Atlas and the Animals

South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Andre Bauer recently said of those receiving public aid:

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.

Bauer's comments are disgusting. He reduces humans to the level of animals--devoid of volition and moved solely by physical urges. Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. takes offense and responds in an equally disgusting manner, by urging America's poor to act like animals:

Who, then, speaks for the poor? Who raises a voice when they are scapegoated and marginalized? Who cries out when they are abused by police and failed by schools? Who takes a stand when they are exploited by employers and turned away by hospitals?

As near as I can tell, no one does.

Unfortunately, poor people have never learned to think of and conduct themselves as a voting bloc; historically, they have proved too readily divisible, usually by race.

To Pitts the solution to any alleged problem is collectivism. He does not see individuals, but only groups, and specifically, economic and racial groups. Any alleged wrongs must be addressed through political power, which ultimately means using the coercive power of government to dictate or restrict the actions of others.

There are only two methods for dealing with others: reason or force. One can present the facts that support one's position, or one can resort to wielding a club. One can treat others as human beings by appealing to their rational faculty, or one can treat others as animals by resorting to brute force. One can respect the moral right of each individual to act according to his own judgment, or one can negate that judgment by compelling certain behavior.

While Bauer argues that those on public assistance are no different from stray animals, Pitts argues that they should act like wild animals and force other individuals to alleviate their suffering:

It takes some helluva psychology to get two men stuck in the same leaking boat to fight each other. You'd think their priority would be to come together, if only long enough to bail water. But the moneyed interests in this country have somehow been able to con the poor into doing just that, fighting tooth and nail when they ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder.

Embracing the Marxist theory of class struggle, Pitts urges the poor to rise up against the "moneyed interests". If the poor want better schools and free health care, then they should seize the reins of power and vote themselves such values. Pitts counts on the productive to tolerate such injustice; he expects that the the productive will be willing to be enslaved.

Pitts concludes by warning that "[s]ometimes stray animals bite." What he and his ilk don't realize is that sometimes Atlas shrugs.

Haiti's Real Need

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti, there seems to be no shortage of calls for Americans--including the federal government--to send aid. The earthquake is an undeniable tragedy. No decent person could find any pleasure in the resulting death and destruction. But no matter how tragic the situation, the needs of the Haitian people are not a claim on the lives and property of others.

This however, has not and will not stop the altruists from arguing otherwise. As one example, Thursday's Chronicle editorial is titled "Haiti's fresh hell: World must help nation to recover". But nowhere in the editorial are we told why we must help Haiti recover. It is assumed that we know, and agree, that morality demands that we help the Haitians in their time of need.

As the editorial acknowledges, Haiti has had a long history of political corruption. And, while the editorial states that that issue should be dealt with another day, I disagree. Haiti's current needs are largely a result of the culture that has allowed such corruption. Further, if the Chronicle addressed that issue in a principled manner, it would undermine its own claim that we must send aid to Haiti.

Haiti is a nation steeped in mysticism and altruism. According to Wikipedia, 80% of Haitians are Roman Catholic. Vodou is practiced by a large portion of the population, though the number is unknown. Like Catholicism, Vodou preaches service to others as a moral ideal, that the needs of one man impose a moral obligation on others, that each individual must place the welfare and interests of others before his own.

This is precisely what Haiti's string of tin-pot dictators (and indeed every dictator in history) have demanded of the citizenry. The particular justifications have varied, but the nation's rulers have demanded that Haitians sacrifice for the "general welfare" or the "common good".

The Chronicle cannot question this premise, because it underlies their regular calls for Houstonians to do the same. Whether it is the paper's support of health care "reform", or shoving light rail down our throats, or restricting signs in Houston, or any other government intervention, the paper believes that each of us has a moral obligation to put aside our own personal desires and values in the same of some "higher" good--the alleged welfare of the community.

Of course, the Chronicle is hardly alone in embracing self-sacrificial service to others as the standard of morality. Most Americans share that belief, and government officials are more than happy to make them oblige. If one accepts the premise that the individual is subservient to the demands of the group--whether one's community, one's race, one's religion, or one's nation--then one will logically accept that it is proper for government to compel obedience to those demands.

These are the premises that underlie the corruption in Haiti, as well as the more open corruption that exists in America (such as the deals that were made to secure support for health care "reform"). These are the premises that must be rejected.

If Americans truly want to help Haitians, they would teach them the morality upon which America was implicitly founded. Each individual has the moral right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. But before Americans can export such a moral code, they must discover it for themselves.

"Open Source" Government

Tory Gattis offers a suggestion to Mayor-elect Parker that Houston adopt an "open source" style of government, similar to that used with software today:

...truly open up government to enable more engagement by citizens (including innovation and finding much-needed efficiency improvements)...

I often find Tory's insights on infrastructure and transportation issues interesting, but this is a bad idea. A very bad idea.

I am not opposed to citizens offering suggestions to government; I have been doing so on this blog for the past nineteen months. But my suggestions are not aimed at finding innovations or improving efficiencies. My suggestions are aimed at restricting government to its proper function--protecting our rights.

Government is an agency of force. Its prescriptions and proscriptions are enforced with a gun, and if you don't believe me, try violating one of them. Sooner or later somebody with a gun will show up at your door. When government has expanded far beyond its legitimate powers, do we really want government to be more innovative in using force? When government is poking its nose into every aspect of our lives, do we really want government to wield its clubs more efficiently? I don't think so.

But my objection to Tory's suggestion goes beyond this. Consider this statement from Wikipedia, regarding open source software:

Some consider open source a philosophy, others consider it a pragmatic methodology.

I am certainly not an expert on the open source movement. But what I do know is that individuals give up intellectual property rights when they participate. Once shared with the world, they have no claim to their ideas or their material consequences. On the surface this strikes me as very altruistic, but since I do not know the motivations of those involved or what material benefits they might derive, I will withhold judgment on that issue.

If open source is a philosophy, and a pragmatic philosophy at that, what are the implications for applying this idea to government? Before we can answer that question, we must first understand Pragmatism.

As a philosophy, Pragmatism holds that truth is "what works". And how do we know "what works"? We try something, and if we get desirable results, then our idea must be true. If we get undesirable results, we try something else. But we cannot judge truth until after the fact. We cannot project results, because according to Pragmatism, there are no principles. As Ayn Rand wrote:

[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.

If someone wrote software following this dictum, the consequences would be minimal. His program might crash or a web page would not display correctly. Nobody would use the software. But what if one applied this to government? What if a government official is faced with a pressing problem, and his solution is to "try something" and judge its validity by the consequences? We get TARP (or any number of government programs), which was government's attempt to "try something" to fix the problems caused by the Federal Reserve (and Congress), which had previously "tried something" to fix the problems caused by previous attempts to "try something".

For more than 100 years the government has "tried something" over and over again. And when problems result, which they must, the government "tries something" else. But unlike software, the "users" have no choice in the matter. Unlike Firefox users, who can freely switch to Internet Explorer, or vice versa, the citizenry must accept government's continual experimentation whether they like the results or not.

Adding an "open source" approach to government, that is, enabling more "engagement" by citizens, is simply an invitation for more lobbyists and special interest groups to twist the ears of public officials. It is an invitation for more compromise, for an ever increasing gaggle of noisy gangs to parade before government officials demanding that their ideas "be tried".

Absent the proper moral and political principles, these demands will necessarily involve using government coercion for the benefit of some at the expense of others. Without government limited to its proper function--the protection of individual rights--"open source" government will be nothing more than civil war. The "soldiers" might wear suits and ties instead of camouflage, they might brandish reams of reports instead of automatic weapons, but the results will be just as deadly. They won't be fighting for a piece of turf; they will be fighting for control of our lives.

Alvarado's War on the Mind

Tuesday's Chronicle ran an editorial supporting Texas Rep. Carol Alvarado's bill to ban trans fats in the state.

It takes just a quick trip around the grocery store perusing the signs on display cases to confirm what you already knew: “No trans fats!” “Zero trans fats!” No doubt about it: Trans fats are bad for us.

If one accepts the premise of the Chronicle's argument--things that are bad for us (such as reading the Chronicle) should be banned--there is no end to the number of activities that should be under control. And why stop at activities that are typically harmful? Why not go after any activity that can have a negative consequence--such as driving, or starting a business, or having sex? (These are rhetorical questions--I am not advocating such legislation.)

But the premise underlying this bill is much more insidious than controlling what we may eat. If the government can control what we consume physically, it is only a small step away from controlling what we "consume" intellectually. If the government can control what we put in our bodies, it won't be long before it controls what we put into our minds.

The argument used for banning trans fats--that they are bad for us--could also be used in favor of banning certain ideas. For example, those who question Obama's proposals could be accused of undermining public morale, instilling rebellion, and in general being harmful to the nation.

Bans on trans fats--as well as similar laws--explicitly prohibit individuals from acting according to their own judgment. Controls on the body are implicitly controls on the mind--they render an individual's judgment moot. If one accepts such bans, one cannot argue against an expansion of that principle to the realm of ideas. Because the law is often a process of extending a principle to its logical conclusions, it will not be long before those controls are made explicit.


That Alvarado would aspire for such despotism is not surprising to those who have much familiarity with her career. A Chronicle profile quotes former fellow Council member Gabriel Vasquez as calling Alvarado's political style the "Chicago ward-boss model." "It's about power, authority and control," Vasquez said.

Ayn Rand often wrote that the initiation of force is ultimately directed at the mind. They compel an individual to act contrary to his own judgment. They force an individual to follow the dictates and judgment of others. This is precisely the end that Alvarado is pursuing. Whether it is banning smoking in restaurants (she led that effort in Houston) or banning trans fats, Alvarado does not want to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices and act accordingly.

Alvarado and her ilk invariably argue that the actions of one individual have an impact on others through higher insurance costs, or higher government spending on health care, or something similar. They treat the individual as a cell in the organism called "society"--as subservient to the collective. If the "public good" or "general welfare" requires removing a few cancerous cells, so be it.

But individuals are not chattel to be disposed of by Alvarado or the public. Each individual has a moral right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual right of others.

In the end, the ideas advocated by Alvarado have killed far more individuals than trans fats. Collectivism and statism have been responsible for the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and the gulags of Soviet Russia. They have been responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia and the genocide of Darfur. They are the true threat, not trans fats.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 9

Houston Property Rights Association
On Friday, January 16 I will be speaking to the Houston Property Rights Association. The talk will be at the Courtyard on St. James, 1885 St. James Place. Admission is $16, which includes lunch. My topic will be "The Moral Defense of Property Rights".


Can't Have it Both Ways
Last Sunday's Chronicle Business section bemoans the number of development projects that have been cancelled, delayed, or reduced due to the economy and credit crunch. Included in the list is the Ashby High Rise, which has been delayed by the city's refusal to grant permission to the developers to break ground.

At a time when construction is grinding to a halt, the City is making it impossible for the Ashby developers to move forward, thereby costing more jobs in an industry already hit hard by the economy. The City claims it wants to encourage continued economic growth while simultaneously preventing economic activity. The City has a fundamental choice: protect the property rights of the developers (and all Houstonians) or pander to noisy civic groups. The City can't have it both ways.


The Blame Game
As I reported last week, leaders of Houston's black community met this past week to discuss black-on-black violence. And as I suspected, the meeting turned out to be a meaningless endeavor in finger pointing. Several of the ministers in attendance blamed social problems.

A funeral director who attended the meeting, told the Chronicle

Somehow in society, we've missed something.

This was probably the most sensible statement made at the meeting. But the funeral director, as well as everyone else at the meeting, was at a loss to explain the "something" that has been missed.

The truth is, there are several "somethings" that have been missed--reason, individualism, and self-interest are a good place to start. The black community--like much of America-- is mired in faith, collectivism, and altruism. The black community--like much of America-- regards sacrifice to the group as the standard of morality. The black community--like much of America-- seeks to use the coercive power of government to its alleged benefit.

A black youth--or any youth for that matter-- who has these ideas beat into his head could easily conclude that life is a hopeless quest. An education is meaningless-- individual achievement is not as important as the "accomplishments" of the race. Improving one's position in life is pointless-- one must sacrifice his values to others. Productive activities are a waste-- goals are achieved through the political process.

Surrounded by such ideas, it is little wonder that he turns to violence. His community leaders have shown him that banding together and shouting bromides "works". Protests and political power deliver the goods. Might makes right. He's been taught that if you want something, you demand that government officials grab it for you. But why use a middleman, when you can grab it for yourself?


This Will be Politically Popular
I probably should have seen this coming, but I didn't. Porn mogul Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis are asking for a federal bailout. Flynt said:

People are too depressed to be sexually active. This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.

With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly.

According to CNN, there has been no Congressional response to the request for $5 billion. Apparently, Congress is too busy screwing the American taxpayer to be worried about his sex life.

Going to Extremes

I have previously written that the cause of Houston's economic success is the relative freedom enjoyed by Houstonians. Despite the practical benefits of individual freedom, there remains a large segment of the city that is eager to enact more controls on the citizenry, particularly in regard to land use. Unable or unwilling to identify the principles that underlie Houston's prosperity, the proponents of regulations seek to enact the very causes of the economic turmoil gripping the nation.

The consequences of government regulations and controls are evident to anyone who cares to examine the issue. For example, American cities with the most stringent land use regulations are among those most affected by the housing bubble. And the epitome of government regulations and controls-- the Soviet Union-- was an abysmal failure by every objective measure. Despite this overwhelming evidence, there is growing support for more government control over our lives, both locally and nationally.

So long as that trend continues, it can have only one ultimate end—complete government control of our lives. Some may consider this an extreme statement. After all, there is no open movement for dictatorship. The American people are not demanding that all political power be vested in a single individual.

Ideas have consequences. The logical implications of a principle do not change simply because they are not identified and/ or stated.

Consider for example, a politician who openly endorses the idea of “spreading the wealth”. He has not explicitly called for the wholesale seizure of private property by the government. And few citizens would identify his statement as such. However, this does not change the fact that if government can seize some property it can, in principle, seize all property.

If you grant to others the right to take some of your money, you cannot complain about the amount they choose to take. If you grant to others the right to dictate your actions, you cannot complain about the prescriptions and proscriptions they enact. On what possible grounds can you complain? That their actions are too extreme?

Some might argue that my argument is illogical, that I am putting words in the mouth of someone. They might argue that those who advocate "spreading the wealth" don't mean to seize all property. Such an argument illustrates a profound disregard for principles.

A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Principles allow us to identify the long-term consequences of our actions, as well as the actions (and words) of others.

So what principle or principles underlies the belief that “spreading the wealth” is proper? And what are the long-term consequences of those principles?

Politically, “spread the wealth” schemes are founded on collectivism. Collectivism holds that the group—whether the community, the race, or the State—is the standard of good and the individual is subservient to the group. Morally, “spread the wealth” schemes are founded on altruism. Altruism holds that service to others is the standard of virtue and the individual must place the welfare of others above his own. Collectivism is the political implementation of altruism.

Altruism and collectivism are the dominant ideas in America (and Houston) today. Both liberals and conservatives exhort individuals to serve a cause higher than oneself. Both advocate programs and policies that force individuals to sacrifice for "the public welfare".

It is impossible to practice altruism completely and consistently because life demands the opposite. The simple act of eating is aimed at sustaining oneself, rather than others. Few can completely and consistently renounce all values because the consequences are asceticism. This is the trap of altruism--morality or practicality.

Both liberals and conservatives acknowledge that altruism is impractical and contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Both declare that man’s “natural, selfish inclinations” are contrary to altruism. Liberals declare that man is not good enough for socialism, while conservatives declare that man is naturally depraved and must be “saved” through the blood of Jesus.

The purpose of morality is to provide man with a guide for living his life and achieving his values. A morality that is impractical is not designed for human happiness, human welfare, or human life. A morality that is impractical is a self-contradiction, and is nothing more than intellectual poison.

It is possible to ingest a small amount of poison and not die. However, one's health will be compromised. And if one continues to ingest that poison, over time the results will ultimately be fatal. The same is true of intellectual poison-- a small dose will not necessarily be fatal. But one will ultimately face a choice: reject the poison and embrace its antidote, or suffer the consequences.

History is the story of philosophy, that is, the implementation of philosophical principles. The Dark Ages were guided by the principle that man is inherently depraved and must obediently serve God and his earthly minions. America’s founding was guided by the principle that all men possess the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Nazi Germany was guided by the principle that the individual must sacrifice in service to the Volk.

The same cause will always lead to the same effect. Altruism and collectivism have only one ultimate result—death and destruction. That is not just going to extremes, that is a philosophical fact. Ignoring that fact won't change it.

Tacos and Tags

Apparently, Houston has a serious problem with renegade taco truck owners. I say apparently because this past week City Council considered an ordinance to require mobile food vendors to carry a radio-tag on their vehicles. According to the Chronicles political blog, the purpose is to be sure that mobile food vendors "are actually visiting the city commissaries to clean up, as required."

Last November a new ordinance requiring mobile food vendors to visit a city commissary within 24-hours prior to serving food went into effect. At the commissary the vendors are to dump waste and obtain clean water. A Chronicle article at the time quoted Robert Cambrice, senior assistant city attorney: "The public needs protection from unclean utensils, unclean facilities. This is in the public's interest."

Certainly, nobody wishes to eat contaminated food. But that does not justify compelling mobile food vendors to visit city commissaries. There are other ways to achieve clean utensils and clean facilities without resorting to force. And more importantly, why is the City even worried about such things? Policing mobile food vendors is not a proper government function.

Mr. Cambrice cites the "public interest" as justification for the ordinance. But there is no such thing as the "public interest". The public does not speak with one voice. The public agrees on few, if any issues. In truth, members of the public have a wide variety of interests. Consequently, the "public interest" really means that the interests of some will take precedence over the interests of others. Which means, some will be permitted to use the power of government compulsion to impose their interests on others. The "public interest" is nothing more than a rationalization for forcing some individuals to sacrifice their values to others.

Citing the "public interest", or "common good", or the "general welfare" can be, and is, used to justify nearly anything. We must regulate land use for the "common good". We must provide health care for the "general welfare". Allowing random and invasive searches is necessary for the "public interest". Pick any issue that involves the violation of individual rights, and not far behind you will find its advocates proclaiming the "public interest" as justification.

The implication underlying the ordinance, as well as others like it, is that individuals will sell tainted food unless they are rigorously controlled by government. Not only does this defy common sense, it ignores the actual facts. A business that poisons its customers, whether intentionally, accidentally, or through negligence, is not going to stay in business long. First, its customers would go elsewhere. Second, if such were done intentionally, criminal penalties would apply.

Mobile food vendors, who are predominantly Hispanic, fought the ordinance in court. Their attorney, David Mestemaker, stated that the ordinance is the result of "the racist agenda of certain legislators." This may be true, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue-- that is, the ordinance violates the individual rights of all mobile food vendors, regardless of their race.

The sustenance of one's life requires effort. Food, clothing, shelter, and other values do not magically appear. They must be produced. Each individual has a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain his life, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. To deny him this right is to deny him the means of sustaining his life.

While the City's ordinance does not deny mobile food vendors the right to operate, it imposes significant hardships on the business owners. Some vendors spend three hours a day meeting the city's requirements. Those are hours away from their business, or family, or other activities. Those are hours taken from them simply because the City believes clean spoons are more important than individual rights.

What is particularly sad is mobile food vendors are attempting to make an honest living. They are taking responsibility for their own lives. They are not asking for handouts. They simply want to be free to ply their trade. And the City is making that more and more difficult.

Rather than making these hard-working, industrious people out to be villains and potential criminals, the City should be celebrating their efforts. These are the type of people who have made Houston great. It is a gross injustice to put arbitrary barriers in their way.

Preserving our Heritage

Preservationists argue that we must save our heritage. But they fail to define what they mean by heritage. Consider this statement from the web site of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance:

Historic preservation is not about isolating the past in a time capsule. It is about managing change; integrating the old and new in ways that improve the quality of life in our community; and maintaining our individuality. Greater Houston Preservation Alliance remains committed to this vision. From Houston's founding by the Allen Brothers in 1836, Houstonians have a sense of pride in our unique history. By preserving our history, we maintain our city's individuality and attract more visitors in the process.

I agree that it’s good to manage change—we shouldn’t just start changing things willy-nilly. Change for change’s sake is not necessarily a good thing. A drug addict should change his behavior; a successful businessman probably shouldn’t. In either case, the change should be planned and directed toward an explicit goal.

But this ignores the question of who should choose and direct that change. In the context of the GHPA, we are talking about property—buildings of some historic significance. Even the term “historic significance” raises questions: Historic by whose standards? Historic in what context? Who should make that decision? How should that decision be enacted?

My first apartment in Houston is historic to me. The same is true of many other places around the city—my first Mexican restaurant, the Astrodome, Gabby’s BBQ. Does this give me a voice in the use of those properties? One of my first published articles was about the downtown tunnel system, so that certainly is historic to me. Do I have a voice in how the tunnel system is developed and changed?

I love old buildings. I’ve toured the Vanderbilt Mansion in New York, the underground city of Seattle, and Galveston’s many mansions. I’ve toured castles in England and old barns in Kansas. I find them fascinating and a great way to learn about history. I would be sad if they were torn down. But I don’t own them, and I have no voice in how the owner chooses to use his property. If I think I do, then I grant him the mutual right to have a voice in how I use my property. If I claim that I can violate his rights, then I cannot complain when he, or someone else, makes a similar claim against me.

More interesting is the use of the word “individuality”. The paragraph quoted above uses the word twice. The first time the meaning is ambiguous; the second time it is not. The second time the use is: “maintain our city’s individuality”.

The root of individuality is individual—a singular, particular person. Each individual has characteristics—both physical and intellectual— that are unique to him. Those characteristics are what define him as a unique human being.

A city consists of many individuals, each with their own characteristics and values. It consists of many areas, each with its own characteristics and values. Is Houston’s “individuality” the Montrose, River Oaks, the Galleria, the Heights, downtown, Memorial Park, NASA, or the Medical Center? Which defines Houston?

The truth is, each of these areas represent much different characteristics and values. Each has an “individual” character, but even within those areas there are many differences.

To apply the concept of individuality to a city is to obliterate these differences. And this is precisely what the GHPA wishes to do. They seek to destroy the difference between individuals and the community. They treat all individuals as part of a giant organism called society.

The organic theory of society is not new. Many have advanced the idea that each individual is simply a cell in the organism of society. Each cell must do its part to contribute to the whole, and those that don’t are expendable. This is nothing more than a crude form of collectivism.

Collectivism holds that the group is the standard of value, that the individual only matters to the extent that he contributes to the group. When an individual does not contribute to the group, he can be removed, much like a cancerous growth is removed.

But the real cancer is collectivism, and the morality that underlies it—altruism. Altruism literally means “otherism”—the welfare of others supersedes one’s own welfare. Which means, self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. Altruism is the morality that underlies the GHPA. They want us to preserve our history at the expense of the individuals who actually make history. They want us to preserve Sam Houston’s home, while destroying the principles for which he fought.:

The more neighborhoods that seek designation [Historic District Designation], the louder the message to City Hall that citizens want to protect the visual character of the places they live. This will help us to get more neighborhood-friendly building codes and ultimately to strengthen the preservation ordinance for the benefit of all Houstonians.

In other words, if enough Houstonians make enough noise, GHPA can get laws enacted that will control the use of properties deemed historic. And these laws can impact a property owner without his consent. This, they would have us believe, is beneficial to all Houstonians.

I agree that we must preserve our heritage. But I disagree that our heritage consists of log cabins, Victorian homes, or quirky things like the beer can house (which is one of those things that would be prevented with strict land use and/ preservation regulations). Our heritage, as Americans and particularly as Houstonians, is that of individual freedom—the right to pursue our values without interference from others, so long as we respect their mutual rights. If Houston has “individuality”, it is because it respects individualism—the rights of individuals.

This is what the GHPA seeks to destroy. They seek to preserve buildings at the expense of freedom. They seek to impose their values upon others by using government coercion. In the end, what they really advocate is not preservation, but to take us back in time, back to the days when America was ruled by a tyrannical king. And they want to be the modern king.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

"Group Think" and Property Rights

The American Planning Association (APA)– “a nonprofit public interest and research organization committed to urban, suburban, regional, and rural planning”—is one of the leading advocates of land use regulations in the nation.

The APA is essentially a training grounds for mini-dictators. For example, they oppose legislation that limits the ability of states or localities to use eminent domain or other regulations to seize or control private property. Their policy guide on “takings” states:

Some legislation proposed within the past several years has been the result of some legitimate concerns regarding the rights of property owners, an issue discussed elsewhere in this paper. Much of this legislation, however, is really anti-regulation legislation clothed in the fabric of private property rights. Care must be taken to distinguish between the two.

While it is true that anti-regulation is not the same as protecting property rights, property rights cannot be protected without dismantling the existing myriad of regulations pertaining to land use.

The APA’s policy statement goes on to say:

These proposals have a certain amount of surface appeal. They are extremely dangerous proposals, however--proposals that could destroy the quality of life in communities in the United States and bankrupt local and state governments. If adopted, they would also contribute significantly to future federal deficits.

This is an admission that if the government had to pay for all of the property it routinely seizes, it would go broke. But the APA only sees a problem with requiring government to make such payments, not in the seizure of private property.

Every regulation that limits the use of property in any way has some theoretical impact on the value of that property. If the city refuses to let your next door neighbor store junk cars on her property, should she then be compensated for the difference in value between a commercial junkyard and a piece of residential property? If that becomes the legal rule, the city will probably have to allow the junkyard next door in order to avert bankruptcy. Should a property owner who wants to build high-rise apartments in a single-family neighborhood be compensated because he is not allowed to do so? Assuming that he is allowed to build a house, just like everyone else in the area, has he really been hurt? What about a regulation that prevents grocery stores near residential areas from selling liquor? The sale of liquor is very profitable for grocery stores, with a much better mark-up than most of the grocery items in the store. Should the store be compensated for the theoretical loss of business, just because it cannot sell liquor? Such rules theoretically reduce the value of property and would thus be subject to the compensation requirement under "reduction in value" approaches. It is important to remember in considering such arguments that a principal purpose of zoning is to protect property values.

Again, the APA sees no problem with regulations that diminish the economic value of private property. After all, a developer who cannot build a high-rise has not “really been hurt”. The APA’s only concern is avoiding driving a city into bankruptcy. If city regulations force a number of that city’s individuals to go bankrupt, that isn’t the APA’s concern.

This callous disregard for the welfare of individuals is not surprising:

APA develops policies that represent the collective thinking of our members, and represents a collective view on positions of both principle and practice.

Thinking, despite what the APA might believe, is not a collective activity. Thinking is an individual activity. “Collective thinking” is a contradiction in terms, and can only mean compromise, consensus building, and appeasement whereby those involved come to a shared agreement.

“Collective thinking” is how the APA and its brethren seek to shape communities. Their vision is not that of a visionary, but a mish-mash of ideas collected from across the spectrum of the community. According to this ideology, the ideas of the developer and an apartment dweller, the ideas of a business owner and a minimum wage employee, the ideas of a property owner and a non-owner, are all equated and considered. All ideas should be considered in the use of property which only one, or none, owns.

This is nothing more than a claim that all opinions are of equal validity, i.e., all ideas are equally true. What it really means is that no ideas are true.

How, for example, would they resolve the conflict between an advocate of private property rights and an advocate of state ownership of property? If each is merely a matter of opinion, and each opinion is equally valid, the middle ground is a combination of private property and public control. In truth, this is a complete surrender of the principle of property rights. And this is the goal of the APA.

Rather than take responsibility for their own ideas, they hide behind “group think”. Rather than exercise independent, rational judgment, they find “common ground” where everyone can agree. Rather than assert the truth, they seek compromise.

It is a grotesque sight to witness a group advocate such policies. It is more grotesque when they seek to impose those policies on others through the force of law. And that is precisely what they do when they advocate laws that will impose their values upon others.

They may find certain solace in such activities. I find them hideous.

Consider the results if Thomas Edison had suspended his own judgment and submitted his ideas to a vote. His genius would be subject to the whims and decisions of others, including the ignorant and ill-informed. The truth that he saw was not seen by others, and had he left the decision to them, the world would have remained in self-imposed darkness.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

Winning the Battle but Losing the War

The following talk was delivered by J. Brian Phillips at a luncheon hosted by the Houston Property Rights Association on May 14, 1993. The warning was not heeded.

During the debate over zoning, its proponents have made many claims about
zoning: it will encourage economic growth, it will improve our “quality of life”, it will prevent “undesirable” land uses, etc. Underlying all of their arguments are three unspoken premises which have remained unidentified and unchallenged.

Exposing and refuting those premises would be devastating to the zoning movement, as well as many other movements. However, if we do not identify and thoroughly reject those premises, we may win the battle against zoning, but ultimately lose the war. This is the subject of my talk today.

In today’s intellectual atmosphere, few concepts have been more perverted than the concepts of rights. Everywhere we turn, we hear demands about a “right to a job,” a “right to medical care,” a “right to education,” “rights” for animals, fetuses and trees, etc. Just as inflation of the money supply erodes the value of the dollar, inflation of rights erodes legitimate rights—i.e., individual rights.

If we are to defend the right to property, we must begin by understanding what the concept of “rights” means, and upon what it depends.

A right is a moral principle which defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social setting. Rights establish the boundaries within which an individual may act. Rights allow individuals to act independently, rather than by permission. For example, one acts by right if one selects one’s profession; one acts by permission if one’s profession is chosen by the State.

You should note that my definition of rights recognizes freedom of action, but does not guarantee that one’s actions will be successful, nor does it grant one a claim to the actions of others. This may seem like a petty distinction, but our ancestors fought the Civil War over it. At that time, Southern cotton farmers held that their “right” to cotton, and the quality of life it provided, justified a claim on the labor of others, namely, Negro slaves. This perversion of “rights” by the Confederacy was absurd, and it is no less absurd for zoning advocates to claim that they are protecting the property rights of homeowners by destroying them for everyone else.

Rights simply provide the proper social environment in which values can be pursued, attained, and kept. Consequently, there is no such thing as a “right” to a job, or a “right” to medical care, or a “right” to free education, or a “right” to a voice in how our neighbor uses his property. To claim that one has a right to the products of another’s labor is to claim that one has a right to enslave others.

We must also realize that there is only one way in which rights can be violated—by physical compulsion. When physical force is used to compel or prohibit certain behavior, an individual is prevented from acting in a virtuous manner, i.e. according to his own rational, independent judgment.

The virtue of independence is not a mandate to do anything one wishes. Nor is it a directive to be different for the sake of being different. Independence means thinking and acting according to one’s own rational judgment. It means placing the facts above one’s desires or wishes. It means placing reality above fantasy. It means being rational and objective, and acting accordingly.

By implication, the successful businessman knows this. But unfortunately, many do not know it in explicit terms.

We are all familiar with stories of men who have conceived of a product which others called crazy. In fact, most of us probably arrived here today in one such product—the automobile. Yet, when people laughed at Henry Ford’s horseless carriage, he did not abandon the truth he saw simply because others failed to see it. Their ignorance did not change the facts; their blindness did not alter reality.

Because he lived in a society which recognized his rights—i.e., his right to think and act without the permission of others—Henry Ford went on to produce an affordable means of transportation which revolutionized our society.

And Henry Ford is not an isolated example. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of men and women have pursued their own visions, on whatever scale, despite the condemnations and ridicule of others. And, I imagine it is safe to say that there are many such people here today. Rational decision making is necessary in every human endeavor, including the development and maintenance of real estate.

Zoning will prevent the rational, innovative thought which has made Houston so prosperous and America so economically powerful.

Under zoning, all land use is determined by zoning officials. They may zone a parcel of land for any use they choose, or completely prohibit development of that land. They may attach any conditions they choose to a building permit. Not only may they zone an area for a particular use, such as single-family homes, they also have the power to define what constitutes that use. Zoning officials thus have complete reign over the use of land within a community.

This kind of power is a magnet for special interest groups, each pleading for its own pet cause. One may demand Spanish architecture, while another wants to limit a building’s size. One group may insist on the inclusion of public sculpture, while another wants to cancel the project entirely.

Through all of this, a developer must helplessly sit while others debate
his future, while others determine what happens to his dreams, his property, his
life. He becomes a hostage to the desires, decrees, and demands of others. He
may act, not by his own independent judgment, but by the permission of zoning
officials. No matter how rational and consistent with the facts his judgment is,
it is swept aside by the decrees of the zoning board. No matter how proper and
beneficial his decisions are, they can be voided by the fiat of others.

Zoning officials thus become more than simply masters over a property owner’s actions; they become paralyzers of his mind. They make his decisions and conclusions irrelevant, for he cannot act on them.

This is the most crucial issue of our time and not only in regard to zoning.

While I have identified the role of the mind in the development of property, this same principle also applies to all property owners, large and small, as well as the
consumers who are served by them. Zoning negates not only the judgments of developers, but also home owners, convenience store customers, and every other
consumer in a community, which means, everyone.

The very nature of zoning demands that the rights of individuals be violated. By preventing individuals, as consumers and producers, from acting according to their own independent judgments, zoning prevents individuals from practicing the virtue of rationality.

Given the fact that zoning is such a blatant violation of individual’s rights, why have its advocates been so successful? Why is zoning on the brink of being adopted by City Council? And given zoning’s institutionalization of force and negation of rational judgment, how have zoning advocates been able to use the term “planning” in a manner which portrays them as advocates of the good?

Zoning has been presented as a cure to many of Houston’s ills. We have been told that it will protect our neighborhoods from greedy developers, that it will “empower the people”; that it will allow for a “common vision” to guide Houston’s future growth. Zoning advocates have even claimed that zoning will bring “rational planning” to Houston’s development. Underlying all of these claims are two unspoken premises—premises which many, if not most, of zoning’s opponents also accept.

Zoning advocates believe that the good of the community supersedes the good of any particular individual. They believe that we must all make certain sacrifices for the welfare of our community. They believe that those who do not make such sacrifices “voluntarily” should be forced to do so.

On the other hand, many zoning opponents agree that the welfare of the community does require some sacrifice on the part of each of us. And they agree that some “selfish” people will refuse to do their “fair share” and must be “prodded” into participating. They object when such “prodding” goes too far. They don’t object to sacrifice, or prodding, only to taking it to “extremes”. They don’t object to abrogations of property rights, except when they occur in a comprehensive fashion. The best example of this are those who oppose zoning but do not oppose other infringements of property rights, e.g., restrictions on billboards, ordinances controlling sexually-oriented businesses, etc.

These so-called “opponents” of zoning share the same fundamental premises as zoning advocates, premises which justify zoning and many other injustices: They believe that the sacrifice of values is moral, and the unit of significance is the group rather than the individual. These two concepts—sacrifice and collectivism—dominate the debate over zoning.

To the collectivist, individuals are insignificant—each of us is here only to serve the group, whether it is the community, or our nation, or our race, or our economic class. The individual is to be subservient to the group, which many demand anything and everything from him. If he refuses, he is labeled as selfish, greedy, a “rugged individualist,” out of touch with the times, etc. And in the end, the individual is forced to sacrifice his values for the alleged benefit of others.

If the opponents of zoning agree with zoning advocates that sacrifice is good and the public welfare is something other than the well-being of individuals, then opponents to zoning will have surrendered the moral high ground and zoning advocates may lose the battle, but win the war.

Even if our referendum [opposing zoning on the November ballot] is successful, the principles accepted by both sides demand that the elements of zoning will be ushered in, one by one. Over the past decade, we have already seen this, as City Council has enacted ordinance after ordinance that, in other cities, are part of comprehensive zoning, e.g., controls on sexually oriented businesses, a landscaping ordinance, sign and billboard restrictions, heliport and parking controls, etc.

Instead of defending their right to earn a profit, to grow rich, to pursue their own values, Houston’s businessmen have usually meekly complained that such controls were too excessive, and then sought to compromise with their destroyers. Today, the destroyers are knocking on the door, demanding the final compromise.

Zoning demands sacrifice, subservience to the group, and uses force to insure compliance. The only alternative to zoning is capitalism, and it can only be defended on its intellectual and moral base, i.e., self-interest, individualism, and reason.

Faced with this alternative, what is one to do? Should one abandon the realm of ideas, declaring it impractical and impotent, and raise a million dollars to run a series of television ads? Or should one confront those who seek to enslave him, and make them justify their actions? Should one surrender one’s values, or should one fight for them?

If you choose to fight for your values, you can only do it by identifying and defending your right to those values. There are essentially two things you can do to defend your rights.

First, familiarize yourself with the moral and intellectual foundation of capitalism. Toward this end, I am offering free copies of Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness to those who are interested. In this book, Miss Rand explains the relationship between the mind and rights more thoroughly than my time here permits. Those who are interested in the ideas I have expressed today are encouraged to pick up a copy of this book.

Secondly, when engaged in discussions, or writing letters to the editor, etc. regarding zoning, be certain to identify the distinction between zoning and a system based on property rights. Zoning is a system which demands the sacrifice of values, which demands that one cut one’s own throat, or cut the throat of others. As the philosopher Leonard Peikoff has said, capitalism is a system which opposes throat cutting as a matter of principle. You should point out that zoning uses force to compel or prohibit certain behavior, while capitalism is a system which allows individuals to engage in peaceful, voluntary relationships. There is a fundamental difference between zoning and capitalism, not only in regard to politics, but also in regard to how human beings are viewed.

Opponents of zoning know that zoning is a giant land grab. Advocates of freedom need to have the courage to challenge not only this injustice but the previous wholesale theft which made it possible—that of ideas and morality.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

Collectivism and the Neighborhood

We hear lots of talk about protecting neighborhoods. This is fine in and of itself. Protecting neighborhoods, like having clean air and clean water, is something that most people can support.

But there is more to the picture than simply maintaining certain standards or reducing crime when zoning advocates speak of protecting neighborhoods. Underlying their arguments is a very ugly premise—collectivism.

Collectivism holds that the individual is subservient to the group—the collective. It holds that individuals must sacrifice for the group, that the welfare of the group is more important than the welfare of the individual.

In the case of zoning, the particular group in question is alternately the neighborhood or the community. When convenient and expedient, zoning advocates focus on a small group—the neighborhood. When convenient and expedient, zoning advocates focus on a larger group—the entire community. In either case, the group is what matters.

Collectivism rests on the premise that morality consists of service to others, of sacrificing one's values to others. Under this premise one’s moral stature is determined by one’s willingness to place the interests of others before one’s own interests. Under this premise, self-sacrifice is regarded as a moral imperative.

Collectivism is the political expression of self-sacrifice. If one accepts self-sacrifice as a moral ideal, then anyone who refuses to do so is regarded as immoral. If one accepts self-sacrifice as a moral ideal, it is acceptable and proper to force others to act morally—i.e., to force others to sacrifice their values to others.

This is precisely what zoning does. Zoning uses government force to dictate land use within a community. Zoning forces individuals to sacrifice their values to those of the group. Zoning treats individuals as sacrificial animals, whose lives may be destroyed for the “public welfare”, the “common good”, or some other meaningless bromide.

The truth is, each individual has a moral right to pursue his values without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. Each individual has a moral right to pursue his own happiness. Each individual has a right to live for himself, without apology to others, and without their permission.

Only when the morality of self-sacrifice is rejected can Houston finally reject zoning. Only when Houstonians embrace the idea that they have a right to live for their own happiness--that is, rational self-interest-- can we put an end to the endless claims that we do otherwise.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008