The Real Tragedy of Bullying

An OpEd in Sunday's Chronicle tells us that we must protect kids from bullying. Citing a growing number of suicides by bullied teenagers, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, write:

The events of the last few weeks have filled many of us with sadness and anger. They should also fill us with determination to do everything we can to stand up for Seth, Tyler, Asher, Billy, Justin and millions of other young people who can't do it for themselves.

That a teenager would conclude that his life isn't worth living is certainly sad and tragic. But the cause of these suicides goes beyond the taunts of ignorant peers.

Sebelius and Duncan claim that the victims of bullying cannot stand up for themselves. They argue that society must do so. But they fail to tell us why. Instead, all they offer are assertions, which is itself a symptom of the problem.

A proper educational system would teach children to think logically and to judge critically. A proper educational system would provide children with the intellectual tools required to judge the claims and assertions of others. A proper educational system would prepare children for life as rational, independent individuals.

But this is not what public education does. The public educational system is more concerned with protecting a child's self-esteem than teaching thinking skills. The public educational system is more concerned with students passing standardized tests than learning how to solve problems. The public educational system is more concerned with teaching children to get along with others than to think independently.

John Dewey, the father of Progressive education, captured the essence of public education in his book, Democracy and Education:

Setting up conditions which stimulate certain visible and tangible ways of acting is the first step. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure, is the completing step. As soon as he is possessed by the emotional attitude of the group, he will be alert to recognize the special ends at which it aims and the means employed to secure success. His beliefs and ideas, in other words, will take a form similar to those of others in the group. (pages 16- 17)

Dewey's purpose, and the end result of Progressive education, is to destroy the ability of individuals to think and judge independently. Faced with the taunts and jeers of one's peers, an independent thinking child would reject such bullying for what it is: The mindless ignorance of Neanderthals. However, a child who cannot think for himself can easily allow such harassment to shape his own self-image. He can easily conclude that he is somehow deficient and his life is worthless.

Bullying is a pathetic activity, but there are far worse actions that an individual can take. And destroying the minds of innocent children is one of them.

An Absence of Principles

Once again the Chronicle editorial board demonstrates its complete lack of principles in an editorial titled "Profit over principle." The editorial chastises insurance companies for refusing to offer child-only policies. With the first phases of ObamaCare kicking in, insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

While paying lip service to this concern, the paper argues that it has no merit:

Insurers complain that the new provisions would trigger an influx of consumers with high-cost pre-existing conditions but few healthy ones to offset these costs. That is certainly a possibility, but one that could have been foreseen and guarded against. 

Exactly how is a business to guard against the coercive power of government? How are insurers expected to be profitable--so that they can remain in business and pay future claims--if they are forced to abide by the arbitrary dictates of petty bureaucrats and pandering politicians?  And how are they supposed to foresee what mandates and prohibitions will be placed upon them in the future?

The editorial oozes of altruism--children have a need and insurance companies have a moral duty to fulfill that need. The fact that the insurance companies are being forced to act against their own judgment, and sensible business practices, is of no concern to the Chronicle. According to the Chronicle, insurance companies should not be seeking a profit, but instead should offer coverage to anyone who wants it.

While the paper is eager to sell doctors into slavery and drive insurance companies out of business, it continues to seek a profit. It continues to charge for ad space, despite the needs of businesses who are hurting from the slow economy. It continues to charge subscribers, despite any hardships they might be experiencing. If others have a moral duty to serve the needs of others, why is the Chronicle immune?

Of course, to see the inconsistency of its position, the paper would have to hold rational principles. As it has demonstrated too many times to count, it doesn't.

Why is the Chronicle Surprised?

Absent rational principles, virtually any issue can be confusing. Absent rational principles, it can be almost impossible to identify a connection between events. Absent rational principles, we get editorials like that in Tuesday's Chronicle. Subtitled "The State Board of Education is still politicizing our children's textbooks," the editorial seems surprised that political considerations are a part of a government agency.


The paper's dismay results from refusing to recognize the essential nature of the board. Government is an agency of force, and the State Board of Education is no exception. Its edicts are imposed upon public schools, teachers, and parents by force. That competing interests want to control the use of that force for their own ends should not be surprising. Indeed, it should be expected.


As with other issues, such as Metro, the Chronicle wants us to believe that the problem is not an improper government agency, but rather those in charge. If only board members put aside their personal views and did what is best for the state's public school students, such issues would not even be raised. That simply isn't going to happen when so much political power is at stake.


If the Chronicle wants to see politics taken out of education, then it should advocate for government to get out of education. Politics and government are inseparable, a fact that continues to escape the paper's editorial writers. And that is precisely what we should expect from those who reject rational principles.

Non-fundamental Change at HISD

On Sunday the Chronicle ran an OpEd optimistically titled "Reinventing education in Houston." From the title, one would expect the article to reveal some kind of revolutionary idea. Instead, we simply got more of the status quo.


The article states:

HISD has not been waiting passively for someone to provide an answer; it has the will, the leadership and the support to transform the district into a model for the rest of the nation. The board of education, Superintendent Terry Grier and the HISD team have the courage and expertise to step outside the comfort zone and take the necessary but often controversial actions to bring about fundamental change, like linking teacher pay with their performance based on reliable data and making continued employment contingent on ongoing improvement. That level of accountability also applies to the quality of the leadership of principals and central office staff. 

Consider what is regarded as "fundamental change": Holding teachers, principals, and staff accountable. Granted, this might be new in the realm of public education, but it can hardly be considered fundamental change. HISD will remain a political institution, subject to the vagaries of educational bureaucrats in Austin and political pressure in Houston. Taxpayers will continue to be forced to support public schools, whether they are happy with the results or not. Parents--particularly those in lower income brackets--will continue to have limited educational choices for their children. How is this "fundamental change"? It brief, it isn't. HISD is simply tinkering with details while throwing out another promise.


Consider what is regarded as holding teachers, principals, and staff accountable: Basing their pay on student performance. And who will determine student performance? The same bureaucrats and administrators that have been promising change and improved performance for decades. The "customers" of public education will have little, if any, input other than putting political pressure on those same bureaucrats and administrators. This is precisely what has been occurring for decades, and can hardly be considered "fundamental change."


If HISD truly wants to do something revolutionary and do something that would truly serve as a model to the rest of the nation, it would begin putting itself out of business. It would begin taking measures to get government out of education.


Doing so would benefit taxpayers who would no longer be forced to support a failing public educational system. Those who want to voluntarily support education would be free to do so, and they could choose to support those schools who produce results with which they approve. They could hold schools accountable by withdrawing their financial support if they are unhappy with those results.


Parents would benefit by having the freedom--and the resources--to choose how their children are educated. If they are unhappy with the content of that education, or the results, they would be free to hold the school accountable by moving their children to a different school.


Competent and talented teachers and administrators would benefit because they would have the freedom to command higher salaries. Those who value their services would be willing to pay higher prices for results, but nobody would be forced to do so.

Fundamental change does not mean tinkering with the details of public education. It means abolishing public education.

Speak for Yourself

On Thursday, the Chronicle Editorial Board admitted that it is irresponsible and would prefer for government officials to be their nanny. Granted, they didn't use those words, nor were they so explicit, but that was the meaning of an editorial titled "Dollars and sense: Why do banks fear Elizabeth Warren? Because she's on our side." What the editorial does say is:

The bank gets to make unilateral changes to our contract, and we don't. The bank has a staff of Ivy League-educated Masters of the Universe to dream up new fees and tricky ways to disguise interest rates, and we have about eight minutes, between getting home from work and making the kids' dinner, to decipher the mail. No surprise: The bank wins.

Unwilling to spend more than "about eight minutes" dealing with its financial matters, the board would prefer to grant a government official expanded powers over financial institutions.  Unable to understand the contracts that it signs, it simply throws its hands in the air and naively believes that regulators will protect them. Just like those regulators prevented the housing bubble and the meltdown on Wall Street.


It would be fine if the editorial board wanted to cede control of their finances to someone else. What isn't fine is that it wants to force everyone else to do the same. They project their own inadequacies on the rest of us.


The Chronicle would have us believe that the financial crisis was caused because individuals are too damned stupid and greedy to be trusted to make decisions without government oversight. The Chronicle would have us ignore the fact that government officials are individuals, and they can be just as stupid as anyone. In fact, given the state of the economy, a very good case could be made that they are more stupider.


But this isn't about intelligence. It's about power. Just as health care "reform" was a blatant power grab, financial "reform" is an attempt to seize more control over the economy. That some--such as the paper's editorial board--would willingly give away control over their own lives goes a long way toward explaining the success of those attempts.

Metro's Train Wreck

Late last week, Ma Parker and her Metro gang announced that the completion date for new rail lines will be delayed until 2014. It seems that the previous Metro administration tried to get around the federal law requiring that equipment be purchased from American companies, and the Federal Transit Administration is holding up the money needed to complete the lines.

Calling the challenges facing Metro "steep" and "rocky", Ma was quick to cast blame on former Metro CEO Frank Wilson. But any mismanagement on Wilson's part is not really Ma's concern:

We need to see whether there are any further investigations of Mr. Wilson, and I don't want to suppose whether there are or not. We are focused on Metro moving forward, and we'll worry about Mr. Wilson tomorrow.

Even though Metro has already spent $40 million on the contract it must now tear up, Ma doesn't care about the past. She is more concerned with jamming light rail down our throats and with hundreds of millions of tax dollars up for grabs, she isn't about to let anything get in her way. Investigating Wilson at this time might reveal deeper problems at Metro, and that could further undermine support for light rail.

The Chronicle agrees that the problem should simply be swept under the rug:

It's unfortunate that Wilson's insistence on driving the agency into a contract that violated federal rules will significantly delay construction schedules on the North, East and Southeast lines. What motivated this train wreck remains an open question, but solving that mystery shouldn't be the city's or Metro's top priority.  

Both the paper and Ma imply that there is no systemic problem at Metro. The problem lies with those managing that system. And since Metro now has new management, whatever caused this "train wreck" has surely been corrected.

This is quite convenient for supporters of light rail. Simply vilify the dearly departed, anoint the new management with an aura of sainthood, and everyone can merrily skip on down the tracks. There is no need to identify the cause of broken promises or wasted tax payer money. There is no need to learn from the past because doing so might threaten the future. To supporters of light rail, nothing--especially the facts--can be allowed to derail their plans.

Propping up a Dictator

The Chronicle thinks that the US should end its remaining ban on trade with Cuba. The reason:

Texas A&M economists have put a pencil to the numbers and they estimate passage of the bill would create 6,000 new jobs in this country's ag sector while boosting sales of agricultural products by about $365 million. A good chunk of that would benefit Texas.

The paper even goes so far as to claim that ending the ban might help loosen Castro's death grip on Cuba. Sort of like the way talks between the Palestinians and Israelis have resulted in peace in the Middle East.

Certainly, increased trade might help some Texas farmers and ranchers. But the real beneficiary will be Castro, who controls any "profits" generated within Cuba from that trade. To support increased trade with Cuba is to support a dictator.

Food for Thought

In our increasingly technological economy, you might think that educators and parents would like to see increased emphasis on science and mathematics in our public schools. But, according to an OpEd article in Saturday's Chronicle, this is not the most important issue facing the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Instead, HISD should be teaching students about making better food choices.

Responding to changes in the lunches offered at HISD, Bettina Elias Siegel argues that the school district isn't doing enough. Offering healthier choices is good, but until HISD educates students about the benefits of bok choy and acorn squash, the city's youth will continue to make poor dietary choices.

Introducing something like acorn squash or steamed spinach to this population - especially in a system in which students (under USDA regulations) are perfectly free to refuse two out of five items offered at lunch - is a virtual guarantee that such items will end up in the trash. 

Apparently, Siegel believes that it is more important for students to learn the benefits of spinach versus the benefits of algebra. Even this isn't sufficient, because many of the "better" foods are not going to be offered to all students.

But while HISD has laudably followed the recommendations of the PAC to start developing similar entrees (including wraps, rice bowls, stir fries and curries), the district has also indicated that for financial reasons such new foods might only be available on the "a la carte" line - that is, to paying students only. Because almost 80 percent of HISD students qualify for free and reduced lunch, this would create an inequitable system of "haves" and "have nots" where only students with money in their pockets can access the new, more healthful items.

Siegel, who has two children in HISD, isn't content that better dietary choices will be available. That such choices won't be available to children being fed by taxpayers is wrong. Why should those paying for their own lunch have a choice that is denied to those who aren't?

As with all public institutions, our educational system has become a battle ground over competing special interests. While some demand that students actually be taught to read and write, others are more concerned with what is served in the cafeteria. While some want their children to be prepared to become functional, productive individuals, others want to make sure that they get enough fiber.

In the end, public schools must try to find a compromise between these competing interests. The inevitable result is that students are served unhealthy food in both the classroom and the lunch room. Pizza and chicken nuggets might not be healthy for their bodies, but according to parents like Siegel, the ideas that fuel their minds are of less significance.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Ramona Davis, executive director of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance, tells us that opponents of the proposed preservation ordinance are using a "a barrage of misinformation, disinformation and scare tactics" in Sunday's Chronicle:

It is not clear whether the leaders of this campaign are woefully misinformed or willfully misleading the public, but it is obvious that they either have not read Houston's preservation ordinance and the proposed amendments or that they are intentionally distorting the issue. The Greater Houston Preservation Alliance is determined to clear up these misrepresentations.

What is particularly interesting about the article is that Davis resorts to the same tactics she accuses others of using. Consider, for example, that Davis does not document the source of her information. She cites information from a web site, but provides neither the name of the organization operating the web site nor a URL. Apparently we are to take her word on this as a matter of faith. But this is minor compared to a later claim.

Resorting to a tactic used by pro-zoners in the 1990s, Davis writes:

Draconian measures are already in place in many of Houston's older neighborhoods, but they have nothing to do with the preservation ordinance. They are the restrictions enforced in the townhouse and condominium developments being built in and around our historic districts. Approved paint schemes, acceptable types and placement of plants, and bans on additions, alterations and even basketball goals are justified as necessary for protecting a homeowner's investment. Yet opponents of the ordinance revisions warn that instituting much less stringent protections for historic properties in the same neighborhood would have disastrous results.

Davis is unable to distinguish between the voluntary, contractual agreements that are deed restrictions and the mandatory, coercive mandates that make up the preservation ordinance. She sees a similarity--restrictions on the use of property--and ignores the fact that deed restrictions and the preservation ordinance are fundamentally different.

To call this misinformation would be too kind. To equate a private, voluntary agreement with a coercive government mandate is not an innocent mistake. It requires a willful evasion. And the evasions do not stop there. Throughout her article Davis addresses concrete details of the ordinance, repeatedly telling us what the proposed ordinance does not do--for now.

When the first preservation ordinance was being considered in the 1990s I told city council that it would only be a matter of time before preservationists demanded more stringent controls on "historic" properties. And that is precisely what is happening.

Once it becomes acceptable for government to establish some controls and restrictions on the use of property, it becomes acceptable--as a matter of principle--for government to completely control the use of property. The only issue up for debate is the extent of those controls. In time, those who want more and more controls will push the envelope, as preservationists are doing today.And that is precisely what is happening today.

You Have no Choice

Echoing a common ploy of the left, the Chronicle opines that opposition to the mosque to be built near Ground Zero in New York City is founded primarily on bigotry. The mosque, the paper concludes, will stand as a symbol of America's diversity and tolerance.

Reflecting its own inability to think in principles, the paper refuses to acknowledge that there are principled arguments against the mosque. Instead, the editorial cites two local examples of allegedly anti-Muslim sentiments:

Late last year, news broke that a West Houston mosque and school was one of several properties to be seized by the federal government in a large counter-terrorism sweep. (The mosque merely rents the space from the targeted organization.) Protesters gathered and media swarmed, frightening members, many of whom were already fearful of a backlash from the Fort Hood shootings two weeks earlier, in which a Muslim soldier was charged with killing 13 and injuring 30. 

And in May, local talk show host Michael Berry, in a heated conversation with a caller on KTRH radio, expressed the hope that if the New York center were built, someone would blow it up. The combative Berry later apologized for his outburst, but not for his opinion that the mosque should not be built.

To oppose the mosque, the paper implies, is to be a bigoted red-neck who opposes anyone who is "different."

I don't doubt that some opponents to the mosque fit this portrayal. But to imply that opponents of the mosque are monolithic is an evasion of the facts. It is a refusal to consider the fact that opponents of the mosque have diverse reasons for their opposition. To the Chronicle, those reasons are irrelevant.Why someone opposes the mosque does not matter, because ultimately those reasons are a mere rationalization.

Consider the two examples cited above. The paper implies that the protest outside of the seized mosque was an over-reaction--the mosque only rents space from suspected terrorists. The "combative" Berry apologized for his "outburst"--that is, the emotion-driven talk show host simply couldn't control himself. In neither instance, the paper would have us believe, did individuals act on the basis of a rational evaluation of the facts. Without the intellectual honesty to say so, the paper wants us to conclude that the same is true of all opponents of the mosque.

To the Chronicle's editorial staff, individuals really don't have any choice in the ideas that they accept and hold to be true. The ideas we hold are the result of something outside of our control, such as our emotions (Berry) or our gender. As an example of the latter, in Thursday's editorial, the paper tells us that the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is a good thing because it will strengthen the "woman's point of view" on the Court. In short, Kagan's "point of view" is not shaped by her own choices, but by her gender. The paper's implicit endorsement of determinism isn't surprising.

Fundamentally, the paper rejects the fact that human beings are autonomous, independent beings. Time after time the paper calls for government restrictions on the moral right of individuals to act according to their own judgment. Time after time the paper calls for individuals to put aside their own conclusions and values in deference to the "public good" or "common welfare." For years the paper has endorsed the use of government coercion to eliminate your right to choose. For the past two days it has told us why.

The Problem Isn't Term Limits

The Chronicle's editorial on Wednesday again voiced opposition to term limits:

We continue to believe they entail needless public cost for staging elections while denying the best officials the opportunity to continue serving the city. The system prevents citizens from exercising the unfettered right to choose their municipal leaders and insinuates they're not smart enough to reject bad incumbents. 

The paper is correct in asserting that the ballot box provides the only means of term limits necessary. But the paper believes that term limits are necessarily bad because elected officials need to spend much of their time simply learning their job. But what is their job?

The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. This is the only proper job of government officials. I hold that anyone who needs on-the-job training to carry out this responsibility should not be in an elected office.

Of course, the Chronicle holds a much different view of government. The paper believes that government should regulate and control the actions of individuals--such as what they do with their property. The paper believes that government should take actions that allegedly benefit some at the expense of others--such as health care. The paper believes that government should not protect individual rights, but actively engage in their violation.

And this is what the paper means by on-the-job training. Elected officials must learn how to dispense political favors, how to determine which pet cause to support and which to oppose, whose rights to violate and when. Given that there are no objective criteria for making such decisions, a newly elected official understandably needs some training and time to develop his own little fiefdom of political connections.

I agree with the paper that our current system is bad, but for much different reasons. The current system is bad because it provides government officials with the power to violate the rights of individuals. And that has nothing to do with term limits.

Back in the Good Ol' Days

Loren Steffy points out that air travel is far less expensive and far safer than it was during regulation. Citing an article from the Wall Street Journal, he notes

A round-trip coach ticket between New York and Los Angeles was $208 in 1958, according to the Air Transport Association. You can still sometimes find a $208 ticket today, but that 1958 price is $1,570 in today's dollars.

From 1964 to 1973, there was an average of seven fatal accidents a year on U.S. airlines. The fatal accident rate per departure in 1969 was 13 times higher than in 2009

And then he correctly concludes:

Now, it's [air travel] just another form of mass transit. As bad as things may seem now, the good ol' days weren't that great, either. 

Air travel is far more complex than moving people around a city. Yet, we are constantly told that government must provide mass transit on the local and regional level. Private businesses have mastered mass transit between cities and between continents, but they are virtually prohibited from offering such services on the local level. And when government doesn't explicitly prohibit such offerings, subsidized government entities make it impossible to compete.

While the aviation industry remains heavily regulated, even some marginal freedom in the industry has resulted in lower fares for consumers and safer travel. Motivated by their own self-interest--profit--private companies have sought to make travel more affordable and less risky, both of which benefit consumers. The same is true of every industry.

Despite these lessons, we are told that we need more incompetent government meddling in health care, the auto industry, and the financial industry. Private businesses take the blame for government regulations time and again, despite the overwhelming evidence that those regulations lead to nothing but misery.

Back in the good ol' days, when people were taught to think in principles, these scams would be quickly and widely identified for what they are--a power grab. Back in the good ol' days individuals had a genuine respect for the rights of their neighbors. Back in the good ol' days individuals did not turn to the government to cure every cold and bandage every scraped knee. Those must have been good days.

Wishing Won't Make It So

Intentions, according to the Chronicle, are all that matter. So long as Obama's policies and legislative agenda is intended to benefit Americans, the actual results that we will experience are irrelevant:

A new Gallup poll shows that only 44 percent of Americans approve of Obama's overall performance in office, his lowest rating to date, while 48 percent disapprove. According to a CBS poll, almost two-thirds of Americans feel that the president's economic programs have not affected them personally, and only 13 percent say they have helped. 

Why such negative reactions to measures aimed at improving Americans' lives, and after such public outrage at fat-cat Wall Street profligates? 

The Chronicle assumes, and certainly wants us to believe, that because the law is "aimed" at improving our lives, it will in fact do so. Why, the paper wants to know, are we so ungrateful for all of these great things that our benefactors are doing for us? It isn't fair, the paper chides, to berate Obama before we see how his policies play out:

As with health care, the implementation of financial reform will be a long, arduous endeavor with uncertain outcomes. But you have to give the guy credit. He's no fool, and is well aware of the toll his sweeping measures have taken on his approval ratings. 

So maybe we should cut him some slack, and take him at his word when he says, as he did earlier this month, "I know it doesn't poll well. But it's the right thing to do for America."

For the Chronicle the outcomes of health care and financial "reform" are uncertain.  Having abandoned principles, the paper is incapable of evaluating any policy or proposal ahead of time. We must try it, see it if "works", and return to the drawing board if it doesn't. Without principles, the future is a vast, unchartered wasteland in which any might happen. And so, we are urged to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because he claims that his policies are the "right thing to do."

The Chronicle's pragmatism does more than blind it to the future consequences of Obama's agenda. It renders the paper incapable of learning anything from the past. That RomneyCare--after which ObamaCare was modeled--has been a complete failure in Massachusetts is irrelevant. That was there and then; this is here and now. That the Federal Reserve was created to prevent an economic collapse is ancient history with no bearing on the events of today. That government intervention into the economy has failed everywhere does not matter--Obama's stated intentions are allegedly good and that is all that matters.

Fundamentally, the paper is arguing that wishes and desires can and will transform reality. If Obama's wish is to provide affordable health care to all Americans, any means he chooses will suffice. If Obama's wish is to "protect" the economy from greater calamity, the specific actions he takes do not matter. We are not to consider anything except his wishes and stated desires.

We might excuse a young child who throws a temper tantrum in an attempt to transform his wishes and desires into reality. Such a child simply has not learned that no matter how much he wants something, wishing won't make it so. Apparently, that is a lesson that the Chronicle's editorial board has yet to learn.

Democracy and Libraries

In an effort to balance their budgets, cities across the nation are reducing the money they spend on public libraries. Not surprisingly, the Chronicle finds this "alarming":

For Americans of limited means, and that includes many Houstonians, public libraries are more than just a cozy place to spend a rainy day curled up with a good book. They're necessary tools to access the Internet, to find out about job and education opportunities, to seek out needed social services — in short, to better one's lot in life. 

Consider what the paper lumps together as a way to improve one's life: Searching for job opportunities and learning about social services. The Chronicle believes that looking for work and looking for a hand out are the same. The paper sees no distinction between those seeking to be productive and those who want to live at the expense of the productive. But this is hardly the only problem with the editorial.

The editorial goes on to ask a number of questions that it says needs serious debate:

• Is our democracy actually put at risk by so many incremental decisions in so many different states and cities to shrink library schedules or close them altogether? 
• Is there a cumulative effect we're overlooking?
• Are they really "extras" in public budgets? 
• Or do they belong in the category of core services? 

As is so often the case, these questions assume answers to more fundamental issues. The editorial does not raise these issues, apparently assuming that they are beyond question. The most important of these issues is: What is the nature and purpose of government? 

The Chronicle has long made clear that it believes government should provide for the needy, regulate the economy, and control our lives. As evidence, simply consult virtually any editorial printed by the paper. But this is not the purpose of government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers or by the facts of reality.

The Founders held that all men possess "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They held that the purpose of government is "to secure these rights"--to protect the rights of individuals from violation by other men and by government. And the Founders were correct.

Rights are a sanction to act without coercion or the permission of others. Rights recognize the fact that the sustenance and enjoyment of life require action. Rights recognize the fact that each of us want different things from life and should be free to pursue them as we judge best (so long as we respect the mutual rights of others). Government's purpose is to protect this fundamental moral right. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The Chronicle sees it much differently. The paper believes that government should compel or prohibit certain behavior. Whether it is forcing individuals to subsidize the health care of others or prohibiting certain types of land-use, the paper believes it proper for government to make it illegal for individuals to act according to their own rational judgment. And whose judgment should decide what is legal and illegal? The paper makes that clear: The majority.

Mistakenly believing that America was founded as a democracy (it is a constitutional republic) the paper believes that the "will of the people" should reign supreme. If the majority favors enslaving doctors or dictating how property owners may use their land, that position is proper and just merely because the majority supports it. This is--as the Founders correctly noted--nothing more than mob rule. It is a tyranny of the masses, in which truth and justice are determined by taking a vote.

Public libraries--like public education, public health care, public parks, public roads, and a litany of other public services--violate the rights of individuals by compelling them to provide financial support regardless of their own judgment. It matters not how many people support these institutions or believe that government should provide them. 

Whose Life is It?

On Monday the Chronicle opined on a recent report that found two-thirds of Texas children flunked a physical fitness test. The editorial, which is subtitled "It's our duty to get Texas kids more fit," concluded:

The state of Texas has an interest in changing this picture, no less than it does in improving student performances on standardized academic tests. Failure to meet physical fitness standards has lifetime consequences every bit as serious as flunking algebra.

Physical fitness shouldn't be treated as an elective that can be modified or even eliminated at state lawmakers' whim. Let's get exercised enough to change this, Texas. 

The paper doesn't tell us why the fitness of Texas children is a proper concern of state legislators or what interest the state has in this issue. Apparently, we are supposed to swallow the bait with no explanation.

I assume that, if pressed, the paper would argue that childhood obesity ultimately costs taxpayers more in health care costs. Therefore, the state has an interest in promoting fitness because it will save us money in the long run. But this begs the question: Should government even be in the health care business? And the answer to that question is an emphatic NO.

The Chronicle implicitly regards children as property of the state, whose fitness is a proper concern of lawmakers. This of course, is nothing new. Through public education, vaccination requirements, and myriad other laws the state has long asserted its ownership of children within Texas.

And this ownership isn't limited to children. Anyone living in the state is subject to an abundance of regulations and controls premised on the belief that the state may dictate how we live our lives. From occupational licensing to taxation, from land-use regulations to protecting the environment, the state has steadily assumed greater and greater control over our property and our lives. Increasingly, we may live--not as we choose--but as the state deems appropriate. Increasingly, we may live--not by right--but with the permission of government officials. This isn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

The Chronicle Gets it Right--For Now

It is rare that I find myself in agreement with a Chronicle editorial. On Sunday the paper accomplished this feat, at least in part, in chastising city council for its refusal to cut its budget:

The defense offered by some council members is that the cuts would have come out of salaries and health care benefits for staff members. And so they would have. We sympathize with the hardships these cuts would cause, limited as they are. But we're also left to wonder: How are those hardships any different than the ones borne by so many in the private sector in these days of benefit cuts, wage and salary freezes and layoffs? That's what too many of the people who pay for city government are facing.

Of course, it is easy for the paper to take the side of taxpayers on this issue.So I'm not going to give it too much credit, particularly when it evades the implications of its own statements.

From France to Washington, D.C., to Sacramento, Calif., public sector employees have for too long been insulated from the realities faced by those in the private sector. They have more vacation time, better pensions and more job security than most in the private sector. It's starting to break the bank in Europe and in parts of this country.

If this is true--which it is--then why does the paper continually advocate for expanding the number of public sector employees? If more government is breaking the bank, then why does the paper consistently call for more government? From local to federal, from land-use regulations to health care and everything in between, the paper urges more government controls and regulations.

Apparently the paper believes that such controls and regulations do not require more public sector employees to monitor and harass the citizenry. Apparently the paper believes that there are no costs associated with enforcing these edicts. Apparently the paper can't see the connection between more government control over our lives and bankruptcy. To make such a connection, one would have to look beyond concrete details and think in principles.

Economically, government is a consumer--it produces nothing of value. (It's proper purpose is the protection of our moral right to produce values.) To feed its voracious appetite, government must take money from the private sector, which reduces the money available to invest in expanded production. In addition, government controls and regulations place additional burdens on producers, forcing them to spend enormous sums to comply with the demands and dictates of politicians and bureaucrats. This too is money that cannot be invested in production.

These facts are true no matter the intention of any particular government intervention. These facts are true in Athens, Sacramento, Washington, and everywhere else on earth. These facts are true no matter how many people support a particular regulation. These facts were true in 1776, they are true today, and they will be true in 2176. These facts are true in principle--always.

The Chronicle can't have it both ways. The paper can't chastise politicians for spending money while it consistently urges them to spend money. It can't lament the cost of expanding the public sector while regularly calling for an expansion of the public sector. The paper can't warn of impending financial ruin while simultaneously advocating the actions that lead to that ruin. At least, it can't do these things if it wishes to be consistent and to be taken seriously.

A Nanny State for Nannies

Saturday's editorial in the Chronicle applauds New York for passing legislation granting nannies paid sick days and holidays. According to the paper, nannies work in near slavery:

[D]omestic workers still enjoy the fewest rights of almost any other class of workers. Though their ethnicity has changed over the decades, for the last century domestic workers have tended to be people of color: already marginalized, in other words, and with less leverage to negotiate work contracts. Throughout U.S. history, domestic workers have also tended to be women, who are still paid less on average than their male counterparts even in the professional world.

Above all, domestic employees do their jobs within families - who all too often fail to treat them as the paid workers they are. It's little wonder that these workers often endure verbal abuse, overwork and nonpayment, even sexual assault. Working in the insular world of the home, they lack the neutral witnesses and other social controls found in other work environments. 

Despite the paper's claims, nannies have the same rights as any individual. Rights pertain to action--the freedom to act according to one's own judgment. Short of literal slavery, nannies have a choice as to whether they stay in the profession, as well as for whom they work. If a nanny finds the conditions in one home unbearable, she is free to go elsewhere. (Instances of sexual abuse or nonpayment are violations of the nanny's rights and should be prosecuted.)

But this isn't good enough for the Chronicle. The fact that some individuals tolerate abuse is intolerable to the paper. The Chronicle objects to the fact that some individuals make choices that it finds objectionable, and government must prohibit the freedom to make such choices. 

While the paper stops short of calling for such legislation in Texas, it certainly would support such controls. For years the paper has not hesitated to endorse virtually any proposal that limits individual choice, imposes controls and restrictions on individuals, and expands the power of government.

That some individuals make bad decisions or tolerate situations that many of us would run away from is indisputable. But so what? It is quite easy to find fault with the choices others make, but that does not justify preventing them from making such decisions.

I am currently re-reading Babbitt, by Sinclair Lewis. Babbitt is a complete conformist. He opposes Prohibition and regales in his ability to skirt the law. He tolerates restrictions on his rights because it is good for the sops who cannot control their own drinking, while he simultaneously rejoices when he can enjoy a cocktail. Because Prohibition allegedly benefits others he is willing to put aside his own judgment, desires, and interests. Such is the thinking that gives rise to the nanny state. Such is the thinking that allows individuals to slowly cede their rights.

A Surprising Editorial-- Not

Not surprisingly, the Chronicle has endorsed expanding the historic preservation ordinance:

People who want to live in historic neighborhoods ought to have that choice. And if we don’t protect those neighborhoods, they’ll slowly slip away.

In true collectivist fashion, the paper argues that what an individual property owner wants is irrelevant--he must surrender his judgment and desires to that of his neighbors. If enough noisy and nosy property owners in a neighborhood want to force others to beg the city for permission to use their property, then so be it.

In response to critics of the proposal the paper offers the following:

Detractors argue that any limitation on what can be done with a piece of land is bad for property values. But that’s a hard case to make: In cities across the country, historic neighborhoods tend to be the most desirable.

The paper doesn't tell us which cities, so I can only assume that it means the same ones that have made housing unaffordable for the middle class because of land-use regulations. I can only assume that it means the same cities that are losing citizens and jobs. The connection between preservation and higher housing costs isn't lost on the Chronicle:

And tight protections certainly haven’t hurt the Old Sixth Ward. If anything, they seem to make buyers feel secure. In the three years the protections have been in place there, sale prices have zoomed up by roughly 30 percent.

These arbitrarily inflated housing costs are what the paper and preservationists want to impose on neighborhoods around the city. And the impact won't be limited to the neighborhoods receiving "protection". Higher housing costs in those neighborhoods will increase demand in non-historic neighborhoods, thereby driving up housing costs there.

But these simple economic arguments are not the primary case against historic preservation. The primary case is moral--each individual has a moral right to use his property as he judges best, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Government's purpose is to protect this right by prohibiting the initiation of force.

Renovating or demolishing an old building does not violate the rights of anyone. Forcing property owners to seek government approval to do so does--it is founded on the premise that property owners may act only with permission, rather than by right. Ownership means control; land-use regulations--including historic preservation--wrests control from the rightful owner and places it in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and nosy neighbors.

Preservationists hold that buildings have intrinsic value. They hold that buildings should be protected and preserved regardless of the consequences to human beings. In their zeal to protect bricks and mortar they do not hesitate to trample on the lives of property owners.

Doublespeak in the Chronicle

I recently finished reading 1984, George Orwell's tale of a futuristic totalitarian state. In the novel, leaders of the state engage in a thorough and constant effort to wipe out facts of reality. As one character states, reality exists in the "collective mind", and whatever the collective believes to be true is true. The individual is always wrong.

Many readers of 1984 likely believe that such irrationality can only exist in fiction, that actual human beings could not accept and advocate such nonsense. Yet, almost on cue, the Chronicle provides us with evidence to the contrary. In an editorial on the Houston Food Bank, the paper lauds the facility for its efforts to feed the hungry. Ignoring basic economic truths and observable facts of reality, the paper claims:

Food stamps are a bargain. The program is 100 percent federally funded, while administrative costs are shared 50-50 with the state. Not only does it immediately and significantly benefit the recipients, it just as promptly and efficiently benefits local farmers, grocers and other businesses.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that every dollar in SNAP benefits produces $1.84 in economic activity.

The editorial ignores the fact that any money provided by the federal government must first be coercively seized from taxpayers. The editorial ignores the fact that such theft is hardly a bargain for those who have their money taken by force. The editorial ignores the fact that those taxpayers must now forgo spending on the items that they desire, such as a new car, or a home, or a vacation, or a dinner out. The editorial ignores the myriad government interventions that have created the economic turmoil and hunger that it now wants government to correct. But in true 1984 fashion, the paper implicitly suggests that such facts can be wiped out of existence if we simply believe otherwise.

Contrary to the premises underlying the editorial and implied by it, reality is not a creation of consciousness. The facts of reality are immutable, no matter how many people believe otherwise. There is no collective consciousness--there is only the minds of individuals. And it is the minds of individuals that the Chronicle regularly seeks to control and subvert.

Whether it is calling for restrictions on billboards, or advocating land-use regulations, or supporting government control of health care, the paper consistently calls for regulations and controls on the actions of individuals. The paper consistently supports measures that will prevent individuals from acting according to their own judgment. And that is not a fictionalized fantasy--it is a fact that the Chronicle cannot wipe out of existence by pretending otherwise.

Swiss Cheese

Many--particularly those who think that our money belongs to the government--are gleeful that the Swiss Parliament appears poised to remove the secrecy long associated with Swiss bank accounts. The Chronicle, not surprisingly, illustrates this point:

The accounts are disappearing because tax collectors in this country and across much of Europe finally had enough of that secrecy. They were losing revenues because of the labyrinthine walls of privacy ordained and enforced by powerful Swiss bankers.

In other words, nobody has a right to hide their money from the taxman. Anyone who wishes to maintain some privacy regarding their financial affairs must have nefarious purposes:

Ah, yes, secrecy … that was always the source of the appeal of these accounts for wealthy dictators, industrialists, movie stars, Nazi thieves and others of notoriety and fame.

Ayn Rand once said something to the effect that if someone decries communists and his mother-in-law in the same breath, you can be certain that the true source of his animosity is the mother-in-law.  The paper equates dictators and industrialists, Nazis and movie stars. The paper's wrath is not directed at the thieves and murderers who used Swiss bank accounts to hide their loot, but at productive individuals who sought to hold onto the money they earned.

More importantly, the paper sees no distinction between production and brute force. It sees no difference between a banker and a bank robber. In the process it advocates theft on a scale that rivals "wealthy dictators" and "Nazi thieves".


Due to a number of commitments and projects, my posting my be irregular and shorter than normal over the next few weeks.