The 2008 Live Oaks Awards

It is relatively easy to find fault with many things within our culture. But it is also important to identify and recognize the many individuals, events, and experiences that provide inspiration, make our lives better, and bring enjoyment. These are men and women who bring joy to our lives and improve our standard of living. These are experiences that make us laugh, or show us beauty, or express the sublime. Below are some of my Live Oaks for 2008.


Blogging
I started this blog in late April, with the express purpose of defending property rights in Houston. While that remains a primary interest and purpose, after several months I began to realize that there are many other topics of interest to me. In addition, writing on property rights issues in Houston can get rather repetitive, and that could seriously quell my enthusiasm. Writing a blog post six days a week can be a burden at times--I'm not always in the mood. But forcing (I use "force" in the sense of will power) myself to write has become easier, and the overall experience has been one of the absolute delights of the year. I owe a special thanks to Gus Van Horn for his support and suggestions in developing this blog. And his gumbo is pretty good too--I had the pleasure of sampling it at the Houston Objectivism Society Christmas party this year.

Yaron Brook
Yaron seemed to be everywhere this year, in print, on the air, and in person. While many Objectivist intellectuals had successful years, Yaron was a dynamo. His efforts served as my greatest inspiration in 2008. His articulate, insightful, and positive leadership gives me more hope for the future than I have experienced in many years.

Fantasy Football
I played in my first fantasy football league this fall. (I know I say below that I'm not a big football fan, but it sounded like it might be fun.) I invested 20 to 30 minutes per week on the league, and it gave me a much greater appreciation of the decisions that coaches must make. Identifying the skills and weaknesses of each player, the opponent he would be facing, and other factors was an interesting and enjoyable experience.

The Houston Astros
I have long been a fan of the 'Stros. They have had good teams and bad teams, but for more than a decade they have always been a classy team. The owner--Drayton McLane--does not tolerate aberant behavior, and he sets the tone for the entire organization. As an added bonus, this season I had the pleasure of attending the retirement of Craig Biggio's jersey.

Mamma Mia! The Movie
I was never a fan of ABBA, but a friend insisted that I see the movie. Within two minutes I was smiling; within five minutes I wanted to sing along (but I didn't know the words); within ten minutes I wanted to get up and dance. This is not a movie with an intricate plot. But it is a movie that is unadulterated joy. The best way to summarize the movie is from "Dancing Queen":

You can dance, You can jive, Having the time of your life.

I had the time of my life watching Mamma Mia, twice.

Aaron Neville
If I could choose a singing voice, I would choose Aaron Neville's. He is scary to look at, but his voice defies his physical appearance. I attended his Christmas show in Houston, and for nearly two hours I was delighted to experience the pure joy of a beautiful voice.

Mario Williams
I am not a particularly avid football fan. I enjoy watching an occasional game and follow certain teams in the paper, but I do not live and breath for Sunday afternoon.

Several years ago the Houston Texans drafted Mario Williams with the first pick in the NFL draft. This selection was widely criticized in the local press and by fans, who thought local football hero Vince Young should have been picked. Texans Coach Gary Kubiak and Williams were mocked and derided before Williams played his first game.

Now in his third season, Williams has been named an All-Pro. Despite the merciless criticism he received, Williams has remained a class act. He has never lashed out or spoken ill of his detractors. Williams remained confident of his ability, and chose to allow his play on the field to speak for itself. Here are a few comments Williams made after being named All-Pro:

That’s life, he [Williams] said. But you can’t satisfy everybody. If you’re going to go through the world saying, you know, ‘I hope they don’t boo me,’ or worry about what people are going to say, you’re not going to make it too far.

I hold grudges, but I don’t hold too many grudges, Williams said, laughing. It’s a great honor (being the No. 1 pick), but then it’s a lot of responsibility just for the fact that you were the first pick.

I told you so.

Yes you did Mario. Congratulations for a well-deserved honor.

There are many others who have brought me joy and improved my life during 2008. My failure to mention them in no way diminishes my appreciation of their efforts.

Integrity and Eminent Domain

On Sunday, December 28 a front-page story in the Chronicle details the city's use of eminent domain to seize a tiny parcel of land on San Felipe. The city seized the land under the guise of widening the street, though only a small part of the land was necessary for that purpose. The city plans to use the remainder of the land as a pocket park.

While such seizures of private property can never be morally justified, this particular story involves much more than just the city's violation of property rights. It hints at political favoritism, back room deals, and conflicts of interest.

At the heart of the controversy are developers Ed Wulfe and the Hanover Company, Mayor White, and Councilman Peter Brown. Both Wulfe and Hanover executives have made significant contributions to both White and Brown. In addition, Councilwoman Pam Holm, whom the Chronicle says "was intimately involved in the decision to seize the land" has also received substantial contributions from both Wulfe and Hanover employees.

Brown's wife is an investor in the project Hanover plans to build adjacent to the seized land. Questions are now being raised about a conflict of interest regarding Brown, who voted for the seizure. Only time will tell whether White, Brown, or Holm did anything illegal and/ or are paying off donors.


The Chronicle reports that the contract between Wulfe and Hanover stated "that either Wulfe 'and/ or a governmental entity or agency'" acquire title to the property. Within two months of the seizure Wulfe and Hanover closed their deal.


White has defended seizing the entire property, rather than the small amount needed to widen the road. Often the city must pay for the entire value of a property, he argued, even if only a portion is seized. It only made sense to get the best "deal" possible for the city.Of course, seizing private property and paying less than fair market value is always a good "deal" for the city. It was only after the fact that White decided to use the remaining land for a park. The city's parks director--Joe Turner-- has testified that

the park idea was pushed by the Uptown Houston District, a local development board on which Ed Wulfe has a seat. Also on the board is John Nash, president of the Hanover company.

John Breeding, president of the Uptown Houston District, said that although Wulfe and Nash sit on the board, they were not involved with the decision to acquire the land.

It was the Uptown Development Authority, a related but separate quasi-governmental entity with a separate board, that sought to buy the land and use a portion for a park, he said.

This entire deal has a very strong odor of impropriety. The fact is, government officials used their power to seize land and that seizure benefited political supporters and one official's spouse. The fact is, Wulfe needed that property to close his $12.5 million deal with Hanover, and when the owners refused to sell that land for $1.4 million, the city seized the land. The fact is, the city offered to pay only $433,800 for the land--though Wulfe offered $1.4 million. The owners are now in litigation.

But this would not be any sweeter smelling if the details were different--if Wulfe and Hanover were not campaign donors. The city would have still seized private property, and that is always wrong, whether the seizure occurs to widen a road, build a park, or pay off political cronies.

What is ironic about this is that the project planned by Hanover is a high-density, mixed-use development similar to another project that the Mayor and many on city Council have opposed--the Ashby High Rise. Much of the Mayor's political support comes from the neighborhoods opposing Ashby, which certainly make questions about his motives understandable.

All involved claim that nothing illegal or improper occurred. The Chronicle states that Brown consulted the City Attorney about recusing himself from the vote to seize the property--after the vote. But whether explicit communications occurred to discuss this issue, all involved knew who and what was involved. And if they claim otherwise, we must question their competency to be city officials.

While the Mayor and Brown defend their integrity, the truth is, men in their position cannot act with integrity--they cannot be loyal to rational convictions and principles. Their jobs consist of making decisions that are implemented by force. Their decisions impose the values of some upon others. Their decisions compel some individuals to act contrary to their own convictions and principles.

If White and Brown really have a concern about their integrity, then they will begin by rejecting the premise that they--or anyone--has a right to compel others to act in a particular manner. They will reject the premise that might makes right. They will reject the premise that the alleged "public welfare" justifies seizing property and destroying lives. And they will embrace the moral right of each individual to his own life, liberty, and happiness. Of course, Buffalo Bayou is likely to freeze over before this occurs.

Urban Legends: Myths About Houston

In a recent posting titled "Is Houston really Unplanned?" on Market Urbanism, Stephen Smith attempts to debunk alleged myths about Houston and planning. In the process, he actually engages in a much more widespread error--the failure to essentialize. (Here is a good explanation of essentializing.)

Smith cites several examples of land use regulations in Houston, such as minimum lot size mandates and regulations dictating parking requirements for new development. He argues that these regulations, along with the city's enforcement of deed restrictions, refute claims that Houston has developed primarily on the basis of free market principles.

Smith's position is common. Zoning advocates actually used similar arguments in the early 1990's. Zoning advocates were wrong then, and Smith is now.

Admittedly, Houston is not devoid of land use regulations. But the nature, number, and scope of those regulations is significantly different from other cities. There is an essential difference between the regulations in Houston and those in other cities. The permitting process in Houston is relatively fast compared to other cities, and the expenses incurred in that process are also significantly lower in Houston. In other words, developers in Houston can respond much more quickly to changes in the market and do not incur exorbitant costs that must be passed on to consumers.

This is not a justification for the regulations that Houston does have. They are wrong and immoral, as are all land use regulations. But the fact is, Houston has far fewer and much less egregious restrictions on freedom than other cities.

Smith, and many others, attempt to paint a picture of Houston land use policies with a very wide, and indiscriminate, brush.

Boosters of Houston’s land use policy – those who believe that Houston’s land use patterns are the free market, revealed – never mention the restrictive minimum lot size and minimum parking requirements. They mention deed restrictions as free market innovations but fail to see how the city’s prosecutors turn private concerns into public budget drains.

If someone defends Houston's relatively free land use policies, pundits such as Smith seem to assume that those advocates defend all of Houston's land use policies. This is akin to believing that if someone likes one of Clint Eastwood's movies, he likes all of Clint Eastwood's movies (and everything else Clint Eastwood does). This is patently absurd.

As an example, Smith cites opposition to a proposed project at 1717 Bissonnet (the Ashby High Rise) as evidence that Houston does not have a laissez-faire policy towards land use. Smith implies that one particular violation of property rights is evidence that Houston is no different from other cities. He evades the fact that the vast majority of development projects proceed with little or no obstruction from the city.

I have defended the Ashby High Rise many times on this blog and at a panel discussion at Rice University. I have defended the project as a matter of principle--land use regulations are wrong and immoral. I have also addressed numerous other violations of property rights on this blog and elsewhere for nearly twenty years. To claim that "[b]oosters of Houston’s land use policy" have ignored the city's violations of property rights is simply untrue. It may be true of some, but not of all. Smith chose to put all of us in the same boat with a broad generalization that flies in the face of the facts.

The fact is, Houston has fewer land use restrictions than other cities. Those that do exist are less restrictive (in general) than the restrictions in other cities. Those that do exist are less destructive than the restrictions in other cities. Again, the restrictions that do exist are indefensible.

Smith's argument amounts to: Either Houston is completely laissez-faire or it is just like every other city. This ignores the degree of the transgression. This equates a pickpocket with a murderer. Both have violated the rights of another. Both have engaged in evil, but on a much different scale. To equate the two is to diminish the murderer's evil. To equate Houston with cities that erect mountainous obstacles to development is to diminish Houston's greatness.

But painting with a wide brush is not the only error that Smith makes. He questions the validity of contracts:

Another form of planning that Houston has, which is celebrated by the self-titled Antiplanner, is the institution of supposedly voluntary deed restrictions, or private land use covenants agreed upon by the owners of the property under restriction. I’m personally torn over the “libertarianness” of such schemes – are they truly voluntary? Can an individual owner of a property opt out of them once they’ve been signed? What’s the statute of limitations? One thing that makes me suspect that they perhaps aren’t as “free market” as they seem is that though the contracts are between individuals, Houston’s city code allows the city attorney to prosecute these lawsuits at no cost to the supposed victims – fellow property-owners.

Consider Smith's own question-- "Can an individual owner of a property opt out of them once they’ve been signed?" In other words, after a contract has been signed, can one party unilaterally breach that contract? This is nothing more than a desire to invalidate the very concept of contracts. If one party can unilaterally breach a contract, contracts--all contracts--are rendered meaningless.

A contract is an agreement to engage in certain actions over a period of time. If one party can unilaterally breach that contract--that is, declare the agreement void--the contract isn't even worth the paper it is written on.


I agree that the city should not be enforcing deed restrictions--that is the responsibility of those who are party to the contract. But this error on the part of the city does not invalidate the fact that Houston remains freer than other cities. Smith fails to distinguish between minor transgressions and major.

A right is a sanction to act according to one's own judgment without seeking permission from others. In this regard, Houston recognizes individual rights more consistently than other cities. This does not mean that Houston is perfect--it means that Houston recognizes individual rights more consistently than other cities. Where Houston does not recognize individual rights, it is wrong.

But Smith--and those who share his position--uses isolated facts to argue his case and then fails to identify the essence of those facts. He implies that all "[b]oosters of Houston’s land use policy" are the same. He implies that the voluntary and contractual planning that accompanies deed restrictions is no different from zoning or other coercive land use regulations. Both of these implications are false.

When one does not think in essentials, disparate facts can seem very similar. On the surface, deed restrictions and zoning might seem the same--both restrict land use. But the former is voluntary and consensual, while the latter is coercive and mandatory. There is an essential difference between the voluntary and the coercive. There is an essential difference between allowing individuals to act on their own judgment and forcing them to act contrary to their judgment. There is an essential difference between Houston and every other major city in the nation.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 7

Snowzilla

For the past several years the Powers family in Anchorage has built a giant snowman in their front yard. In 2005 "Snowzilla" stood sixteen foot tall, and he grew larger in succeeding years. Camera crews from Russia and Japan loved to photograph the frozen giant. Earlier this week city officials declared the snowman a public nuisance because of the traffic he created and issued a cease and desist order.

This illustrates one of the almost insolvable problems that results when government extends beyond its proper functions. If the street were privately owned, this would be a complete non-issue--the owner of the street and his contractual agreement with home owners would settle the matter.

The right to property allows one to use his property as he chooses, so long as that use does not violate the rights of others. A use that attracts excessive traffic to a residential area can certainly pose a risk to the residents and/ or interfere with their enjoyment of their property, and as such, can be a violation of their rights. (I say "can" because objective criteria would need to be established.)

It is government's responsibility to objectively define actions that constitute a nuisance. As an example--and this is purely an example--the government might define an activity that doubles (or triples) traffic on a particular street to be a nuisance.

Wikipedia describes a nuisance:

Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (either land owners
or tenants) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. If a neighbour
interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds,
pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property,
the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

As it is, it is difficult to pick a side on this particular issue. I empathize with the Powers family--Snowzilla must be fun to build and adore. I also empathize with the neighbors, who must tolerate a significant increase in traffic and all that that brings. I do not know enough details to say who is right and who is wrong, but this is not a clear cut case of excessive government intervention.

Suggestions for Obama

Thomas Cooley offers some suggestions to Obama on creative ways to stimulate the economy at Forbes.com. Among his ideas are:

Preach for America. Unemployed bankers will be hired at minimum wage to preach in churches and temples about the virtues of unfettered capitalism and take up the collections.

Parades for Progress. Modeled after the Doo Dah Parade this will be a permanent parade corps of military bands, precision lawnmower marching teams (unemployed real estate agents), precision pin-striped briefcase marching teams (bankers) and so on.

Bailout Bake sales. This program will train former auto executives and autoworkers to bake cookies and pastries and sell them door to door. Profits will go to fund the bailout.

I have to assume that Mr. Cooley has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. But some of his ideas are no sillier than those coming from Washington.

Let's Just Try Something

New Jersey Jon Corzine thinks that the new administration should emulate FDR's "bold, persistent experimentation". In essence, this comes down to throwing massive amounts of money at anyone and everyone, and particularly state and local governments:

First, the states, local governments and the federal government must be full partners in the recovery process...

Second, the package should be large. Some estimates put the cost of the economic crisis next year at $700 billion, or about 4 percent of gross domestic product. To offset this, the cumulative value of the stimulus plan should be $1 trillion over two years. This is a large sum, but if the spending is executed effectively, it should be a significant investment in our country's physical and human resources that will pay long-term dividends while also creating and saving jobs. [emphasis added]

I assume that Corzine is serious, in which case his argument is extremely specious. Can we really expect the money to be spent effectively? How often has the government actually done this?

More importantly, any money the government spends is consumptive spending, and that money must necessarily come from the private sector--by its very nature this is not effective spending. But Corzine and his fellow Democrats (with a lot of Republican support) will continue to try to convince us that robbing the private sector will somehow return us to prosperity.

Becoming Numb to the Bailouts

The recent reports in the news about the bailout of the auto industry left me surprisingly numb. The intense anger and incredulity I experienced with the bailout of the financial industry has given way to passive acceptance. Perhaps more interestingly, when I heard that the auto makers wanted $15 billion (or whatever the number was), I thought, "That's all? That's not very much."

I am quite cognizant of the fact that $15 billion is a lot of money, and I quickly banished that thought from my mind. But it is interesting that it ever occurred to me at all. The massive sums being spent, and being pondered, do make $15 billion seem almost paltry in comparison.

Observations on Houston's Housing Market

I have owned a paint contracting company for more than twenty years. Over the years I have looked at more than 10,000 jobs, most of which have been for residential work. As a result, I have seen a lot of homes. Indeed, other than Realtors, contractors easily see more homes than virtually any other profession.

This has provided me with a unique vantage point for observing Houston's housing market. During the past decade an interesting trend has developed, and it illustrates the benefits of Houston's relative freedom in land use.

The most significant trend is a move towards greater housing density in many areas of the city, particularly inside The Loop. As land values and demand for housing have increased inside The Loop, increased density makes economic sense for both builders and home buyers. This is readily evident in areas such as The Heights, Rice Military, Midtown, and many other parts of the city.

A common trend is for a developer to purchase several single family homes, tear them down, and build a number of three-story town homes on the lots. The economics make perfect sense--if a lot costs $400,000, even a modest home is unaffordable to most Houstonians. However, if four town homes are built on that lot, the price of the land is distributed among four home owners, rather than one. The home becomes significantly more affordable. Larger developments encompassing half of a block are not uncommon, with similar economies.

This has certainly been interesting to observe. As market conditions changed--that is, the demand for Inner Loop housing increased--land values rose. If the housing market retained the one house per lot status quo, demand would ultimately subside because of affordability. One result would be that Houstonians would be driven from the Inner Loop, resulting in longer commutes. Another would be that the population inside The Loop would remain relatively stable because there would be no expansion of the available housing, and demand for that housing would send prices skyrocketing.

A similar trend has unfolded downtown. I lived downtown in the mid-1980's, and at the time there were essentially only two places to live-- the Houston House and 2016 Main. After business hours downtown was dead. However, developers such as Randall Davis transformed abandoned buildings such as the Rice Hotel into condominiums, lofts, and other housing. Restaurants and entertainment soon followed, and now downtown Houston is a destination spot.

I must admit that while much of this was occurring I was not as observant as perhaps I should have been. But my recollection of the time line is that these trends are a demonstration of Say's Law-- supply creates demand. When the housing was limited in downtown, or Midtown, or Rice Military the demand was also limited. When the supply increased, the demand did as well, which in turn led developers to create additional supply.

A typical town house has a foot print measuring approximately 30' by 40'. (I've literally measured hundreds of them, and these measurements are remarkably consistent, though there are certainly differences.) The first floor generally consists of a two-car garage, a bedroom/ study, and a bathroom. The second floor has the main living area--the kitchen, living room, a powder room, and dining room--with few if any dividing walls. The third floor has the master bedroom. This is the typical layout, but many options are offered.

I have seen first floor bedrooms measuring approximately 12' by 12', I have also seen first floor "bedrooms" measuring 30' by 12'. I have seen relatively small kitchens and large kitchens. I have seen minuscule dining rooms and spacious dining rooms. I have seen lofted ceilings in the living room, rising two-stories high, and ceilings spaced at 10' high. I have seen third floors with a second bedroom, and third floors with only the master suite. In other words, while the basic floor plan for these homes is similar, a lot of variety is still offered to the consumer.

These homes generally have 2,400 to 3,000 square feet of living space, depending on the particular floor plan and layout. They are appraised at approximately $250,000 to $350,000, depending on location and the actual size of the unit. In Houston, a home owner gets a much larger home for much less money than most major cities. In Seattle for example, town homes of 1,200 square feet often sell for $600,000 or more.

The changes in the housing market have largely occurred because builders and developers do not have a long and expensive permitting process. They can respond to market demands, or anticipate those demands, without a lengthy process to secure government approval. And perhaps more significantly, they do not incur the excessive costs associated with the approval process in other cities, which allows them to keep housing at affordable levels.

Of course, there are those who do not like these changes. They argue that demolishing quaint bungalows and cottages to make way for town homes destroys the character of the neighborhood, that the town homes are too similar and plain, etc. Many have argued for less density in developments. Invariably, virtually all of these critics call for more government intervention and control. They don't like the way certain neighborhoods are changing and they want to use the power of government to put an end to it.

While these squeaky wheels often get the grease, they (and the politicians who cater to their demands) ignore the fact that many Houstonians do like these town homes. These homes would not be selling if this weren't the case. As is usually the case, the current residents of a neighborhood launch their protests, while many who will be impacted--potential future buyers--are oblivious to the controversy. They ultimately become the voiceless and unknown victims.

At the same time these neighborhood groups are fighting to impose their values on others, competing groups argue for greater density in development as a means of reducing commutes. The solution is not to battle over political power, but retain (and increase) freedom in land use. Allow individuals to choose their values and vote with their wallets. Not only has this served Houstonians well, it is also the moral thing to do.

A Christmas Fantasy

Americans awoke today to startling news-- the federal government declared itself morally bankrupt and closed the doors on virtually all of its operations. "We have realized the error of our ways," President Bush announced on the steps of the White House. "I actually read the Constitution over the Thanksgiving holiday, and realized that we were doing a lot of things that just aren't Constitutional."

Reaction to the President's announcement was swift and predictable. "This is a typical Republican ploy to benefit the rich off the backs of the disabled, unskilled drug addicts, and flowering house plants," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said from the window of her limo.

Harry Reid expressed similar thoughts from Hawaii, where he was vacationing. "This is going to kill that real estate deal I've been working on," the Senate Majority Leader said over what sounded like ukulele music.

The President announced a series of sweeping changes, including a return to the gold standard, the suspension of all federal regulations, and a federal tax holiday of six months. "We can't undo one hundred years of bad legislation in just four weeks," the President said, "but we are going to give it hell trying." When asked how he thought Congress might respond, the President laughed, "Let them sue me. I've read the Constitution. We are going to return the federal government to its legitimate functions, which are the courts and the military."

Wall Street responded with the largest one-day gain in history. One trader said, "The uncertainty over what edict would next come from Washington had all of us on edge. And the massive amounts of money they've been throwing around with irrational exuberance was just insane." Auto dealers and retailers reported record sales. And across the nation, people of every color, ethnicity, and religion joined hands in the streets to sing the words of that old Negro spiritual, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last."

This dramatic news comes on the heals of unprecedented government intervention into the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, two men who had only recently been given even greater control over the economy, appeared remorseful as they stood by the President. Bernanke said, his voice shaking with emotion, "I cannot begin to express the absolute disgust that Henry and I are currently feeling. At the President's suggestion we spent a long weekend at Camp David reading the Constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers. It quickly became apparent that we had gone way beyond anything the Founders envisioned for the country and that our actions were a gross violation of individual liberty."

Paulson agreed with Bernanke. "I concur with what Ben said, and just want to add that I intend to spend the rest of my life fighting to correct the wrongs that I have helped perpetuate."

When pressed for details of how his plan would unfold, the President couldn't offer many details. "We are just going to let people be free. We are removing the shackles from their lives. I don't know exactly how they will act, but I suspect that they will be pretty happy to finally have the restrictive controls removed." The President then did a little jig with Bernanke and Paulson.

The President promised additional steps in the coming weeks, including a Constitutional Amendment that would establish a wall of separation between government and the economy, the annihilation of Iran, and the sale of all federally owned land.

President-elect Obama did not appear in public today, but sent the following text message to his vast army of supporters: "WTF."

Foreign governments had mixed reactions to the President's announcement. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert simply asked, "Does this mean we can start defending ourselves?" But most reactions were captured in the short statement issued by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said, "Uh oh."

Across the country individuals engaged in a spontaneous display of benevolence and optimism. "This is change we can believe in," said one woman in Ohio who had gathered on a street corner to sing patriotic songs with her neighbors. "I get to pursue my values without the arbitrary constraints of government."

Similar thoughts were expressed by an auto worker in Tennessee. "I am hopeful that this means others will no longer be able to impose their values on me," he said as he wiped a tear from his cheek. "I have wanted to start a business since I was 25, but the government regulations were simply too big of a hurdle."

In Texas, Houstonians launched an impromptu parade through the streets of downtown. More than a million people gathered to watch an assortment of mariachi bands, cowboys, drag queens, and low riders. Mayor Bill White, who suspended the requirement for a parade permit, proclaimed Houston the Star of the Lone Star State for its role in demonstrating the practical benefits of freedom. "Throughout the year Houston has been hailed as the economic success story of the nation," the Mayor said. "I have spoken of the moral imperative of freedom at every opportunity. I would be proud if my words had any impact on the President. This day is a tremendous victory for individual freedom."

If only the above were true. It would truly be a glorious day. We have an immense battle ahead of us, but sometimes we need to dream and envision the goal we seek. Merry Christmas.

We Want You to be Safe...Really

A few years ago a city inspector came by my office. He asked to see my Occupancy Permit, which I did not have. He informed me that I was required to have such a permit in order to legally use my rental space. He then scheduled an inspection of the facility so that I could obtain permission to use my office.

At the time, I had been renting this space for approximately fifteen years. The space consists of about eight hundred square feet of offices, and another four hundred square feet of warehouse. One person--my wife--is in the office all day, and I am there periodically throughout the day. Many days go by with nobody else (except perhaps the mailman) stepping foot inside our office.

The purported purpose of the Occupancy Permit is to insure that employees and customers will be in a safe environment. Customers do not visit our office, which means, I was required to obtain an Occupancy Permit for the purpose of protecting my wife's safety! I do not recall her ever making an issue of her safety at the office, but if she has (or does), I will certainly address it without needing the City of Houston involved.

When inspection day arrived, five city inspectors showed up. There was an electrical inspector, a mechanical inspector, a plumbing inspector, and a Fire Marshall (if I recall correctly). I do not remember the purpose of the fifth individual, but if experience is any indication, he was an inspector of the inspectors.

Several weeks later we received a report detailing our various violations. Most of the items were mundane--a light was out, our bathroom fan wasn't big enough, etc. However, our most egregious transgression was the lack of signage--we did not have a sign on the door stating "This door must remain open during business hours", nor did we have a sign over the door stating "Exit".

This last item illustrates just how silly city ordinances can be. As I said, I had been renting this space for about fifteen years. There is only one door. I recognized that it was the exit after using it as the entrance. For fifteen years I used that door as an exit without the benefit of a sign telling me so. But for some reason, the city thought that my safety was imperilled because I did not have a sign to remind me how to exit the office. And I could not get an Occupancy Permit without that sign.

Adding to the inanity, the city gave me eighteen months to correct these various items. Which means, even though my safety was allegedly in question because of the lack of signage, the city was willing to allow me to continue working in such an unsafe environment for a year and a half. That really made me wonder if my safety was their real concern. But since it was the government, and I know that they wouldn't have ulterior motives such as money and power, I accepted their explanation (I am being sarcastic).

After laughing at this report, I filed it away and forgot about it. But in a rare display of competency, about sixteen months later the city sent me a notice warning me that my time was running out. I concluded that perhaps they were serious and I should take some action. In the end, it cost me nearly $1,200 to bring our space into compliance (and this was with my landlord paying a portion of the bill--he had nearly fifty other tenants going through the same thing). We then had to call the inspectors out again to verify that we had met their demands. Several weeks later I was informed that I could drive downtown for the privilege of writing another check and getting my certificate.

The entire experience was annoying and inconvenient. For fifteen years nobody had been injured or become ill because of the conditions in my office. Yet, the city was willing to make me a criminal if I did not allow their goons to parade through my office and make demands. They would have revoked my right to do business because I did not have a piece of paper stating that they had granted me permission to put a phone and computer in a rental space.

In the grand scope of things, the time and money involved was insignificant. But in principle, it was very significant. Rather than allowing me to act by right, the city forced me to seek permission. Rather than allow me to determine whether my office was safe, the city usurped that decision. And this is precisely what all regulations and inappropriate laws do--they remove decision making capabilities.

Regulations dictate action, either through proscription or prescription. They dictate the actions an individual may take, regardless of his own judgment. They render an individual's judgment irrelevant.

I do not feel any safer because I have an Occupancy Permit. In fact, I feel a little less safe, because I never know when some government official will descend upon me and make further demands. But I have devised a plan that might help. Despite the sign they made me put on the door, we usually keep it locked.

The Power of Positive Thinking

With each new economic calamity, politicians and pundits stumble over one another to point fingers at "greedy" Wall Street, incompetent businessmen, and a general lack of regulation. Last week, Chronicle writer Loren Steffy tossed his latest missive on the issue.

And so the era of lax regulation that began with Enron ends with the Madoff madness looming as a monument to the SEC’s ineptitude. Already under fire for smelling the flowers while Bear Stearns — to cite one example — charged toward collapse, the SEC’s days may be numbered.

Like many commentators on the economy, Steffy presents a package deal--a mixture of truths and falsehoods. The SEC is indeed inept, which is a claim that could be made against every regulatory agency. But to claim that we have lived in an era of lax regulation is irresponsible, untrue, and intellectually dishonest. For example, Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which covers the Banking and Finance regulations, contains more than 4,500 pages of regulations. No reasonable person can honestly say that 4,500 pages of regulations is lax.

Amidst the calls for greater control of the financial industry we keep hearing that more Congressional oversight is needed and that he individuals at the top of the regulatory agencies are incompetent. Both imply that the problem does not lie in what is being done, but who is doing it. Neither addresses the fundamental problem, which is the entire concept of regulation, not the individuals charged with enforcement.

That legislators focus on the who rather than the what is not surprising. This erroneous view stems from the same erroneous view that led to regulations in the first place--reality is malleable to the whims and desires of the collective, that is, reality is negotiable.

The purpose of every regulation is to achieve some "desired" result (or prevent an undesired result). This can allegedly be achieved by compelling individuals to act in some proscribed manner, or by prohibiting certain actions. Ironically, it is a superficial recognition of cause and effect, while it simultaneously ignores cause and effect.

For example, the stated intention of many financial regulations is to prevent fraud. It is believed that if financial institutions are forced to disclose certain information (the cause) then consumers can make informed decisions and avoid being defrauded (the effect). In general, this is valid. Disclosure is the enemy of fraud; fraud depends on the ignorance of its victims.

Regulations attempt to create specific results by controlling the actions of individuals. That control is exercised by reducing or eliminating the choices available. For example, financial institutions must disclose specific information in a particular manner--regulatory agencies have eliminated any choice in the matter. At the same time, this process creates a false sense of security on the part of consumers--if the SEC is satisfied, then the investment must be safe. This false sense of security encourages consumers to neglect responsible decision making.

The justifications for regulations are based on two faulty and interrelated premises: 1. Businesses will be intentionally deceitful and manipulative without regulations; 2. Individuals are easily deceived and manipulated without regulations. (For a good discussion on the difference between regulations and legitimate laws, see Regulations vs Laws.)

Morally, these premises are founded on the false alternative of altruism and hedonism--that individuals must choose between sacrificing for others or sacrificing others for oneself. This alternative holds that life requires sacrifice, and the only issue is who the victims will be. Charlatans such as Bernard Madoff and Key Lay only serve to reinforce this point of view.

But another alternative does exist--rational self-interest. The morality of self-interest holds that life does not require sacrifice of oneself or of others. It holds that each individual has a moral right to pursue his own values without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. It holds that cannibalism is neither necessary nor proper.

More fundamentally, these premises are founded on the view that truth is a product of the collective. If enough people believe something--such as the notion that we don't have enough regulations--then it must be true. And the seemingly endless reams of federal regulations is ignored as irrelevant.

But reality is not as co-operative as the social subjectivists believe. Reality will not bend to their will and desires, no matter how loudly they shout, or how many laws they pass, or how great their numbers, or who they put in charge.

Despite the vast powers they have over financial institutions, the demands of Congress and the myriad regulatory agencies could not prevent the collapse of Wall Street. Despite assurances that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound, Barney Frank's wishes could not change the fact that both were essentially bankrupt. Despite endless cheer leading and pumping of billions of dollars into the economy, the Federal Reserve cannot entice consumers to return to past spending patterns.

The regulators remained convinced that our economic turmoil is the result of too much freedom. They remain adamant that with enough money, enough Norman Vincent Peale speeches, and enough regulations they can rebuild the economy. In the end, if the economy does not recover through bribes or feel good oratory, they will force it to. And when this doesn't work, they will blame the last vestiges of freedom.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 6

Servants Leadership
A recent editorial in the Chronicle calls for Servant Leadership. The editorial quotes Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism:

The greatest leader forgets himself and attends to the development of others.

In a certain sense, the second part of this quote is true. A good leader must help the development of those he is leading. But he cannot do this if he "forgets himself". He can't do this if he is a selfless servant to others and places their values above his own. Indeed, the job of a leader is to identify the goals and values of the organization that he is leading, and if he does not share those values he is going to be an abyssmal leader.

American business has a serious and largely self-created credibility problem. The public's alienation from and mistrust of business leaders is deep. Left unaddressed, it could eventually turn into a broad rejection of the free market system.

A sincere return to servant leadership by those in both business and politics may be helpful in turning that precarious situation around.

This is nothing more than a call for more of the cause that has created the created the credibility problem. Having rejected an objective moral code, businessmen, politicians, and journalists must choose between dog-eat-dog hedonism and selfless servitude. These are false alternatives. What is needed is a rejection of altruism. More importantly, what is needed is the discovery of a new morality--the morality of self-interest.

Hey Fatso, Give Me Your Money
This week New York Governor David Paterson proposed a tax on sugared beverages as a means to combat childhood obesity.

If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent.

As is typical, this proposal is nothing but a money-grab. If childhood obesity is such a travesty, why aim for a palty five percent reduction? Why not go the gusto and increase the tax to 180%? If the effect is linear, this would cut childhood obesity in half.

The government should not be concerned about childhood obesity. Government's sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Government interference with personal decisions, even when they are harmful, amounts to imposing the values of some upon everyone. And that is always unhealthy.


A "Bailout" I Can Support
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert has called for a two month federal tax holiday. In a press release, the Congressman says:

According to American Solutions, a conservative think tank founded by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Americans pay $101.6 billion per month in personal income tax and $65.6 billion per month in FICA tax. Under Gohmert's proposed plan, all of these taxes would not be paid during January and February of 2009, and the money would stay in the hands of American taxpayers - the ones who best know where economic stimulus should be targeted. Gohmert's two month tax holiday would stimulate the economy while costing less than the remainder of the Paulson-Pelosi bailout plan.

This is certainly a welcome idea. But if a two month tax holiday is good, then a permanent holiday would be great. Congress has been spending your money as if you have an endless supply. They want to bailout everyone but the taxpayer, that is, individual Americans. You can sign a petition supporting Gohmert's proposal here.

Eat Local, Save a Cuban
Apparently Cubans are becoming the darlings of the environmentalist movement. That alone should tell you something about environmentalism. According to Reuters (HT: Freedom is the Solution) Cuba is leading the "eat local" movement.

In Cuba, urban gardens have bloomed in vacant lots, alongside parking lots, in the suburbs and even on city rooftops.

They sprang from a military plan for Cuba to be self-sufficient in case of war. They were broadened to the general public in response to a food crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's biggest benefactor at the time.

These urban gardens are also turning Cuba's poverty-stricken workers into poverty-stricken workers with a few more pesos. The workers at one co-op earn $42.75 per month, which is twice the national average.

The gardens are organic because they cannot afford pesticides or fertilizers, which surely makes environmentalists proud. Not to mention the fact that most Cubans barely make enough to survive, so they won't be polluting the landscape with discarded fast food containers, CDs, and other items that make life enjoyable. Other than the walking corpses, I am sure that the environment in Cuba is just delightful.

The Theater of the Absurd

According to KOCO in Oklahoma City, Houston is the city least prepared for the upcoming forced implementation of digital television. Nearly 16% of Houston's television sets would go into some kind of fuzzy unintelligible mess if the digital conversion occurred today. (To be honest, I'm not sure how that differs from much of what is already broadcast, but that is a different matter.)

Unless you have been living in a cave, you are probably aware of the government mandate that all full-power television broadcast signals convert to digital next year. According to the FCC:

Congress mandated the conversion to all-digital television broadcasting, also known as the digital television (DTV) transition, because all-digital broadcasting will free up frequencies for public safety communications (such as police, fire, and emergency rescue). Also, digital is a more efficient transmission technology that allows broadcast stations to offer improved picture and sound quality, as well as offer more programming options for consumers through multiple broadcast stream(multicasting). In addition, some of the freed up frequencies will be used for advanced commercial wireless services for consumers.

How much of the broadcast spectrum is needed for public safety communications? And why can't they use digital instead of forcing broadcasters and consumers to invest in new equipment? But these questions are really beside the point. This mandate is wrong on every level.

It forces broadcasters to use certain technology, and thereby violates their property rights. It forces consumers to own television sets capable of receiving digital signals, and thereby violates their property rights. And just so nobody is left out, the government is giving away coupons to get discounts on converter boxes, which thereby violates the property rights of the taxpayers forced to pay for these "discounts".

All of this is allegedly justified because the airwaves are "public property" and consequently the federal government can dictate the use of those airwaves in the name of "the public". I am a member of the public, and I've done nothing to contribute to the broadcaster's ability to air a program (other than watch or listen). The airwaves are simply a potential resource that has existed since the beginning of time, and it takes specific knowledge and equipment to make use of that resource. Those who own that equipment own the resource--they gave the airwaves value. (The government does have a legitimate role to play in the issue of the airwaves, but it does not involve licensing or regulating. It involves establishing the criteria for establishing property rights of the airwaves. See this article for more on privatizing the airwaves.)


As Ayn Rand put it

There is no essential difference between a broadcast and a concert: the former merely transmits sounds over a longer distance and requires more complex technical equipment. No one would venture to claim that a pianist may own his fingers and his piano, but the space inside the concert hall -- through which the sound waves he produces travel -- is "public property" and, therefore, he has no right to give a concert without a license from the government. Yet this is the absurdity foisted on our broadcasting industry.

Not only is the government now claiming that it owns the air within the concert hall, it is also claiming control of the pianist's fingers and our ears. And control is ownership. Ownership means the ability to determine the use and disposal of an object. The government has rendered analog broadcasting equipment and television sets useless. In regard to television, the federal government has seized control of both the means of production and the means of consumption.

Marxists argue that the workers should control the means of production because physical labor is the source of value. But physical labor has existed forever, and it could not harness the airwaves. Physical labor could not discover the means for turning the airwaves into a viable resource and value. It took a reasoning mind to discover the means for transmitting sound over distances.

Both Marxists and the federal government regard the reasoning mind as irrelevant. Both seek to control the mind by force. Marxists seek to do so by seizing control of the means of production. The federal government is doing so by seizing control of our eyes and ears.

Lest you think that this is some kind of paranoid conspiracy theory, consider that Great Britain has had a television set licensing mandate since 1949. It is illegal to operate a television set Great Britain without a license. (This is not a joke.) This article provides a history of the program, and starts with a quote from the British Television Licensing Authority:

Using a television without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence. Every day we catch an average of 1,200 people using a TV without a licence. There is no valid excuse for using a television and not having a TV Licence, but some people still try - sometimes with the most ridiculous stories ever heard. Our detection equipment will track down your TV. The fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection.

The licensing authority uses specially equipped vans to roam the countryside searching for illegal television sets, which can be detected electronically. While fines are the most common punishment, as recently as 1999 24 people were sent to jail for failure to obtain a television license.

Those who do not own a television set face routine harassment from the licensing authority, which apparently believes that it is metaphysically impossible for a human being to exist without a television set. Duncan Bennett, for example, has received annoying and often threatening letters for nearly 15 years. You can read some of these letters on his web site.

The growing number of controls on our lives is the natural result of each generation of politicians and bureaucrats building on the precedents of their predecessors. Each generation carries the principles of altruism, collectivism, and statism steps closer to their logical conclusion. So long as those principles are embraced the controls will increase and grow more absurd.

This is the ultimate result when "the public" owns a resource. Since there is no such entity as "the public", use and disposal of that resource ultimately gravitates into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who use it to build their own personal fiefdom. And within the realm of that resource, the individuals who comprise "the public" become pawns to the political elite.

Those who pontificate about "public property" are attacking private property. They are attacking the right of individuals to own, use, and dispose of material values. They are attacking the right of individuals to use those values according to their own rational judgment. They have embraced the premise that coercion is a proper means for dealing with others, and thereby reject the principle that all relations between individuals should be voluntary and consensual.

At its root, an attack on private property and property rights is an attack on the mind. It is an attempt to transform reality by forcing individuals to act against their own judgment. That very premise is absurd, and it is no surprise that the ensuing policies are equally so.

Go Green, or Else

In late November the Houston City Council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring that new homes, or remodeling projects involving more than 500 square feet, meet certain energy efficiency standards. The Chronicle has since pulled its article reporting on the ordinance, but the following was found at Lose an Eye, It's a Sport:

The new code requires new residential construction up to three stories to attain a 15 percent energy savings over the existing 2006 International Residential Code.

Builders can choose from a variety of options to meet the 15 percent goal.

I doubt any sensible person would argue that energy efficiency is not a good thing. But unlike the "green crowd", which thinks that a good thing should be imposed on everyone and enforced with the power of law, a civilized person understands that anything imposed by force is not good.

Mayor White, always eager to play up his "green credentials", defended the ordinance with a typically paternalistic argument:

"The modern trend among both some of the finer small and large home builders is to build much more energy-efficient homes," said Mayor Bill White. "In fact, you're going to see people are drawn into the city because we have good building standards."

People may be drawn to Houston by these standards, but many will not be able to afford to purchase a home. The new standards are expected to add $1,000 to $2,000 to the cost of a new home. This may not seem like a lot of money, but every dollar added to the cost of a home because of government regulations also imposes other costs.

For example, the additional costs will result in a higher mortgage, which means higher payments for the interest and principal on that loan. The home owner will pay more in taxes and insurance as well. But this extra expense is actually money well spent according to a portion of the Chronicle article quoted on blogHouston:

White said homeowners will recoup the added costs on their utility bills within four or five years.

"So, that is a good investment, and it makes it so homes are more affordable in the long run," he said. "If somebody is, say, laid off or suffers a financial reverse, then they will be able to stay in their house longer, and I would encourage people to shop for energy-efficient homes."

This may or may not be true, and it is completely irrelevant. It is extremely arrogant of Mayor White to make investment decisions for Houstonians. Further, some simple math shows that the Mayor's claims are rather absurd.

I do not know the energy bill for one of these homes, but let us assume that it is $400 a month (which is higher than my home, which was built in 1957 and is not energy efficient). The Mayor's mandate would save the owner 15%, or $60 a month. (And if the energy bill is only $200, the savings is cut in half.) But this savings will be offset by higher interest and principal payments on the loan, higher taxes, and higher insurance premiums. Is a savings of $10, $30, or even $60 a month really going to make or break a family financially and allow them to stay in their home longer? If so, I would suggest that energy efficiency is not the most important concern for that family.

But the real issue is: who should make these decisions? Should it be the individuals involved, such as the home builder and his customers, or should it be politicians and bureaucrats? Or to put it a different way, do you want to make decisions regarding your life, or would you prefer to cede those decisions to Mayor White and City Council?

In practical terms, government regulations amount to a ceding of individual decision making. But that process is not even voluntary--government seizes the decision making process from individuals without their consent. Regulations allow government officials to make decisions that impact your life, and ultimately make your life more difficult. And if you don't like it, too bad. Obey the mandates, or else. Despite their claims, government officials cannot make economic decisions that benefit you. They do not know you, your particular situation, or your values.

And even if they did, by what right do government officials believe that they can impose their values upon you? By what right do they believe that they can dictate what type of home you can purchase? By what right do they decide what is best for you, and then use force to make you abide by their dictates?

Government is an agency of force. Those who disobey its edicts face the threat of having their property seized or being imprisoned. When those edicts involve a violation of individual rights--the initiation of force--the individual must obey, or else face fines and/ or jail.

A civilized person relies on reason and persuasion to convince others of his viewpoint; a brute resorts to force. A civilized person presents the facts supporting his position; a brute uses a gun to support his position. A civilized person appeals to the rationality of others; a brute appeals to fear and intimidation.

Anyone who wishes to "go green" should be free to do so. Those who choose not to "go green" should be equally free to act on their judgment. Mayor White and City Council obviously see it differently. They think that we should all "go green", or else.

Your Actions Affect Others

A common justification for paternalistic government mandates, such as seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and bans on trans-fats is that the actions of one individual affects others. For example, injuries sustained in car accidents increase insurance rates for everyone, and therefore the government is justified in taking actions that might reduce injuries. Here are two examples:

...we should also require insurance companies to charge higher rates to drivers who don't wear seat belts. Get one citation -- your premium goes up 5 percent, and double that for the second citation.

This makes economic sense, because those who don't wear seat belts will cost the insurance companies more in injury and death benefits. [from wired blog network]

* * *

I think that seat belts should be mandated by law, because we all (society) ends up bearing the brunt of the cost for people who fail to wear their seatbelts. [from createdebate.com]

This argument could be made for every human activity. If I place a advertisement for my business, it will affect the company running the ad, my employees, my potential customers, my suppliers, and many others. If I go to the grocery store it will affect the store's employees, its shareholders, its suppliers, gas stations operators, my banker, and many more people. Unless you are an absolute hermit, your actions ultimately affect many others.

If one accepts the premise that actions that affect others can be regulated by the state, then every human action is open for regulation. Advocates of regulation would deny this. They would argue that they are only trying to address one specific issue.

This myopic view is widespread. It results from the belief that one's position on a particular issue is unrelated to any other issue. It results from a rejection of principles.

Consider the arguments made in favor of seat belt laws. The principle--actions affecting others can be regulated--must apply to all actions affecting others, or the principle is not true. (A principle is a general truth upon which other truths depend.) A principle with exceptions is not a principle.

Advocates of regulations attempt to side-step this with spurious arguments:

An individual's rights end where other's begin. You cannot take a "personal liberty" or make a "personal choice" if you are putting others at danger.

This might appear to be a plausible position. After all, the rights of others do place limitations on our actions. However, our rights do not "end where other's begin".

A right pertains to freedom of action. It is a sanction to take action without seeking the permission or approval of others. It allows one to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual right of others to do the same. The only objective manner in which rights can be violated is through force, such as robbery, kidnapping, or murder. It is only through the use of force that an individual can be compelled to act (or not act) in a certain manner and against his own judgment. Our rights place a boundary on others, just as their rights place a boundary on us. And that boundary is the use of force--we may not initiate the use of force against others.

The rights of others do not impinge upon our rights. Our freedom of action does not end where others' rights begin. Initiating force is not a right--it is a denial of rights, including one's own. To claim otherwise is to claim that rights permit us to pursue any whim or urge, including rape, robbery, and murder.

Rights are not a gift from God or a social convention. They are a result of man's nature and the facts of reality. Life requires action to produce the values necessary for its sustenance and enjoyment. Basic values life food, clothing, and shelter do not magically appear, nor does cable television, automobiles, or computers. These values require effort, and the individual who exerts that effort has a moral right to the products he creates. To deny him this right is to deny him the means to sustain and enjoy his life.

By living in society we do not need to produce all of the values that we need and desire. We can trade the products of our labor for the products produced by others, and the very act of trade affects others. Indeed, when we live in society virtually every action we take ultimately has some affect on someone.

In a free society--that is, a society in which force is prohibited from individual relationships--each relationship is based on the voluntary consent of all involved. So long as no force is involved, each individual is free to engage in whatever actions he choose, even when those actions are irrational and destructive to his well-being. But if he has not compelled others to act contrary to their judgment, only those who voluntarily join him will suffer. His actions will only affect those who voluntarily interact with him, whether directly or indirectly.

Today, rights are not viewed as the freedom to act, but rather, a claim on the consequences of action. Thus, we hear claims about the "right" to education, health care, and home mortgages. Rather than demands for the freedom to act to obtain these values, the demands are for the values themselves.

Both the claim that actions that affect others can be regulated and the claim to these fictitious "rights" reject the principles upon which rights are actually founded.

Sadly and ironically, those who claim that actions that affect others can be regulated ignore the consequences of their actions. Their advocacy paves the way for further government regulations, and ultimately, complete government control of our lives. They fail to see the affect their actions have on others.

Breaking a Few Eggs

I have previously written how the Texas Open Beaches Act may be used to prohibit beach front property owners from rebuilding their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ike. This is bad enough, but California officials are attempting to force George and Sharlee McNamee to remove a shower, thatched palapa, and an ornamental sign from their yard. According to the Orange County Register

In a much-publicized case, the California Coastal Commission has declared that the yard's embellishments – from shelving to rose bushes – are illegal coastal development and must be ripped out.

The Commission is claiming that the McNamees did not obtain permission to install these items. The LA Times reports:

It doesn't matter that the improvements are on the McNamees' property. Under the 1976 Coastal Act, private and public shorefront property are subject to state regulation to protect the environment and ensure public beach access.

In the McNamees' case, the state says their recreational amenities involved unpermitted grading and damage to the bluff, and gives the perception of a private beach -- intimidating beachgoers into avoiding the public sand nearby.

Interestingly, the Coastal Act allows the state to regulate private beach property, and a part of that regulation is to prohibit anyone from creating "the perception of a private beach". In other words, the state "recognizes" that it is private property and forces the property owner to pay taxes on it, but wants everyone to pretend that it is public property.

The right to property is the right of use and disposal. The right to property means that the owner has control over the property and its use. Ownership without control is meaningless. The state wants the McNamees to assume all of the responsibilities of ownership--including taxes--but denies them any control over their property. This facade of ownership is the defining characteristic of fascism.

If this weren't such a serious issue, the state's claim that a shower, grill, and flower bed intimidates beach goers would be comical. The state is concerned that someone may avoid a public beach because of a flower garden, but it cares little about the rights of the McNamees. And if it's not bad enough that they may have to remove their accoutrements, they are facing fines of $6,000 per day for violating the state's mandates.

Mark Massara, director of the Sierra Club's coastal programs, expresses no sympathy for the McNamees:

This is not about a picnic table and not entirely about the McNamees. This is about unpermitted cabinets, stoves, water lines and gas lines running up the hillside, and showers -- pervasive, unpermitted development...

The Coastal Commission has been nothing but accommodating to these people, allowing them to maintain this illegal development for years and years and years while the McNamees sue the Coastal Commission.

This type of arrogance is not surprising from an environmentalist movement that ascribes rights to trees, rivers, and animals, but not human beings. While proclaiming that they want to protect the environment for future generations, they destroy the lives of the existing generations.

Massara is surprisingly candid when he states that this is "not entirely about the McNamees." The McNamees just happen to be the latest victims. This is really about destroying man's ability to alter the environment, which means, destroying man's ability to live.

Only by altering our environment can we create the values necessary to live and enjoy life. We alter our environment when we plant crops, dig minerals, cut down trees, dam rivers, erect electrical wires, and virtually every other activity humans engage in. Property rights protect those who engage in such efforts.

The right to property is the practical implementation of individual rights. Without property rights, the right to freedom of speech cannot be implemented--one could not obtain or control the means to print or broadcast or otherwise disperse one's thoughts. Without property rights, one could not possess the means of self-defense. Without property rights, one does not have the means to sustain and enjoy his life. Every form of tyranny begins by destroying property rights, and with them, the ability of individuals to act and live independently.

The California Coastal Commission has complete control over land use within their jurisdiction:

The Coastal Act includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the Commission and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act.

There is no land use that could not be classified in one of the categories listed in the Coastal Act. Which means, there is no land use that does not require the permission of the Coastal Commission. Which means, property owners cannot use their land as they choose, but only as dictated by the Coastal Commission.

Supposedly, Mao Tse-tung defended his policy of murdering opponents by saying, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." The Coastal Commission and environmentalists don't mind breaking a few eggs either. And those eggs just happen to be the lives of individual human beings, such as the McNamees.

Brothers, You Asked for It

The following article was written by Joe Meuth. Joe is a student of Objectivism looking to apply and to promote rational ideas in our culture. His areas of particular interest include economics, corporate governance, ethics, and politics.


The most appropriate thing that can be said about the imminent bailout of the auto industry is a line spoken by Francisco D'Anconia: "Brothers, you asked for it!" The sundry regulations that have crippled the auto industry, among others, have enjoyed widespread support over the years. Now is a good time to set the record straight concerning one of the most egregious violations of the property rights of industrial concerns: The National Labor Relations Act. [see Sec. 7. [§ 157.] and Sec. 8. [§ 158.]] To do this, the nature of the act and how it violates rights needs to be exposed, and the fallacious economic idea on which it is often supported needs to be corrected.

Consistent with the context-dropping pragmatic tendencies of our time, the events of the last 70-plus years have been practically ignored in the public discourse. The pseudo-solutions in the form of various bailout plans that have been bandied about recently will not put an end to the inability of American automakers to compete because none of them eliminates the fundamental cause of their problems: that automakers are not free to run their business as a rational person would; they are not free to determine wages paid, and they are not free to manufacture products that their customers want (thanks to CAFE and other laws).

Since the passage of the Wagner Act, industry has been forced to negotiate with Unions over wages and benefits. This is a violation of a business owner's right to hire and fire as they see fit. In a proper, free society, wage decisions are arrived at voluntarily between the employer and the employee. In a free society, employees would be free to organize unions, and business owners would be free not to negotiate with them and free to fire employees who joined a union. Neither employee nor employer would be able to initiate force against the other.

The costs that unions have imposed on the auto industry by force cannot justifiably be ignored (as they have been) when discussing solutions to their problems. The wage, benefit, and legal expenses brought about by the coercive nature of unions are the tangible costs. A less easily quantified cost is the lost time that is spent negotiating with union leaders or shutting down a factory while a strike is underway.

The idea of a union runs counter to the general American idea that wages, like anything else, must be earned. Why then do they enjoy support from people who aren't associated with them and who have no vested interest in their continued presence?

The most common economic misconception about unions that I am aware of is the false idea that unions raise the general standard of living. When the subject of unions is raised, someone usually says, "We'd be worse off without them." (Of course, whether or not society is better or worse off with unions is a secondary concern, and "society" has no right to violate the rights of individuals for the sake of its alleged or actual benefit. And in fact, no actual, long-term benefits have ever accrued to society when individual rights have been violated). To understand why the assertion that unions raise the overall standard of living is wrong, one needs to understand what brings about an increase in wages and the amount of goods produced. As Ludwig von Mises and others have proved, and an honestly applied common sense will readily see, the reason why wages in the US are higher than anywhere else is that more capital per worker has been invested in plant and equipment here than anywhere else in the world. More capital investment means better technology, more machinery, and higher productivity. Higher productivity then leads to higher wages and an increase in the supply of goods produced (this is one of the reasons why, in a free society with a currency backed by gold, prices generally tend to fall), so not only does the worker benefit from higher wages, but also from the fact that the goods he purchases with those wages will be cheaper and more plentiful because of the capital invested in production.

How does this relate to Unions? Unions extort higher wages and benefits by force, thus decreasing the amount of money available for investment in the enterprise. This in turn leads to less capital employed and fewer goods produced, which places downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on prices. The general standard of living is decreased because of the foregone production and the absence of those goods that would otherwise be on the market.

When Americans lament the fact that foreign cars are often of higher quality and cheaper than American-made vehicles, they are recognizing the near-end result of labor unions. What is the end result? It should be clear by now: bankruptcy.

The Wagner Act effectively declares that workers have a right to the product of their labor (wages) but that business owners have no right to the product of their work and investment (profits). By enabling parasites against hosts rendered defenseless against them, the auto makers cannot help but be in the situation they are in.

There are other regulations that need to be eliminated, such as CAFE, but taking away the threat of force that is currently backing unions and stifling industry would be a first step in the right direction.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 5

Clandestine vs. Open Corruption
Commentary regarding the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges has almost universally failed to recognize that corruption is inherently a part of the political process.

Politicians of all stripes routinely take money from donors in exchange to supporting particular legislation. The entire purpose of lobbyists and political action committees is to influence politicians, and that influence is often gained through donations. In principle, this is no different from the actions ascribed to Blagojevich.

I am certainly not trying to minimize the seriousness of Blagojevich's actions. However, it is hypocritical to criticize clandestine corruption while casting a blind eye toward open corruption. Both are wrong, and so long as politicians possess the power to dispose of anyone's property and life, such vote peddling will continue.


Imago Dei
Writing for the Weekly Standard, Joseph Loconte laments a United Nations call for boycotts and sanctions against Israel:

How did we arrive at this dismal state of affairs? The problem is not simply that human rights have become grossly politicized. The problem is that rights have been profoundly secularized--and severed from their deepest moral foundation, the concept of man as the imago Dei, the image of God.

This argument, of course, is not new. It holds that rights are a gift from God, and therefore can be justified only through mysticism and revelation.

The truth is, rights are derived from observable facts of reality. The values required to sustain and enjoy one's life to not magically appear like manna from heaven. They require effort--human effort. Alone on an island this fact would be crystal clear--you would have the choice to work or die. This fundamental requirement does not change when we enter society. However, others can deprive us of the fruits of our labor. Others can seize the values we produce, and thus deprive us of the means to sustain and enjoy our life.

Rights protect our freedom of action. Rights allow us to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy our life, so long as we respect the mutual rights of others. In short, rights allow us to live as human beings. And it is reality, not God, that is the source of our rights.


Principles and "Normal" Times
Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman provides more evidence why that once distinguished award has become little more than a symbol of intellectual corruption:

The claim that budget deficits make the economy poorer in the long run is based on the belief that government borrowing “crowds out” private investment... Under normal circumstances there’s a lot to this argument.

But circumstances right now are anything but normal.

Apparently there are economic principles that apply to "normal" times and economic principles that apply to "abnormal" times. Which really means, there are no economic principles--we must judge each situation on its own merits and then do "what is necessary". This is pure, unadulterated Pragmatism.

Principles are our means for projecting the future and identifying the consequences of our actions. When principles are abandoned, the future becomes an unpredictable, mysterious unknown. Having rejected their means for projecting the future, people then turn to palmists, shamans, and Nobel Prize winners for guidance.

Taxing Cow Farts
The EPA is considering a tax on livestock in an effort to reduce air pollution. This proposal is ripe for a wide variety of crude and tasteless comments, but I will resist the temptation. But it is clear that ranchers think this idea stinks:

The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

Even with unemployment soaring, the stock market in the toilet, and projections for 2009 looking very gloomy, our wonderful federal guardians seem intent on destroying more jobs and driving up the cost of food. Ethanol wasn't enough apparently.

Bend Over and Grab Your Ankles
The gradual erosion of our freedom is no longer fast enough for the statists. From Gus Van Horn:

According to the American Policy Center, the United States is only two states short of obliterating what is left of our government's policy of protecting individual rights.

Obama has already stated that he believes the Constitution needs to be interpreted in light of the "modern" world. Which means, through the lens of Pragmatism, altruism, and collectivism. The principles put forth by our Founding Fathers--the supremacy of reason and the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness-- no longer apply in the "modern" world.

I'm no atheist in a fox hole, but God help us all if a Constitutional Convention actually convenes. The "right" to health care, education, and hair cuts will be written into the Constitution, and we all will officially become slaves of the state.

A Monument to Mediocrity

During my life I have had the pleasure of visiting numerous monuments, including the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and the San Jacinto Monument. Some were more impressive and moving than others.

I intend to never visit the Capitol Visitor Center, which by all descriptions is nothing but a monument to political pork and undeserved self-aggrandizing. This monument to Congress cost $621 million to build (more than double the original budget), and took twice as long to build as planned. According to the US News and World Report, even one unidentified Democrat calls it a "A beautiful disaster." Here is how US News describes this monument to government largess:

Built underground on three levels, the center is awash in autumn sunlight thanks to its six skylights, some with views of the Capitol dome.

Its treasures include an 11-foot model of the dome, the plaster model used to create the Statue of Freedom that rests atop the dome, and the Lincoln catafalque that has supported the remains of Abraham Lincoln and other presidents.

I really don't mean to be cynical, but plaster models don't seem like "treasures" to me.

For history buffs, there are more artifacts, such as George Washington's letter to Congress announcing victory at Yorktown at the end of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson's letter to lawmakers asking them to fund the Lewis and Clark expedition, and John F. Kennedy's speech vowing that the country would put a man on the moon.

Wow. For $621 million I get to see these letters. I can only imagine what Congress could let me see if they spent $5 trillion. Maybe they could bring George Washington or Thomas Jefferson back from the dead and learn some lessons about the proper role of government.

For political junkies, there are touch-screen quizzes to test your knowledge of Congress—and two small theaters to watch floor proceedings, courtesy of C-SPAN. People can identify their elected representative by typing in their home address.

Now this is really great. Somebody can visit this center, type in their address, and find out who their Congressman is. Maybe, and this is admittedly a stretch on my part, if they don't know who their Congressman is, they shouldn't be going to Washington to find out. Maybe if they are that uninformed they should spend some time boning up on the Constitution. And won't they be proud when they find out that it only cost $621 million for them to learn the name of their Congressman?

There's also a stirring 13-minute orientation film that captures the beauty and diversity of the country's landscapes and cityscapes and details the role of Congress as the second of three equal branches of government.

I am not a professional photographer, but I have a strong suspicion that I can produce a "stirring 13-minute orientation film" for a lot less than $621 million. And what does the "diversity of the country's landscapes and cityscapes" have to do with Congress? Did Congress create the nation's landscapes and cityscapes?

The center's largest space is called Emancipation Hall in honor of the slaves who built the Capitol by clearing the grounds, quarrying stone, sawing timber, and performing other tasks. The hall contains 23 statues meticulously moved in from the Capitol's Statuary Hall. A 24th, a likeness of Helen Keller, the blind author and educator from Alabama, is due to arrive this spring.

Slavery was a horrible institution, and is the blackest mark in American history. But to devote significant space of this center to "the slaves who built the Capitol" is nothing more than appeasement. The construction of the Capitol is hardly an important part of American or Congressional history. And what does Helen Keller have to do with the Capitol or Congress?

In some ways, this monstrosity (did I mention that it cost $621 million to build?) is a fitting tribute to Congress. They spend like drunken sailors on everything from Wall Street bailouts to farm subsidies to fruit fly research, so why shouldn't they spend a fortune on themselves? Why shouldn't they build a monument to mediocrity?

If reading about this kind of porcine spending gives you the jollies, check out the 2008 Congressional Pig Book Summary, a report put out by Citizens Against Government Waste.

The Freedom to Sow and Reap

One of my hobbies is gardening. It is very satisfying to plant something, nurture it to maturity, and then witness its flowers or pick its fruit. This requires a littany of knowledge and skills, including picking the proper plants, preparing the soil, watering and fertilizing, pruning, and more.

Some plants--such as vegetables and annuals--last only a season. Others--such as the lawn, ferns, roses, hibiscus, and azaleas--are ongoing projects. Each has its own special needs in regard to soil, water, and fertilizers. Each presents its own unique challenges, and each provides its own unique rewards.

When I purchased my home 10 years ago the yard was a barren waste land. It had been neglected for years and had little grass. There were no flowering plants. In the years since, my wife and I have slowly transformed it into an oasis that includes an extensive deck, a fish pond, and a multitude of plants. On any given day throughout the year, we will typically have from 5 to 12 different plants in bloom, even during the winter. At this time we have azaleas, hibiscus, bouganvillas, and a variety of sages in bloom.

Even though we live in the midst of the nation's fourth largest city, our gardens attract a variety of wildlife. We regularly see butterflys, hummingbirds, possums, and and a wide assortment of birds. We have seen budgies, armadillos, and egrets in our yard. Some of these sightings are more enjoyable than others. The egrets for example, ate many of our fish.

Several years ago I became interested in organic methods for improving our soil. My motivation was not concern for the environment, but improving our poor quality soil so that we could reap bigger and better benefits with less effort. I have since experimented with converting our abundance of leaves into compost, and have created numerous versions of a compost tea brewer. It has been fun to learn the biology of composting and then put that knowledge into beneficial practice.

The point of this story is quite simple: We have built our gardens because they bring us pleasure. We sowed so that we could reap. Whether it is a home grown tomato, or a fragrant rose, or witnessing hummingbirds swarm around the sage plants, there is great joy to be gained from such activities. The joys may be simple, and they may not appeal to all, but freedom allows each of us to sow the seeds that we desire, and reap the results that ensue.

The Road to Freedom

One of the more interesting aspects of a truly free society is privatizing roads. It's a concept that most people have difficulty understanding and so they dismiss the idea as impractical. Market Urbanism recently linked to a post that says the state of Virginia is considering privatizing many cul-de-sacs.

Many of these roads within subdivisions are currently funded with a mixture of private and public monies. Typically, the developer pays for the initial construction and the state (in Virginia's case) covers the maintenance costs. However, VDOT is considering shifting the balance away from paying for semi-private roadways at all. In technical terms, they want to require a minimum link-to-node ratio in order to fund the maintenance of any road.

The link-to-node ratio is used to determine how "public" a street is. That is, a street with only one access point would be considered less public than one with many crossing streets. In other words, a street that is used exclusively for local transportation, such as getting to one's home, is less public than a major thoroughfare. And so the state of Virginia is considering a plan to shift the maintenance costs of such streets to the private sector.

This partial privatization raises other issues. First, unless the home owners receive some form of tax credit this will amount to a form of double-taxation. They are already paying maintenance fees through gasoline taxes, auto registration fees, etc.

Second, and more philosophically important, if privatizing cul-de-sacs is a good idea (which it is) then privatizing all roads is also a good idea. (It always strikes me as interesting that a government agency will tout the benefits of privatization or deregulation in some isolated instance, but cannot extrapolate that to the economy at large. They see privatization as a solution to an immediate, specific issue and remain clueless that the same principle applies to all issues. Another example of the impact of Pragmatism.)

The primary users of a cul-de-sac are easy to identify, and thus, it is easy to identify who should be responsible for maintenance. This becomes more difficult on a busier street which is used by citizens from all over the city. And that is where most people begin to oppose the idea of private streets--they view the idea as simply impractical.

While it is impossible to address all of issues related to private roads in a short post, I would like to indicate some of the means by which implementation would be made practical.

The most obvious aspect of privatizing the roads is toll roads. Most people understand this concept, and see little problem with it in regard to highways. But they envision that all roads would operate similarly, resulting in toll booths on every corner and massive gridlock. Admittedly this would be impractical, but it reveals several common misconceptions about the free market.

The owners of private property do not always charge the end user. The yellow pages is one example--advertisers pay for the cost of publication and distribution. The end user spay nothing for the book. A similar concept would likely be applied to many roads.

Cul-de-sacs are one example. While the primary users are the home owners, others--such as deliverymen, contractors, and visitors, also use the street. It would be imprudent and counterproductive for the owners--the residents of the street--to charge others for such negligible use. To do so would be to discourage deliverymen, contractors, and visitors, which would clearly not be in the best interest of the home owners.

Similarly with businesses, which need customers, vendors, employees, and others to reach their building. Businesses have a vested interest in providing access to their facility. Again, charging for that access would be a discouragement, and not in the business' best interest.

In both instances, and many others, use of a particular road would be free. Those who owned the road would have a vested interest in making use of that road available to others and charging for its use would not be in their best interest.

Some might argue that a company could purchase a major road and then charge outrageous rates to use that road. While this could happen, it is unlikely because it evades the very nature of business and the free market. First, businesses invest in assets in order to make a profit. Charging the highest rate "possible" is seldom the best route to maximizing profits, because consumers will seek alternatives. Second, in a truly free market high profit margins attract competitors, which ultimately puts downward pressure on prices.

This argument illustrates the perverted view of self-interest held by many, if not most, Americans. They view self-interest as "dog-eat-dog", "do unto others before they do unto you", or something similar. This perverted view holds that self-interest precludes cooperation with others and mandates an adversarial relationship between individuals.

Self-interest is nothing of the sort. Pursuing one's self-interest simply means that one does not sacrifice his values to others, not does he ask others to sacrifice to him. It means recognizing the mutual rights of all individuals to act according to their own judgment and pursue their own values.

As a simple example, consider "loss leaders"--a tactic often used by retailers. A particular item may be sold below cost--at a loss--in order to attract buyers. The retailer hopes to sell other, more profitable items, to the same customer. The retailer is pursuing his self-interest--a profit-- but he recognizes that maximizing the profit on each item may not be the best approach. And in the end, everyone benefits.

What works in retail works in all human relationships. Allowing each individual to pursue his values, free from the interference of others, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others, is the road to freedom.

Divorcing Cause and Effect

David R. Henderson, (HT: Freedom is the Solution) in an article for Forbes.com, writes:

When the government subsidizes an activity, it gives people an incentive to do more of it. That's true also of unemployment benefits. To receive unemployment benefits, someone must be unemployed. The unemployment benefit system, in short, pays people to be unemployed.

The same holds true for every activity that is subsidized, either directly or indirectly, by the government. Government subsidies divorce cause and effect by distorting the price of goods and services.

All resources are finite, and demand always exceeds supply. Prices are the means by which scarce resources are rationed to those who value them most highly. The more scare the resource, the higher the price. Those who are willing and able to pay the price get the resource.

When the government subsidizes some product, it is essentially saying that that product exists in a higher quantity than it actually does. For example, filet mignon is more expensive than hamburger because there is less of it. However, if the government subsidized filet mignon so that the consumer only paid $2 a pound, consumers would react as if it existed in the same quantity as hamburger. Consumers who never buy filet mignon would be dining on it weekly. But the supply would not have changed--only the mechanism that rations that supply.

Subsidies alter the normal decision making process. They distort the relationship between supply and demand. They send false messages to consumers, who then alter their decisions based on this false information. Subsidized filet mignon would be virtually impossible to find, because the demand would soar. Subsidies essentially put the item on sale.

But that "sale" is paid for by taxpayers. That subsidy comes from the pocket of all taxpayers, and more specifically, all producers. And this is a further distortion of cause and effect.

The values required for human life-- from the most basic to pure luxuries-- require effort. They must be produced. Morally, the individual who produces has a right to the products of his labor. To deny him this right is to deny him the means of sustaining and improving his life. To make him work for the sustenance and enjoyment of others is to make him a slave.

Subsidies allow some to consume when they have not produced. And since the values they consume must be produced by someone, it means that some must work for the benefit of others. It means that some must work while others consume the products of their labor.

Tactically, this scheme is perpetrated gradually. If the government demanded complete and absolute servitude, there would be rebellion. But, if they demand servitude for 3 hours a day, or 4.2 months a year (the approximate amount of our work time that goes to taxes), the servitude is more easily accepted by the citizenry.

Strategically, this scheme is found on altruism--on the belief that service to others is the ideal of morality. An individual who believes that he must place the needs of others above his own values is morally disarmed. He cannot complain or argue when others demand that he act according to his moral principles. He must either reject altruism, or obediently comply.

Each individual has a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy his life, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. He has a moral right to the products of his labor, which means, the right to the property that he creates and earns. His effort is the cause; his sustenance and enjoyment of life is the effect. He who enacts the cause has a moral right to the effect.

Well-Dressed Gangs

In 1994 the City of Houston established its anti-gang task force to deal with the growing problem of gangs within the city. According to the City's web site, the mission of the task force is:

The mission of the Mayor's Anti-Gang Office is to assist youth, young adults, families, and communities in the prevention of gang involvement and juvenile delinquency through partnerships with service organizations, law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, schools, and the general public.

This all sounds fine and dandy. Who could possibly be opposed to the "prevention of gang involvement and juvenile delinquency"? I know that I'm not opposed. I don't like gangs or juvenile deliquency. I don't like adult deliquency either.

Like many government programs, Houston's anti-gang task force is founded on a flawed principle. Indeed, despite this task force, the City of Houston is the biggest promoter of gang activity within Houston.

To begin, let's define "gang". Here are a few definitions I found:

A group of persons working together (Merriam-Webster)

A group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose (allegedly this is the police definition)

A group of people who through the organization, formation, and establishment of an assemblage share a common identity (Wikipedia)

These definitions have something in common--a gang is a group of people who are seeking to achieve some common purpose. But if this is the definition, then a business or a sports team or the PTA could be called a gang-- each is a group of people working together to achieve a common goal. The concept of "gang" must also represent some other characteristic(s), because the concept is usually used in reference to those engaged in criminal activities. What then, is the differentia? What distinguishes gangs from other groups?

The distinguishing characteristic is the use of force as a modus operandi. The gang, unlike a business or a sports team or the PTA, uses force to achieve its ends. A business operates on the voluntary consent of its employees, customers, and vendors, as does a sports team and the PTA. A gang is unconcerned with consent, and compels individuals to act as it chooses. And this compulsion is used against both gang members and the public. It is the use of force, and specifically the initiation for force, that distinguishes a gang from other groups.

So, the definition of a gang is: a group of individuals who initiate force to achieve a common purpose. A gang believes that might makes right, that its desires can rightfully be achieved by force. It takes what it wants because it can. It compels others to act as it desires because it can. And it has no qualms about its methods. A gang does not recognize individual rights, including property rights.

Initiating force can take many forms. The most obvious is to hold a gun to someone's head. But one can also use others as a proxy. One can also use others to initiate the force, and government is the most common and socially acceptable proxy.

For example, when the anti-gang task force was first formed, the City quickly passed an ordinance that forced property owners to remove graffiti from their buildings or face fines. When the home owners in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks disliked the Ashby High Rise they rushed to City Hall to find methods to force the developers to change their plans. In each instance, some individuals acted in concert to achieve their ends through the use of force.

Some might believe that gangs only dress in droopy pants and are covered in tattoos. These are non-essentials. Gang members can also wear suits and ties. A gang is not defined by how it dresses, but by the ideas it embraces and how it acts. Middle-class Americans, acting together to compel others to act as they choose, are a gang. And they act on the same premises as the poor Latinos from the barrio who steal cars, tag buildings, and rob their neighbors.

Some might argue that the City's efforts to remove graffiti or stop the Ashby High Rise are just democracy in action. And they would be correct. However, democracy is nothing more than rule by a gang of the majority. Democracy means that the majority may do as it pleases because it is the majority, and it may use force to achieve its ends. The majority determines right and wrong--which means, might makes right. The dear citizens of Southampton may not like be equated with hoodlums, but their desires do not change the facts.

As Shakespeare might have written:

What's in a name? that which we call a gang
By any other name would be as mean;
So a gang would, were it not a gang call'd,
Retain that club and fury which it owes
Without that title.

How to Not Lose Jobs

According to the Greater Houston Partnership (via Loren Steffy), Houston is projected to lose about 45,700 jobs in 2009. Most of these losses are projected to be in construction and the oil industry.

There is a very easy solution to this: freedom. Freedom allows individuals to act according to their own rational judgment, so long as they respect the mutual rights of others. Freedom unleashes creativity and allows individuals to pursue their dreams. Freedom allows individuals to take chances and create jobs.

The solution is not another government program, but less government. Houstonians have enjoyed more freedom than most cities, and our economy has prospered more than most cities. If Houston really wants to set an example and be a leader, it should begin repealing laws that restrict individual freedom.

Banning attention-getting devices will eliminate some jobs. Tagging taco trucks will eliminate some jobs. Prohibiting the construction of the Ashby High Rise will eliminate some jobs. Each of these government actions, and many others, will not eliminate large numbers of jobs. But in aggregate, the number will be significant. In good times, some may be willing to sacrifice jobs-- so long as it isn't their job.

In 2009 Houston has an opportunity to become the leading city in the world. In 2009 Houston has an opportunity to demonstrate that freedom is not only moral, it is practical. The way to do that is to create jobs. And the way to create jobs is by increasing individual freedom.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 4

On Your Feet...
In a piece for the Telegraph, Iain Martin exhorts capitalists to get off their knees:

Is this how capitalism ends, not with a revolutionary bang but a whimper? A culture war has been launched against free markets and so far the hostilities have been astonishingly one-sided: those of us who believe in the power of competition as the most powerful engine of human improvement have barely raised a protest.

I don't agree with the idea that competition is "the most powerful engine of human improvement". The engine is the human mind, and more precisely, the free human mind. But this is a minor complaint, as Martin concludes with a quote from Ayn Rand.

However, in the middle of the article Martin says that

Yes, markets require regulation...

Much of the poverty in this country originates not from failures of capitalism, but from the over-interference of government in the economy and civil society. The most obvious examples of this can be found in the growth of welfarism and in the maintenance of an education system that is insufficiently responsive to the demands of consumers. We need more of the free market, not less. [emphasis added]

So, while exhorting capitalists to get off their knees, Martin simultaneously argues that some regulation is needed. The problem isn't government interference, he says, the problem is "over-interference". But it is precisely government interference, or the threat of it, that has driven Wall Street, the Big Three, and others to their knees to beg for government assistance. By abandoning the moral right of individuals to be free of government interference, Martin undermines his entire argument.


...Or on Your Knees...
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that

The executives of the Big Three auto makers said Thursday they would be willing
to work under the supervision of a federal oversight board as a condition for
receiving financial aid from the government.

This is precisely what happens when businessmen accept government regulations and interference. Rather than name the real culprit--clean air regulations, safety mandates, and outrageous union contracts are a few--the Big Three would rather crawl on their knees and cozy up to the government teat. Having accepted government interference in their businesses, they cannot even recognize "over-interference".


...And Then Bow Before King Frank
Times of crisis are often used by power lusting politicians to expand their control over the lives of their subjects. The Wall Street Journal reports on a talk given by Barney Frank this past week:

House Financial Services Chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) predicted that 2009 will be the "best year" for public policy since the New Deal.

Speaking before the Consumer Federation of America Thursday, Mr. Frank said Congress would pass a regulatory overhaul comparable to the antitrust laws of the late 19th century and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934.

Democrats will tighten consumer protections for credit cards, put "very tough rules in" to govern subprime lending and give "appropriate liability" to the institutions that securitize mortgage loans, he said.

The SEC, the Fed, and the numerous other agencies and departments were created explicitly to prevent the type of economic issues we are now facing. But Barney and his friends on Capital Hill could care less about the fact that their interventionism caused the current mess. Because as Rahm Emanuel, the new Chief of Staff for Barack Obama has said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." That would mean wasting an opportunity to expand their power over the economy and the lives of individuals.


May I? Please! Please! Please!
On Friday, European Union antitrust regulators gave approval to Bank of America to purchase Merill Lynch. Townhall.com reports that US regulators gave their approval in October. It is bad enough that an American business needs to have the approval of anyone to purchase another company. But now Americans must also cull favor with Europeans. I know this isn't new, and it will likely get worse as Obama works to make America more likable in the eyes of the world.

What's Bad for GM...

Many years ago the Chairman of General Motors stated that "what is good for GM is good for America." The veracity of that statement is debatable. But what isn't debatable is that one idea voiced in Tuesday's LA Times is bad for GM and bad for America. Dan Neil thinks that we should nationalize GM.

GM's business is growing in other parts of the world; it's only the North American operations that are killing the company. This is a corporation that had $181 billion in revenue and sold 9.4 million vehicles in 2007. To put it another way: GM, though distressed, looks like a good investment. Also, the federal government can sell the company -- at a profit -- once it's righted and sailing forward again.

This is where advocates of government-owned businesses demonstrate their disconnect with reality. If GM is such a good investment, why is it losing so much money? Why is its stock in the toilet? The market--the millions of individuals and institutions--has judged GM to be a bad investment. If Mr. Neil thinks that GM is such a good investment, he is free to invest his money. But I prefer to make my investment decisions myself, and I don't want some newspaper columnist making such dictates to me or anyone else. And do we really want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running GM?

GM is competing with companies that are quasi-national now. If you consider the advantages the government of Japan has bestowed on Toyota, Nissan and Honda -- in terms of healthcare and retirement benefits for its employees -- the unevenness of the field is clear. The same goes for most European companies, and the rising rivals in China will enjoy similar state-subsidized advantages.

When I was a kid I would often tell my mother that "everyone else is doing it" as my justification for some idea. Her response was typical-- "Would you want to jump off a bridge if everyone else were doing it?" The same holds true here. Just because other nations take money from their citizens to subsidize auto makers does not mean America should do so. And when did China become a nation we should emulate? The last I checked they limit families to one baby, stifle free speech, and murder political dissidents.

We need government-sized automotive help anyway. This country should be putting
millions of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. As far as I can tell, without big subsidies, there is no way in the near term to build these vehicles and make a reasonable profit, due to the stubbornly high cost of advanced batteries. Besides, if GM were owned by the government, it wouldn't spend time and money litigating and lobbying against clean-air and safety rules.

So it is unprofitable to build "green" cars, but we should force GM to do so anyway. That is not a particularly sound business strategy. Generally, profitability comes from offering products desired by consumers at a price that is higher than the cost to produce it. But I guess this is some kind of "new math" that I don't understand.

And how about getting rid of the clean air and safety rules, rather than imposing these burdens on auto makers? That would be unthinkable. Instead, we'll just force tax payers to invest billions into a failing company.

I am always dismayed when someone ventures an opinion far outside the realm of their expertise. Mr. Neil is the automotive critic for the LA Times, and so I suppose he thinks that makes him an expert on all issues related to the industry. Mr. Neil may know automobiles, but he certainly doesn't know economics or political philosophy. He would be appalled if I wrote about the newest offerings from Detroit, because I do not know the proper principles for evaluating automobiles. Mr. Neil has made it clear that he doesn't know the proper principles for evaluating socio-political issues.

A Debate on Zoning

The comments to a post at Houston Strategies evolved into a lengthy debate over zoning. The debate was civil and interesting. The advocate for zoning presented reasonable arguments which are shared by many people. Below are some excerpts from his comments, followed by my response (I did not participate in the debate):

I also like the efforts of the Houston It's Worth It crowd, but I suspect for different reasons. I like Houston's incredible diversity and opportunity - however to me the very slogan "Houston It's Worth It" means that it is worth beautifying Houston and making it more livable, not "keeping it ugly".

This is a common theme in arguments for land use controls in Houston. And it is an understandable argument in some respects-- nobody wants to live in an "ugly" city. But what is an ugly city and what does beautifying mean? One person might find skyscrapers beautiful (I do) and another might find parks beautiful (I do). What one finds beautiful or ugly is a matter of personal values. The same is true of "livability".

The lack of land use controls in Houston allows for a wide diversity of land uses, and hence, a wide variety of values to be offered. Land use controls reduce the variety, and impose the values of some upon the entire community. Those who argue for making Houston "beautiful" or "livable" are really arguing that their values should have the power of law.

Further, the city's population has continued to grow almost unabated for decades. This indicates that many people find Houston very livable. The fact that people voluntarily move to Houston is a very strong argument that they find Houston livable. Why is that fact so frequently ignored?

Still, it would be nice to have some recourse if someone decided to build a 30 story skycraper next to me (since I am not protected AFAIK), and it would be great to see that the city has a plan of how it would like to develop rather than having the next business center pop up in Tomball.

In this context, "some recourse" means some way of prohibiting others from using their property in a manner that he finds offensive. While it is only natural to want to protect one's investment from something one finds offensive and potentially harmful, a civilized person does so through persuasion and voluntary consent. A brute resorts to force-- or government as his proxy.

I agree that the private sector could figure out shared parking arrangements.
I'm less confident they would do things like preserve green space or figure out
how to provide effective mass transit to these areas.

A lack of confidence is not a compelling argument. Twenty years ago I wasn't confident that I would be able to reach a potential audience of millions, but here I am. The fact is, when individuals are free they will find innovative ways to provide the values sought by others. If there is sufficient demand for green space and mass transit--i.e., a profit to be made--you can be sure that enterprising entrepreneurs will find a way to provide those values.

If there is insufficient demand, that is, a small number of people desire the value, then why is it proper for their values to be imposed on the entire community? Why should something that doesn't have widespread economic value be imposed by law? That's the economic/ practical argument. Morally, what right does anyone have to impose his values on others? Each individual has a moral right to pursue his values without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. If someone desires green space so highly, then he should move to Brenham, but he should not use the government to impose his desires upon everyone else.

"Anything goes" simply does not work when you have 5,000+ people per square mile- you are going to have controversies over building heights, access to sunlight, noise, traffic, mass transit, sidewalks, signage, building uses, parking, etc. I really don't see any way around this new reality, and the libertarian arguments do not effectively answer these challenges - instead they "wish them away". I would be happy to hear alternatives to zoning or form-based code that are more open or libertarian-friendly, but simply saying that "there are no problems with the lack of zoning" or "we do not need any additional government tools to deal with these sort of issues" is an argument that I find increasingly untenable.

So the more people living together the more we need government dictating our actions? The truth is, government's purpose is to protect our rights, whether there are 5 people per square mile or 5,000. The principle does not change with the number of people.

Certainly, density creates challenges. But that does not mean that we should abandon property rights and let the government dictate how we use our land. The solution is to fully respect property rights. Government has a legitimate role in this--to identify what those rights constitute and what violates those rights.

Further, the use of the term "anything goes" implies anarchy. Houston has laws. Many communities have deed restrictions. To imply that Houston is an anarchy is at best naive.

Dictating land use is a violation of property rights. The very nature of zoning and land use regulations is a violation of property rights. We don't need more "government tools". We need a properly defined and limited government, doing its legitimate job and nothing more.

It is common for advocates of more government control to pose some issue, and when they do not receive a ready answer that they find satisfactory, they rush to conclude that government is the only solution. Government is an agency of force. When government is the "solution" it really means that force is the solution--that some may use force to impose their values on others. That is never an appropriate solution.


Despite the fact that Houston has continued to grow in terms of population and its economy, there are those who argue that our city will become "unlivable" and collapse into depravity. This argument has been made for 80+ years, and yet it hasn't come true. It is easy to make dire predictions, but when those predictions do not come true, we must seriously question the motives behind such prognostications.


The fact is, city's with strict land use controls have become unlivable for most of the middle-class. Home prices are beyond the reach of the average family, and while those cities might be "beautiful", most people get to experience that "beauty" only as they drive through. To me, beauty lies in freedom, and in that regard, Houston is the most beautiful city in the world.

Debt and Prostitution

I don't make it a habit to visit web sites catering to the far left part of the political spectrum, but on occasion it makes for some entertaining (and always infuriating) reading. As an example, the HuffingtonPost contains this little gem:

Slavery is more prevalent today than at any point in history. Free the Slaves estimates that 27 million people are trapped in debt bondage, domestic servitude, hard labor, or the sex trade for little to no pay beyond subsistence.

The rest of the article goes on to give details and statistics about prostitution around the world and the steps being taken to reduce sex-for-pay. For example:

After years of parliamentary debate, in 1999 Swedes passed the Sex Purchase Law, which criminalized buying and decriminalized selling sex. This placed the emphasis on the buyers, while allowing women to seek help without being fined or deported.

I am not a fan of prostitution, but it strikes me as ironically unprincipled for an "anti-slavery" organization to be promoting laws designed to criminalize prostitution.

Adults have a right to engage in whatever consensual activities they choose, including paying for sex. To criminalize consensual activities is to declare that individuals can not act according to their own volition, but can only undertake those activities approved by the state. In short, the individual does not own his own life-- he is the property of the state.

How is this different from slavery? A slave cannot act of his own volition, but can only act as allowed and/ or dictated by his master. The slave does not own his own life-- he is the property of his master.

Forcing someone into a life of sexual servitude is indeed a horrible action, and a violation of individual rights. But the solution is to prosecute those engaging in such activities, not the poor schmuck who has to pay for some affection.

But this unprincipled position is not what really caught my eye in the article. In the first section quoted above, those who are forced into prostitution are equated with people "trapped in debt bondage". Which means, forcing a woman to have sex with strangers is the equivalent of lending someone money. A pimp and a banker are moral equals according to this thinking.

The word "bondage" certainly has negative connotations. One pictures a helpless borrower, tied up, and pleading for mercy. "Bondage" implies that he borrower had no input in his plight, that he is a mindless automaton under the complete control of lenders.

This should not be surprising. After all, the Left thinks that we are incapable of caring for our self--that is why we need a paternalistic government to make sure we don't run out into the road. The Left thinks that our lives do not belong to us--we are the property of the state. So it is no surprise that we can't have sex with whom we choose, even when it is consensual. And we certainly aren't responsible for running up debt that we can't afford.

To put forth such positions in the name of fighting slavery is worthy of the 1984 Double-Speak Award. Worse yet, it puts forth the idea that an evil can be fought by engaging in more of that very evil.

The Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine (FD) was first introduced in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission and according to Wikipedia it "required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." President-elect Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders have voiced support for re-introducing the FD. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act in 2005 and will likely do so in the new Congressional term.

[T]he airwaves belong to the people. I think we've good and sufficient examples now of what has happened to us with media consolidation — the fact that the information coming to us is controlled, the fact that at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they're not allowed in on talk radio .

The airwaves do not belong to "the people". The airwaves were sitting there without use or utility until someone invented a transmitter and a receiver. Like any resource, it took the actions of individuals to bring value to the airwaves. And like any resource, those who took those actions have a moral claim to ownership, that is, property rights to the resource.

Government's proper purpose is the protection individual rights, including property rights. In the context of previously unclaimed resources, such as western lands or the airwaves, the government must define the actions required for a legitimate claim of ownership to exist. For example, the Homestead Act required an individual to farm his land for a period of years to obtain title. Which means, the individual had to give value to the resource before he could claim ownership.

To claim that the airwaves belong to the people is to declare that the individuals who own transmitters are merely servants of the public. It is to declare that broadcasters may operate, not by right, but by permission. It is to declare that broadcasters must provide a microphone that others may use to attack them.

Frederick Wasser, Associate Professor of Television and Radio at Brooklyn College, writes:

The importance of the Fairness Doctrine is not eviscerated by the fact that it will always fall short of giving us truly public-spirited television. Its importance is that to reinstate the doctrine is the high-minded fight to restore ideals to mass media. The doctrine will show a general political commitment to a public sphere of mutual listening and mutual talking. It is a fight for once broadly accepted simple ideals such as this one that will reinvigorate a democratic media, not a search for an impotent third way or an acceptance of the corporate media status quo. Perhaps the saddest thing about politics in the age of media consolidation is that Republicans feel they no longer have to listen to Democrats or any other oppositional voices. They don’t listen because they know the post-doctrine media will also ignore these voices. The fact that they don’t listen has led them to make repeated mistakes in their foreign and domestic policy, not only mistakes of convention, but also mistakes of competency.

The purpose of the media is to report the facts. It is not (or at least, should not be) a democratic institution.

If words have meaning, a "democratic media" would be one in which the majority rules. In other words, the reporting of news would not be governed by the facts and what actually occurred, but by a vote. But truth is not determined by a consensus or a show of hands. No matter how many people might believe that the Earth is flat will not change the fact that it isn't.

For all the talk of stimulating discussion, this is nothing more than an attempt to stifle debate. It is an attempt to allow the majority (or their representatives) to dictate both the content and the method of public discourse. In practical terms, those with ideas outside of the mainstream are silenced.

Political analyst Taylor Marsh believes that the Fairness Doctrine will "level the playing field" by giving Democrats more exposure on radio.

As I've written many times, the Republicans have used radio to pump up emotion and GOTV. In case you haven't noticed, radio works. Just ask Karl Rove, who has worked and worked and worked it. It's about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people. The host gets to know his/her audience, they trust him/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy/Roxanne, they likely will. After all, they've built up a trust. Republicans will do anything to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead. Democrats are still behind in radio, trying to reinvent the wheel instead of using their donor base to help hosts who could hold their own. Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?

Marsh implies that those who listen to conservative talk radio are mindless robots who follow the marching orders of the hosts-- "they've built up a trust". The condescending Marsh believes the only way to overcome this is by forcing broadcasters to give liberals equal air time so that the Left can create its own mindless robots. (I could mention that the mass media seems to have done a good job of that already, but I won't.)

The last time I checked, my radio comes with a tuner that allows me to select from a variety of radio stations. It also has an on/ off button. Indeed, every radio I have ever seen in my life has such a features. In other words, listening to talk radio is a choice. The popularity of conservative talk radio is the result of the choices of millions of individuals. And it is this freedom of choice that Marsh and her cohorts seek to eliminate. (I should also add that, while I do listen to conservative talk radio regularly, I disagree with the vast majority of what I hear.)

In mandating that both sides of an issue be aired, the Fairness Doctrine dictated the content of speech. It compelled broadcaster to air ideas that they might find repugnant. It forced broadcaster to cede control of their property.

Marc Lamont Hill, Assistant Professor of Urban Education and American Studies at Temple University, and described as a “Hip-Hop Intellectual” on his web site, believes that the Fairness Doctrine is a component of social justice.

Although the Fairness Doctrine remains our best option for sustaining any semblance of media democracy, it is not without its limitations and shortcomings. By legislating our demands for equal time for the “other side,” we reify a liberal/conservative binary that effectively obscures the existence of perspectives that fall outside of that shortsighted dichotomy. Also, by intervening in the programming decisions of corporatized radio outlets, we fail to address the more profound structural problems that accompany neo-liberal globalization. Nevertheless, the Fairness Doctrine will provide us with a much-needed respite from the conservative media assault that has undermined democratic discourse and social justice.

While acknowledging the veracity of Mr. Hill's accurately pompous identification of ideas outside those offered by liberals and conservatives, I must respectfully disagree that the ideas of liberals and conservatives constitute a dichotomy. In terms of essentials the ideas offered by liberals and conservatives are the same. They only differ in regard to the particular area of our life that they seek to control. Both advocate altruism and collectivism. They only differ in their emphasis.

Mr. Hill wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to promote "social justice", a view that Wikipedia says "affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society." Which means, individuals should receive the "benefits of society" regardless of their individual contribution. Which means, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability. So if someone has a "need" to broadcast his message to the masses he can demand that those with the ability to do so--i.e., broadcasters--fulfill his need.

The Fairness Doctrine is only one attempt by the government to control free speech. For example, the 1984 Cable Franchise Policy and Communications Act mandates that cable companies provide training, technology, and distribution of programs produced by the public, i.e., public access television. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act) limits campaign contributions as well as when particular types of political ads can be broadcast. This trend will likely continue, and more likely increase as those with political power seek to stifle dissenting view points.

Sacrifice and Political Power

President-elect Obama has told us many times that his agenda will require that everyone make sacrifices. But there is one group that will be exempt from this mandatory orgy of sacrifice-- the federal government.

A sacrifice is giving up one value for one that is valued less or not at all. A sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lower value. It is not a sacrifice to delay gratification, such as eating at home rather than dining out in order to save for a vacation.

Political power ranks as a very high value for those in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. (There may be some rare exceptions, but they are rare.) Yet, the past few months, as well as Obama's ideology, clearly demonstrate that the federal government will seize more power over the economy and our lives. Those in the federal government will not be giving up a value, but attaining more what they desire-- political power.

If everyone must sacrifice, what sacrifices will be demanded of those in the federal government? If John and Jane Taxpayer must sacrifice, what sacrifices will be asked of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid? Will they be asked to sacrifice some of their political power? I don't think so.

The latest Gallup poll (November 13-16) gave Congress an approval rating of 19% and a disapproval rating of 74%. In reviewing the results of 19 different polls going back to September 2005, the highest approval rating for Congress during that period was 44%. During 2008 the approval rating ranged from 13% to 28%. In short, during the past 5 years the vast majority of Americans have disapproved of the job done by Congress. In this were an election, it would be a landslide of immense proportions.

Despite this fact, Congress is poised to grab more power. Despite the fact that Congress has presided over the collapse of the housing market, plummeting stock prices, and record deficits, they are about to grab more power.

Now, if Congress had a record of competency this might make some kind of sense. There would be some connection to reality, some fact that could be used to justify such action. But all Congress has is a club, and a damn big one at that. Apparently, they will use that club to solve the current economic crisis. According to Austan Goolsbee, an economic advisor to Obama:

I don't know what the number is going to be, but it's going to be a big number. It has to be. The point is to, kind of, get people back on track and startle the thing into submission. [emphasis added]

I don't know about you, but if I were an economic crisis and someone threw a big number at me, I'm not really sure how I would respond. I really haven't thought about it before. But I guess that is why Obama will be the President, because he has access to guys who know about things like this. Why not just try some scary Halloween masks? That would sure be a lot cheaper, and it would probably be good for a few laughs too.

But alas, Mr. Goolsbee is serious. In typical Washington fashion, he believes that throwing enough money at a problem will solve it. However, it wants to do more than just solve the economic crisis. He wants to "startle the thing into submission", which I can only take to mean, he wants the economic crisis to beg for mercy and then sit in awe of Obama.

If a child made such a comment we might consider some counseling for him. At a minimum we would sit him down and explain that the economy is not an animate object, and consequently, cannot be startled or submissive. But Goolsbee is really not talking about the economy when he talks about submission.

The economy is nothing more than the combined activities of producers and consumers. The economy consists of the individual decisions and actions of millions of people, each pursuing their own goals and values. And it is the individual that Goolsbee and Obama want to startle into submission.

Government is an agency of force. Every action undertaken by government uses force (or the threat thereof). That force may used to take from some to give to others. That force may be used to prohibit certain actions (such as short-selling), or it may be used to compel certain actions (such as caps on executive pay). And that force is always ultimately aimed at individuals. It is the individual that Goolsbee, Obama, and Congress seek to control. It is the individual who is the target of each piece of legislation. It is the individual that Obama exhorts to sacrifice.

All individuals that is, except those in government. All individuals, except those with political power.