting according to their own judgment, they wish to dismiss the judgment of individuals when it conflicts with their agenda. They want the majority to rule, not just in elections, but in determining the truth. They have closed their eyes to reality, and they seek to blind those who refuse to do the same.