Pro-Business Promotes Quality of Life

Before the proposed merger between Continental and United was finalized Mayor Ma Parker, County Judge Ed Emmett, and Greater Houston Partnership Chairman Patrick Oxford sent a letter to the chairmen of the two airlines. Houston, they argued, is the best location for the headquarters of the merged company.

Houston has a favorable business environment, low cost of living and excellent quality of life for our citizens...

Our environment supports business and encourages entrepreneurship.

I agree that Houston is generally more pro-business than other cities. However, Ma and the gang at city hall are just playing cheerleader--they are telling the chairmen one thing while telling the citizens of Houston something entirely different. While pleading for jobs they present Houston as a utopia for businesses; while begging for electoral support and appeasing constituents they bash local businesses.

For example, the city did not hesitate to use its coercive power to delay the Ashby High Rise. Nor did it have any problems shutting down a Spec's Liquor Store after previously granting approval for the store. The city has harassed CES Environmental Services. The city has long waged war on sexually-oriented businesses and outdoor signage, making it clear in both word and action that such companies are not welcome in Houston. I seriously doubt that the owners of these businesses would say that the city "supports business" or has a "favorable business environment". All of these restrictions and controls--along with many others--were "justified" on the basis of promoting "quality of life".

As I previously wrote:

For politicians to claim that they will improve the city’s “quality of life”, they must necessarily embrace one particular conception of the term. They must accept and implement one view of “quality of life”, to the exclusion of all others. And the “quality of life” that they embrace will be imposed upon all individuals, no matter their own personal views on the subject. All Houstonians will be forced to accept and live by the “quality of life” advocated by public officials.

There is only one context in which any public official can legitimately speak of “quality of life”. There is only one context in which all Houstonians can embrace the same conception of “quality of life”. And that context is individual freedom—the right to pursue your individual values and goals without interference from others, as long as you respect their mutual rights. Indeed, freedom is the ultimate in “quality of life”.

Freedom--the absence of coercion--is pro-business. Its relative lack of land-use regulations provides Houstonians with greater freedom in the use of their property than most cities. It is this freedom that is a primary cause of the low cost of living touted by Ma.

Ma Parker, like most government officials, wants to have our cake and eat it too. She wants to brag about the city's relative "pro-business environment" to business leaders, while appeasing noisy constituents who demand controls and restrictions on businesses in the name of "quality of life". The truth is, "pro-business" and "quality of life" are not antagonistic--they have the same root cause. And the sooner city officials discover this fact, the sooner they can truly be pro-business.

Lemonade and Berries

This past Sunday was Lemonade Day--a day when an estimated 50,000 of Houston's youth set up lemonade stands across the city. The idea started 5 years ago when the daughter of a Houston businessman asked for money to buy a pet turtle. Her father said "No" and she decided to sell lemonade to raise the money. She never bought the turtle, but her efforts were the start of a program to teach children about business.

The story reminds me of my own business experiences as a child. I grew up in a rural environment, and wild blackberries seemed to grow everywhere. During the summer I would pick the berries and peddle them to relatives and neighbors. Not only did I make a little money, but my customers often shared the pies and cobblers they made with the berries.

Because the blackberries didn't ripen until late in the summer, I could engage my entrepreneurial spirit until August. Fortunately, a strawberry farm was located a few miles from my house. When I was in junior high I would ride my bike to the farm early each morning and pick strawberries for 10 cents a quart. Like the little girl who wanted a turtle, I had a particular item that I wanted to purchase with my money--a week at basketball camp.

I suspect that my parents could have afforded to pay for my trip. But had they done so I would have missed out on a very valuable lesson. From an early age my parents taught me that if I wanted something I had to earn it, and they often provided opportunities to earn money. For example, I was sometimes hired to help with their screen printing business, and when I was older I was paid to remove stumps from our land.

I have a lot of pleasant memories from my childhood, but those that involve making money (and spending the money that I earned) are among the most pleasant.

Truth is not Subject to a Vote

On Sunday the Chronicle opined that the primary motivation behind some opposition to red-light cameras is money.

A frequent charge leveled against the use of cameras to catch red-light violators is that their prime purpose is making money for municipalities rather than improving traffic safety. As it turns out, a prime mover behind a petition drive to force a referendum on the issue in Houston knows all about how to make money off traffic tickets.

The paper goes on to tell us that public safety should outweigh the interests of "self-serving" lawyers--we must put aside our personal interests for the "public good". The editorial implies that we should simply dismiss anyone who stands to profit from a particular policy decision.

On the other side of the issue is the majority of Houstonians:

An opinion survey commissioned by the group [Keep Houston Safe] found that two thirds of likely Houston voters back the system, with that support consistent across political, racial, and socioeconomic lines. Seventy-seven percent of respondents agreed that cameras were a reasonable way to curb red-light runners, and 71 percent believed that the cameras make Houston safer.

In this age of democracy, the will of "the people" reigns supreme. If 71 percent of those polled "believe" that red-light cameras make the city safer, then it must be true. The actual facts are irrelevant--if we want to determine the "truth" all we must do is take an opinion poll.

Reality however, is not as cooperative as the advocates of majority rule would like us to believe. The facts of reality are not determined by a vote. The number of people who believe a certain idea does not determine its truth. That most people once thought the Earth to be flat did not make it so. The majority can be, and often is, wrong.

Just as the paper implies that the "public good" supersedes that of individuals, it also implies that the will of "the people" supersedes the judgment of individuals. In mind and in body the individual is subservient to others. In thought and in action the individual must cower to the dictates of the majority. Such a view is morally wrong and disastrous in practice, for there is no atrocity that cannot be "justified" on such a basis.

The Founding Fathers rejected tyranny in any form, whether a tyranny of one (the King) or a tyranny of the many (democracy). Indeed, James Madison--the father of the Constitution--wrote:

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.

Right and wrong, like truth, is not subject to the whims or caprice of the majority. And that is a fact, no matter how many people believe otherwise.