The Principal and the Principle

In an effort to address the city's $140 million budget deficit, Mayor Ma Parker has asked city department heads to find savings of 3 percent in their budgets. The Chronicle quotes her:

I am asking every department to examine what services they provide, the level at which they provide it and whether somebody else should be doing it. This is a great opportunity to rethink how we do things.

This is true, but will Ma and her cohorts in City Hall truly rethink how they do things? It is highly doubtful, because to date they have refused to examine the basic principles underlying their governance. Consider, for example, Ma's claim that she is looking into the possibility of privatizing the city's ambulance service.

While I would certainly applaud such a move, it does not represent a principled step towards returning government to its proper function--protection individual rights. It is a singular, pragmatic proposal, intended to address the budget deficit and nothing else.

If privatizing ambulance services will be a good thing, why isn't Ma considering privatizing every other improper government service--water, sanitation, trash collection, libraries, parks, and much more? If privatizing ambulance services will help the city save money, why isn't the same true of other privatization efforts? I can only speculate as to Ma's answer, but it would likely be something along the lines of: "The city has certain responsibilities to Houstonians."

The truth is, the city's only responsibility is to protect our moral right to act according to our own judgment, to use our property as we deem best (so long as we respect the mutual rights of others). But Ma has rejected this principle. The result is a constant stream of contradictions.

While finalizing a deal to build a new playground for the Dynamo soccer team, she raises the health insurance premiums for retired city workers. While calling for budget cuts in every city department, she presses forward with plans to build a giant boondoggle--light rail. While mouthing platitudes about job creation, she supports positions that kill jobs--for example, the anti-Ashby High Rise movement. Of course, she doesn't see these as contradictions, but as isolated, disconnected issues.

The details of balancing the budget are admittedly complex, and I wouldn't begin to claim to have all of the answers. But in principle, the solution is quite simple--begin reducing government to its proper function. If the city's principal leader grasped this fact, her job would be much easier. And Houstonians would be much better off--we could keep more of the money we earn and we would have more freedom.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 45

A Very Bad Lesson
Eleven Houston-area school districts are suing state Education Commissioner Robert Scott over his interpretation of a "truthful grading" law. Scott says that the law prohibits school districts from mandating minimal grades--typically a 50--while the districts say inflating grades is necessary or failing students “are very likely to become frustrated, give up, and quit school altogether.”

So what will these students do when they are confronted with failure in real life? Will they expect their boss to inflate their performance appraisal? Will they expect a romantic interest to inflate her feelings? Will they expect the stock market to perform as they desire?

Apparently these districts believe that misleading students will better prepare them for life. That's a very bad lesson to be teaching.

Turtle Huggers to the "Rescue"
A group of turtle huggers is seeking to halt shrimping on the upper Texas coast in order to save Kemp's ridley turtles. Alleging that the turtles get caught in shrimp nets and then drown, the Sea Turtle Restoration Project wants to deny human beings food in order to save the reptiles.

One shrimper--who owns 15 boats--says such a ban would put him out of business.  This of course, is of little concern to the turtle huggers. To them, the turtles have more value than human beings. To them, turtles must be protected, while humans are denied the right to take the actions required to sustain their lives.

Buy American may Foil Metro
Metro may be denied a $900 million federal grant for its light rail plans because it has failed to meet a "buy American" provision. Metro's rail car vendor is based in Spain, where two test cars are to be built. Federal rules require that all "rolling stock" be assembled in the United States.

Apparently the Federal Transit Administration doesn't think that it is proper to rob Americans for the benefit of Spaniards, but it is perfectly fine to do so if other Americans are the beneficiary. Here's an idea: Do away with both Metro and the FTA and return that money to the taxpayers who earned it.

500 Posts

Earlier this month I wrote my 500th post for this blog. I realize that many bloggers have posted far more than that, but 500 is a substantial number. So I'm going to pat myself on the back.

Freedom is the Answer

When presented with the idea that government should be limited to the police, the courts, and the military, it is not uncommon for an individual to question how certain services would be provided. For example, if water and sanitation were provided by private businesses, wouldn't there be an enormous duplication of pipes and infrastructure? When specific answers are not provided, many immediately reject the idea of privatizing such services.

These are certainly valid questions, and they do deserve an answer. However, the answer that I will provide is much different than might be expected or desired by such questioners.

Underlying such questions is the premise that the way these services are currently provided is the only way to provide them. For example, such questions assume that water must be delivered from a large treatment facility. Such assumptions are, in principle, false.

When individuals are free to act according to their own judgment, they often find innovative ways to provide the values that human life requires. Freed from arbitrary government restrictions, they can challenge the status quo. They can develop and implement ideas that others initially reject. We can observe this in every field, from communications to transportation, from medicine to agriculture, from athletics to literature. Freedom provides the social context in which men can think and act rationally to create the values required to sustain and enjoy our lives. And it allows individuals to benefit--to profit--when we do so successfully.

Consider mail delivery as an example. It has long been held that government must hold a monopoly on mail delivery to insure affordable service to all Americans. Private companies, it is argued, would only serve the most lucrative markets, leaving many without the mail. History however, demonstrates otherwise.

Prior to the Civil War, private mail companies flourished throughout the country. They provided more dependable and less expensive service than the Postal Service. The owners of these companies, acting on their own judgment, found innovative ways to provide the services desired by consumers. And consumers, acting on their own judgment, patronized these businesses to such an extent that the future of the Postal Service was in jeopardy. It literally took an act of Congress--prohibitions on such services--to "save" the Postal Service.

I could not begin to tell you how to efficiently operate a mail delivery service. But those who would enter such a business could. I could not begin to imagine how water service might be delivered by private companies. But those who would enter such a business could. It is not incumbent on me or any advocate of laissez-faire to know how every service would be delivered. That is a challenge for those who enter a particular field. And it is time that we let them meet that challenge by removing the arbitrary government restrictions that prohibit them from doing so.