It's Time to Abolish Public Education

Last week Senate Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, announced that the public school system in Texas is broke. The Chronicle's story said:

According to committee members and experts, the system has vast inequities of more than $1,000 per student and is built on adjustments for low-income students, rural school districts, small districts, medium districts and other factors that are nearly 30 years old with little reflection of real costs.

Shapiro, along with other Republicans, wants to scrap the current system and start over. Unfortunately, they don't really mean it. For example:

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said he favors a sales tax increase to fund public education instead of property tax revenue.

"The homeowners and the commercial business owners can't stand much more," Patrick said, noting that all consumers would directly contribute to public education if the funding source shifts from property to sales.

This isn't scrapping the current system--this is tinkering with details. The current system is essentially a government monopoly funded through coercive taxation. What Patrick proposes is more of the same, with the names of the victims changed.

For all of their talk of free markets, conservatives such as Patrick are quick to reject free markets when it comes to education. They cling to the belief that money is the answer, even when more money continues to produce the same abysmal results. They refuse to question the legitimacy of public education and struggle to find ways to make it work.

If conservatives were serious about improving the state's educational system, they would be calling for the abolition of public schools. While they often taut the superior results of home schooling and private schools they are loathe to remove the financial burdens that prevent the poor and middle class from having such options. Forced to pay for public education, the poor and middle class can seldom afford other educational options for their children.

I agree with Shapiro that the system is broken. I disagree with her that it can be repaired--it can't. Now is the time to abandon public education.

Promising the Impossible

The projected state budget deficit has grown to $21 billion according to a report in Monday's Chronicle. The additional deficit is being attributed to tax receipts that are lower than anticipated and increased expenditures for public schools, Medicaid, and increased health care costs for government employees and retirees.

Not surprisingly, state officials are still trying to have our cake and eat it too. They are making noises about the need to throw more money into the public education cesspool while simultaneously expressing hesitancy to raise taxes. The fact that a reasonably intelligent fourth-grader would know that this is impossible doesn't deter politicians from trying to make such promises to Texans.

If state officials were serious about balancing the budget and cutting taxes, they could do so quickly and easily by cutting spending on public education and granting more freedom to educators and parents. Simply removing state controls on education and allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money, rather than sending it to Austin to feed a bloated bureaucracy, could balance the budget and create a surplus.

Of course, this won't happen because the educational bureaucrats, along with politicians, think that they know better than parents and taxpayers. Even though those same state officials continue to demonstrate their ability to waste money, make unfulfilled promises, and turn out functional illiterates, they retain the audacity to claim that they know best.

Only the severely delusional and blatantly irrational would claim that the government could do a better job than private businesses in producing food, manufacturing computers, or virtually anything else. Yet public education remains a sacred cow, despite its repeated failings. And so, Texans had better hold on to their wallets because the children are going to need more money.

Yogis and Their Boo Boo Defense

While Texans worry about the economy, the expansion of government, and an endless parade of proposals to separate us from our money, the state will soon eliminate one source of concern to many of us--yoga instructors. The Chronicle reports that the Texas Workforce Commission has been sending letters to yoga studios threatening them with $50,000 fines.

"We send letters to schools that we think are teaching someone to have a profession," said Ann Hatchitt, the commission's spokeswoman. "All we're doing is seeing that yoga schools are all either exempt, or if they're charging students enough money to make a career, than they need to be monitored."

The article doesn't explain why some schools are exempt and some are not, but does state that an exemption is available if a school doesn't offer marketing or business classes and charges less than $500. Apparently, the state wants to have the final say if you want to teach someone how to operate a business.

It is bad enough that entrepreneurs need government permission to pursue a livelihood. But when the state admits that its rules are non-objective, the door is thrown open to the arbitrary decrees of bureaucrats:

[T]he commission must follow its interpretation of the law, according to Hatchitt.

Any law that is open to interpretation is by that fact non-objective. Whose interpretation? By what standard? The yoga studio owner is considered guilty and is subjected to the hassle and expense of fighting a massive state bureaucracy for the "crime" of running a yoga studio.

The state's proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, not forcing entrepreneurs to grovel for permission to earn a living. The state should be protecting our right to act according to our own rational judgment, not placing arbitrary restrictions on business owners.

The yogis aren't doing themselves any favors. Albina Rippy, owner of a studio in Houston, told the paper:

I don't think it's fair when others like martial arts centers and fitness facilities don't have to pay a fee to operate.

In other words, if other training facilities had to pay a fee then it would be acceptable to force yoga studios to do so. Or, selective slavery is simply unacceptable, but wholesale slavery will be tolerated. This is not the way to "defend" one's rights.

The yogis aren't opposed to the violation of individual rights via government regulation. They just don't want to be the victims. But they would be wise to learn from Martin Niemöller, a pastor in Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Misrepresentations, Fallacies, and "Deregulation"

It is summer in Texas and that means that it is time for the annual chorus of voices decrying "deregulation" of the electric industry in the state. As an example, Bay Area Houston (BAH) declares that "Electricity deregulation has failed." While this certainly makes for attention grabbing headlines, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The most relevant fact being misrepresented is that the electricity industry is still heavily regulated in Texas. The web site of the Texas Public Utilities Commission states:

We are responsible for regulating certain services provided by telephone and electric utilities in Texas and for protecting utility customers.

The electric industry has been operating in a mixed economy--a mixture of freedom and government controls--since "deregulation" in 2003 (and long before that). Yet BAH blames "deregulation", that is freedom, for higher rates. He doesn't even consider the possibility that perhaps it is the government controls that have stifled innovation and led to higher rates.

Instead he provides an excellent example of the fallacy of post hoc. Since higher electric rates occurred after "deregulation" BAH concludes that it must be "deregulation" that is to blame. He conveniently ignores the controls imposed on utility companies that lead to higher costs--such as the fact that a company cannot generate, transmit, and sell electricity to consumers. A web site--PowertoChoose.com--owned by the Public Utility Commission states:

In the past, one company provided all parts of your electricity service (generation, transmission and distribution, and retail sales). With competition, these parts are separated into different companies.

Neither the PUC nor BAH tells us that the vertical integration that existed prior to "deregulation" was prohibited in the name of competition. In other words, the practices that allowed a company to operate more efficiently were banned by government fiat, and now the market is taking the blame.

The irony of the PUC's web site is that while promoting consumer choice it actively limits producer choice. Consumers are encouraged to shop electric retailers--to act on their own judgment. But producers who deem it economically practical to generate, transmit, and sell electricity cannot act on their judgment. The decrees of politicians and bureaucrats are imposed on the utility companies and the utilities take the blame when the results are not to the liking of the public.

Higher electric rates are not the result of "deregulation", but of continued government intervention. That BAH and his ilk don't see this isn't surprising. When they look at the government's failed monopoly on education they don't call for more freedom, but more taxpayer money and more government controls. When they looked at soaring health care costs they don't blame the mountains of regulations imposed on insurance companies and doctors, they demand more government controls. When the financial industry collapses they don't blame the 1,500+ regulatory agencies overseeing that industry, they declare that the industry isn't regulated enough.

BAH, who labels himself a "consumer activist", is unconcerned about producers. (And he isn't concerned about consumers either, or he would be advocating freedom for both producers and consumers.) He is concerned solely with needs, the needs of consumers:

[Consumers] need reliable energy, with long term contracts, no cancellation fees, and a fair and reasonable price. 

And when "deregulation" does not meet this need, government must intervene. Government must place more shackles on the producers of electricity so that consumers can have "reasonable" prices. However, BAH doesn't have the honesty to state this openly. Instead, this is what he offers:

A small group of citizens approached the City of Houston with an idea. The City has negotiation power resulting in a 5 year contract at 9 cents a kWh. The citizens asked the City to require their chosen provider to offer the same rate to the homeowners and businesses of Houston....

We believe this idea has merit. The City will not resell electricity or provide billing services or customer support. They will only negotiate a rate and require the provider to voluntarily offer the same rate to its citizens. [emphasis added]

What does it mean to "require the provider to voluntarily offer the same rate" to Houstonians. How do you require someone to act voluntarily? When government is involved, such requirements are backed by force. When an individual or business is forced to act a particular way, the action cannot be called voluntary. And this is the essence of BAH's position--he wants to use government coercion to satisfy the whims and demands of consumers. And he's not about to let facts or logic get in his way.

Rearranging Education's Deck Chairs

Few Texans would argue that our public school system is broken. And, while there is considerable disagreement over how to fix public education, many do agree that politics should be taken out of the process. Karen Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, joined this chorus in Sunday's Chronicle:

It's time to fix this flawed system and get politics out of our children's classrooms. The state board is clearly unwilling to fix the problem. Last year, however, the Texas Legislature considered bills that would have put primary responsibility for the adoption of curriculum standards and textbooks in the hands of classroom teachers and academic experts. None of those bills passed, but lawmakers should revisit those recommendations in 2011. They must ensure that public schools are focused on just educating our children, not promoting the personal and political agendas of elected state board members.

My first reaction upon reading this was to wonder if Miller had any idea of the contradictory nature of her paragraph. While calling for an end to politics in education, Miller urges the Texas Legislature--a political body--to enact changes toward that end. In other words, she wants a political process to put an end to a political process.

Legislators are no more immune to politics than the members of the State Board of Education. Nor are the teachers and scholars that Miller wants setting the curriculum. So long as any group has the power to impose a curriculum upon Texas schools, politics will be involved. So long as government coercion is used to dictate what students are taught, there will be those who seek to use that power to promote their own ideas and agendas.

Politics will not be removed from education until government is removed from education. Until Miller and her ilk grasp this fact, they are simply asking for the deck chairs on the Titanic to be rearranged.

Bureaucrats or Politicians?

So long as the government has the power to dispose of the property of the citizenry, lines will form in an attempt to influence legislators and bureaucrats. Individuals, special interest groups, and businesses will clamor for exemptions to existing law, controls on others, or some other form of political favoritism. As the Chronicle correctly notes, the benefits bestowed upon some can only come at the expense of others:

The politics of taxation in Texas are convoluted. No elected official in his or her right mind would openly advocate raising ad valorem taxes for overburdened homeowners, but our politicians regularly figure out back-door routes to give tax exemptions to their friends. And a break for one party usually translates to added burden for the rest of us.

In this particular case, Valero is seeking tax breaks for installing equipment required to meet EPA standards, which would save the company millions of dollars. In other words, Valero is seeking to mitigate the damage caused by the mandates of one government agency by lobbying another government agency.

As the paper properly points out, we cannot blame Valero for seeking to reduce its tax burden--the company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. The paper's complaint is that the decision will apparently be made by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), rather than the legislature. The paper believes that there is virtue in lobbying elected politicians, but not appointed bureaucrats.

It could be argued that politicians are answerable to "the people" while bureaucrats must answer only to the governor. But this distinction is trivial. The fate of Valero's property rests in the hands of government officials. They will decide how Valero must dispose of its property. It matters little which government entity issues the dictates.

Morally, Valero has a right to use its property as it chooses. Nobody--including government--has a moral right to force the company to act contrary to its own judgment (so long as the company does not violate the mutual rights of others). This applies not only to the tax dollars extorted by a long list of government entities, but also to the EPA mandates requiring reduced emissions.

Neither the TCEQ nor the legislature nor the EPA has a moral right to dispose of anyone's property. Government's purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. Until it limits itself to that purpose, we will continue to see a parade of groups seeking government favors and exemptions.

A "Plan" that Isn't

Texas gubernatorial candidate Kay "Bailout" Hutchison has unveiled a "plan" to improve Texas roads. In a speech last week, she said:

Texans are tired of the traffic and congestion in our cities. They are frustrated with the arrogance and inefficiencies of the leadership at the Texas Department of Transportation that have failed to produce results. One of my top priorities as governor will be to clean up TxDOT and solve the transportation problems that have plagued Texas for the last decade.

This all sounds fine and dandy. After all, who is in favor of congested roads? However, it is one thing to say that you are going to fix something and another thing to put forth a plan to actually do so. So what is the Senator's plan? She will appoint a "select committee". In other words, she has no plan, other than evading the issue and waiting for recommendations from others. That doesn't give us much to hang our hat on.

One does not need to be an expert in transportation issues to predict the outcome of the "select committee". They will issue a report that concludes that Texas highways are congested, and they will recommend some course of action. Some will think that the proposal is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and others will decry that proposal as a colossal waste of money. And then a long and acrimonious public debate will ensue. While the transportation elitists are sipping their soy lattes and arguing over how to spend our money, the roads will grow more congested.

Hutchison's "plan" is just a rehash of what the state has been doing all along. The problem, she implies, is that the "right" people aren't running the show. We don't need fundamental change, she implies, but rather, a different set of suits lording over Texas roads.

I realize that transportation issues can be very complex. And in a state the size of Texas, with multiple large metropolitan areas and vast expanses of desolate terrain, such issues are perhaps more complex than in other states. So I will not begin to pretend that I know how to reduce traffic congestion. However, neither Hutchison nor her "select committee" will know either, no matter how many hearings they hold or how much of our money they spend.

Nor does Hutchison know how to insure that our stores are full of products, or that Internet service is available to millions of people, or how to manufacture cell phones. The people in these industries do know and they do a spectacular job. I don't have to wait in bread lines, or tolerate Internet black outs, or wait months to purchase a cell phone. The producers of these values have an incentive--the profit motive--to insure an adequate and available supply. If they don't, they go out of business because consumers will go elsewhere.

But what incentive does Hutchison, or any politician, have to provide an adequate supply of roadways? The correct answer is: NONE. Sure, they make all kinds of noises to appease voters, but when the rubber meets the road little is done. The demand for roadways continues to exceed the supply, and congestion is the result.

With very few and rare exceptions, we do not experience such supply/ demand discrepancies when private companies are providing the goods or services. Private companies find innovative ways to provide the goods and services that consumers want and desire. Those that do so successfully profit; those that do not go out of business.

When government is unsuccessful--as in the case with roadways, mail delivery, and education to name a few examples--it is immune from the consequences. It's assets are not reallocated to more efficient producers. Indeed, it simply seizes more assets from producers to fund its inefficiencies.

Government should not be in the business of providing roads. In doing so, it violates our rights by forcibly taking our money. And in prohibiting competition, it violates the rights of would-be entrepreneurs who could and would find innovative solutions to our transportation needs.

Government's purpose is the protection of our rights--the freedom to act according to our own rational judgment (so long as we respect the mutual rights of others). Government's purpose is to provide the social context in which we can act morally.

Government's use of force may properly be used only against those who initiate force--robbers, kidnappers, rapists, murderers for example. Government's monopoly on roads (not to mention mail delivery and education) forces both consumers and would-be road entrepreneurs to act contrary to their own judgment. Our congested freeways are but one example of the impractical consequences of this approach.

If Hutchison (or any politician) truly wants to solve our transportation problems, she must begin by renouncing the government's immoral use of force to prohibit competition and compel tax payers to fund the government's monopoly. Only by subjecting government to moral law--limiting the use of force to retaliation against those who initiate its use--can the practical be achieved.

Proposition 9 and the Alamo

Next week Texans will have an opportunity to defend property rights, and chances are quite high that they will refuse to do so. Proposition 9 will amend the state constitution to solidify the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA), which declares that all beach front property seaward of the vegetation line is "public property". TOBA has already robbed countless individuals of their property, and Proposition 9 will make it more difficult to rectify this gross injustice in the future.

Last Sunday the Chronicle reported on the proposition, stating:

[V]oters will decide whether the law's [TOBA] promise of beach access, which some folks already consider a Texan's birthright, should be part of the state's constitution. [emphasis added]

Rights sanction our freedom to act without interference from others; they do not grant us a claim to some object. To claim that open beaches are a "Texan's birthright" is to claim that some individuals--beach front property owners--must fulfill the desires of others. This is a negation of all rights.

Not content to merely pervert the meaning of "rights", for this is quite common, supporters of TOBA blame the victims for the state's seizure of private property. The comments left in response to the Chronicle article cited above illustrate this fact.

While the comments vary, they have a similar message: Beach front property owners know what the law is and have nobody to blame but themselves. If they are so foolish as to build on the beach, then they get exactly what they deserve when the state takes their property.

According to the Chronicle a number of law suits are pending against the state and its use of TOBA. The paper reports that Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who is responsible for regulating beach access, evades any responsibility in the matter:

Patterson has countered that Mother Nature, not the state, is taking their properties.

Apparently Patterson believes that Mother Nature passed TOBA. Apparently Patterson believes Mother Nature shows up at the property owner's door with a gun, demanding that the "offending" house be demolished. If Patterson is correct, why are state officials even involved? It is not Mother Nature who threatens property owners, but Patterson.

Government's sole legitimate purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights--the right to own, use, and dispose of material objects. Our rights are inviolable. They are not subject to the whims of state officials or a vote of the citizenry. That a majority of Texans support armed robbery doesn't turn the act into a charitable donation, nor does it turn the desire for open beaches into a right.

When Texans go to vote next week, I urge them to consider a cry long associated with this state: "Remember the Alamo!" The brave men who fought and died in that battle were fighting for freedom from Santa Anna--a dictator who believed that he could dispose of the lives of others. Today, advocates of liberty are fighting an equally tyrannical idea--that the rights of the individual may be voted away.

Davy Crockett, one of the hero's of the Alamo, once said, ""A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." Supporters of TOBA want government to give them a fictitious "right" to open beaches by taking property from others. Today, it is the rights of beach front property owners that are at risk. Tomorrow, it may be their rights.

My Brother's Children's Keeper

Barack Obama has repeatedly told us that we are our brother's keeper. Now the state of Texas is telling us that we are also our brother's children's keeper. According to the Chronicle, Texas taxpayers will soon be on the hook for $2.1 billion to pay for the college education of Texas children:

This is not a free education for them. Their parents and grandparents bought state-guaranteed prepaid college education plans between 1996 and 2003 known as the Texas Tomorrow Fund, later renamed the Texas Guaranteed Tuition Plan.

Now the fund is nearly broke, a victim of tuition deregulation at state universities and busts in the financial markets that were supposed to provide the investment returns to keep the fund solvent.

Comptroller Susan Combs, whose office administers the fund, said the plans are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state. So, no parent whose child has a college plan has to worry about it being honored.

This means that taxpayers will be asked forced to make up the difference. The fund was created in 1995 at the urging of then-Comptroller John Sharp, who is now a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. While some lawmakers warned that the plan was a train wreck waiting to happen in 1995, Sharp blames Combs for the shortfall, even though her predecessor had cut off new enrollment in the plan in 2003. Combs formally closed the program when she took office in 2007.

Sharp said the original prepaid tuition program has financial problems because Combs closed it to new enrollment. Sharp said pensions and Social Security need new members to remain solvent over long periods.

Combs has correctly responded that this is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. And as is generally the case in government sponsored Ponzi schemes, the masterminds are off to bigger and better things by the time the scheme falls apart. Putting Texas taxpayers on the hook for billions apparently isn't enough for Sharp, who is now seeking the power to do the same to taxpayers across the country.

But just to demonstrate that Washington doesn't hold a monopoly on repeating its mistakes, lawmakers started a new plan--the Texas Tuition Promise Fund--in 2007. Of course, when that plan goes belly up, and it will, its advocates will also point the finger at someone else. Lawmakers love to throw crumbs to voters in exchange for votes, and both ignore the fact that those crumbs will ultimately be supplied by taking a loaf of bread from taxpayers. To the credit of lawmakers the Texas Tuition Promise Fund is not backed by the state's credit--for now. But what will happen when this boondoggle goes broke?

The entire idea that we are our brother's keeper is founded on the idea that need supersedes rights, that the need of one person is a claim on the property and life of others. So when the Texas Tuition Promise Fund goes broke, the need of the subscribers will be the prevailing concern. And taxpayers will again be asked forced to make up the difference.

Lawmakers continue to make the same foolish mistakes because they believe that the failures result from poor implementation. They didn't charge enough, or the money was invested poorly, or some other nonsense is always offered as an excuse for failure. They never stop to consider whether their proposals are wrong in principle. And the Texas Tuition Promise Fund is wrong in principle.

The proper purpose of government is to protect our rights, not create investment programs for parents. Anyone who wants a "tuition promise fund" can set one up without the state being involved. It's called a savings account, and as far as I know every damn bank in Texas offers them. And if that isn't good enough there are other investment vehicles, such as mutual funds.

Someday we might have lawmakers who don't kiss the butt of every voter they can simply to get elected. But until that occurs, we will continue to witness that gross spectacle. And taxpayers will continue to be subjected to a different kind of probing in the same area of the body.

Freedom and Bad Hair Cuts

Last Saturday I got a hair cut, which was not the highlight of my weekend. However, while sitting in the chair, voluntarily allowing a strange woman to fondle my hair, I noticed her prominently displayed cosmetology license. I was tempted to laugh at the absurdity, but since she had several sharp objects at her disposal, I thought better of it.

Normally, when I am in a sedentary position I prefer to read, or sleep. But because of the previously mentioned sharp objects, sleeping was not really an option. So I read her cosmetology license. Three times.

I expected to see some information on the license that would assure me that I was receiving the best hair cut allowable by law, or something of the sort. I thought maybe I would see some name that I recognized that would convince me that this stylist had passed muster. Someone like Bush 41 (who spends the winter in Houston). But alas, no such information or names could be spotted.

And then I wondered, what is the worst thing that could happen here? Well, she did have sharp objects, and all kinds of nasty things could result from that. But since I did not see any Texas Rangers standing guard, that license wasn't much protection if she decided to emulate Jack the Ripper. Besides, she seemed to be the type who understood that that wouldn't be a good career move.

So then I thought, the typical justification for occupational licensing is to protect the public welfare and safety. How is the fact that the state has given this woman permission to cut my hair protecting my welfare or safety? I suppose that if I got a really, really, incredibly bad hair cut that I might be a little upset. But my health would not be threatened. I've had a few bad hair cuts in my life, and never once did I get ill.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not endorsing bad hair cuts. In fact, I generally don't endorse bad anything. But a bad hair cut is not going to ruin my day, let alone my life. I've learned many things, and one of them is: My hair will grow out. Another one is: It is really, really hard to give a bad hair cut. Believe me, I have tried. On myself.

What really ticks me off about this occupational licensing is that the state is treating me like a little child. I can recognize when someone doesn't cut my hair well. After all, it is my hair. I see it every day of my life. I have yet to have anyone from the state come to my home or business to inspect my hair. They don't even do that when I renew my driver's license (and don't get me started on that). Yet, they have the audacity to believe that they can make better decisions about my hair than I can.

To this point I have been rather flip about this issue, but it is indeed serious. If someone wants to cut my hair, and I want to pay them to do it, what freaking business is it of the state? Just because Juanita passed some test 2 years ago doesn't mean she is going to do a good job today. If she doesn't, I will express my displeasure and wear a hat.

Juanita, her colleagues, and indeed all individuals, have a moral right to earn a living as they choose, so long as they respect the rights of other individuals. And I have a moral right to purchase their services if I choose. Neither of us needs the state interfering with that transaction and our freedom. I certainly don't need the state acting as my mommy to make sure that Juanita will do a good job. I expect her employer to do that, and if he doesn't, I will take my business, and my hair, elsewhere.

Paternalism and Compromisers

Apparently, the Texas Legislature thinks that Texans are nothing more than little children who need the paternalistic strong arm of government to dictate their actions. A law that will take effect on September 1 allows the police to arrest anyone who refuses to evacuate when ordered to do so.

As it stands, officials cannot compel people to evacuate, only warn that those who stay behind won't have any emergency services at their disposal.

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports the new law gives county judges and mayors the power to authorize use of “reasonable force”.

And just what is reasonable about jailing people because they refuse to leave their home? It may be silly--perhaps even suicidal--to stay in one's home during a hurricane, but individuals have a right to make such a choice.

Advocates of the law would argue that such individuals invariably need to be rescued, which puts the rescuers in danger. The solution to this is quite simple--don't rescue the fools who stay in their home and become trapped. If they want the freedom to make such decisions, which they have a moral right to do, then they should be held accountable for those decisions.

This is another example of the actions of a few being used to justify the wholesale violation of the rights of all Texans. Rather than hold individuals responsible for their actions, the state legislature simply outlaws the offending action.

Such hostility to personal liberty is hardly limited to hurricanes and evacuation orders. According to the Chronicle, the legislature has also outlawed hand-held cell phones in "active" school zones across the state. Telephone companies, who had fought an ordinance in West University that bans all cell phone use in school zones, supported the new law:

Kerry Hibbs, an Austin-based spokesman for AT&T, said in the wake of the West U. debacle that the company opposed only the “hands-free” portion of the ban on cell phone use in school zones, and was in the early stages of working on a statewide law prohibiting handheld conversations in school zones.

It is of course, so much easier to toss aside the rights of one's customers than it is to stand on principle. To stand on principle would require that one actually hold principles, as well as possess a spine. Having suffered an embarrassing defeat when West U passed their ban, AT&T would prefer to compromise and influence the drafting of legislation, rather than oppose it.

This is the same type of appeasing, range of the moment thinking that has doomed Houston's sign industry since the 1980s. The industry began by protesting restrictions on outdoor signs, then only opposed those that "went too far", and today finds itself about to be driven out of business.

The sign industry thought that it could compromise in regard to its own rights, and now has few of those rights remaining. AT&T thinks that it can compromise in regard to its customers rights in the mistaken belief that it will somehow protect its own interests. It may be right--for today. But the violation of the rights of anyone are ultimately an attack on the rights of everyone. Sadly, that is a lesson that few businesses have learned.

An Open Letter to Jim McIngvale

Dear Mr. McIngvale,

I recently read a story about the Greater Northside Management District (GNMD) suing you for back taxes. The Chronicle quotes you as saying, “To me, it's taxation without representation. If they were doing something that was benefiting the area, I would pay.”

I have a great deal of respect for your business acumen and admire your willingness to challenge this tax. But this isn't a very compelling argument, for it concedes the moral high ground to the GNMD.

Consider the phrase "taxation without representation". The underlying premise is that if you are represented then taxation is acceptable; that if you have a vote (whether directly or indirectly) then your money can be forcibly taken. This is hardly a defense of your rights, for the right to vote is not a primary. What is primary is your right to life, and the right to property—which includes your money--is the only practical implementation.

Your rights are not subject to a vote. The purpose of government is to protect your rights, no matter how many people wish to violate them.

Apparently you do not agree with how GNMD has spent the money it has received, but this is irrelevant. As a quasi-government entity, GNMD has the power to force you to cede your money for purposes it determines. Indeed, this is the nature of all taxation--government coercion is used to obtain revenues.

The quote I cited above implies that you would gladly pay the taxes if you saw some benefit. But what if that benefit is short-lived? You will still be forced to support GNMD. And what of other business owners who do not see benefits or would prefer to use their money for other purposes? They too will be forced to support GNMD without their consent.

The issue is not taxation with or without representation. The issue is your moral right to use your property as you judge best. And that right applies to all individuals.

The alleged goals of GNMD can easily be accomplished through a voluntary association of businesses. Such associations are common--indeed, you are likely a member of a number of such organizations. Such associations are based on the consent of each member, who is free to sever his membership when he no longer sees benefits. But unlike a government entity, such associations cannot use force against others. Such associations require the voluntary agreement of its members, rather than the forced obedience of GNMD.

If you wish to win your fight, you must seize the moral high ground. You must defend your rights, not on the basis of practical benefits (or the lack thereof), but on moral grounds. You--and all individuals--have a moral right to live your life and use your property as you choose, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others. Nobody--including government--has a right to compel you to act contrary to your judgment (unless of course, you have violated the rights of others).

You are one of Houston's great success stories. You have taken risks that others would not, and you did so because you judged those risks to be worth taking. You were free to act as you deemed appropriate. You have never relinquished that right. Defend it with the same moral certainty and conviction that has helped you build Gallery Furniture.

Sincerely,
Brian Phillips

On the Road Again

In a special session that started Wednesday, the Texas Legislature is considering a public/ private partnership for building toll roads in Texas. The proposal is meeting great resistance, and appears that it won't pass.

Proponents argue that such partnerships are necessary as tax and bond money is inadequate to meet the state's infrastructure needs. Opponents argue that, according to the Chronicle,

the state — and drivers — get the short end of the stick when private companies get decades-long deals to collect tolls.

Not surprisingly, both sides are wrong, but not for the reasons currently being cited. Public/ private "partnerships" are nothing of the sort. When government is involved, government is in control. As Ayn Rand wrote:

"Partnership" is an indecent euphemism for "government control." There can be no partnership between armed bureaucrats and defenseless private citizens who have no choice but to obey.

Of course, there will be businessmen who love these types of "partnerships". The businessman gets a monopoly and is shielded from competition. He is virtually guaranteed a profit because drivers will have few options--the state will simply avoid building any alternative routes. In this sense, drivers don't get the short end of the stick, they get beat with it.

The solution is a completely free market in roads--no government involvement of any sort. Allow private businesses to build roads with their own money. If they succeed, they benefit. If they fail, they suffer the consequences. And taxpayers won't have to spend a dime.

Some may argue that private roads are impractical, that private businesses could not acquire the land necessary to build toll roads across Texas. The state must promote the "public welfare" and use eminent domain powers to seize the necessary land. (The "public welfare" argument can be, and has been, used to justify anything, including lynching blacks, gassing Jews, and filling gulags. In principle, if it is acceptable to violate rights to promote the "public welfare", the nature of those violations is a mere detail.)

Certainly, acquiring the necessary land would be a challenge. So? Simply because some goal is a challenge does not justify violating property rights and seizing private land. If a business determines that building private roads makes sense financially, they will do so. And the cost of acquiring land will be a large part of that consideration. If building roads makes no sense financially, then government certainly shouldn't be using a gun to force taxpayers to support such projects.

Our roadways are a crude example of "the tragedy of the commons". When a resource is "publicly owned" it is over used because the cost is socialized. Absent property rights, an individual user has no incentive to maximize efficient use of the resource. In the case of roadways, the result is congestion. Further, roads and other infrastructure are continual political battles as competing groups fight over where roads should be built.

Rather than seeking public/ private "partnerships", the state government should begin privatizing all state roads, as well as legalizing the construction and operation of private toll roads. If sufficient demand exists for new roads, businessmen and entrepreneurs will seek ways to meet that demand, no matter what the challenges. When motorists see a direct connection between their use of the roadways and their cost, they will be more efficient in their use of the roadways. And then the government will not need to force rail systems down our throats.

Legalizing the construction and operation of private toll roads costs the state and taxpayers absolutely nothing. Businesses can and do provide us with both the essentials and luxuries of life. They can provide our roadways as well. But only if the government gets out of their way.

An Act of God, or TOBA?

Advocates of the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) frequently defend the law by declaring that those who build on the beach are aware of the possibility that their land may some day be seized by the state. In an OpEd article in Saturday's Chronicle, real estate attorney Daryl Bailey writes:

[T]he exercise of such authority by the state is a far cry from when it is exercised to make way for development. In fact, it is the opposite, to prevent development of public areas that exist because of an act of God, not an act of the state.

Wikipedia describes an "act of God" as:

Act of God is a legal term for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible.

Bailey is referring to Hurricane Ike as an "act of God", but it wasn't Ike that wrote TOBA. While Ike may have changed the vegetation line, Ike did not mandate that land outside of that line is a "public beach".

In her essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" Ayn Rand writes:

Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different.

An "act of God"--such as Hurricane Ike--is the metaphysically given; TOBA is the man-made. And it is TOBA that is responsible for the seizure of private property. In other words, while no individual is responsible for the devastation caused by Ike, the Texas Legislature is responsible for the devastation caused by TOBA. For Bailey to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

In her article Ayn Rand goes on to write:

It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The man-made may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity—or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil. One man may be right and everyone else wrong, or vice versa (or any numerical division in between).

As a man-made phenomenon, TOBA must be judged. Bailey would have us treat it as the metaphysically given--as an immutable fact that cannot be changed. It exists, and therefore it must be good. At the same time, he regards public access to beaches as a natural right, while simultaneously discarding the actual rights of property owners:

On one side of the eye is the right to public beaches — created by Ike’s fury. On the dirty side — some might say — are the rights of a few owners of private property who are trying to assert a new exemption from the 50-year-old Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA).

Bailey's choice of words is quite revealing. Those who assert their property rights are on the "dirty side" (this is a reference to the northeast quadrant of a hurricane, which typically has the most rain and wind). Those who want to seize private property, we must conclude, are "clean". While such language is certainly "cute", it is nothing more than a smear against those who are angry that their property is being taken by the state.

Theft is theft, no matter how many people support it, whether it is done by private thugs or under the pretense of law. And theft is never clean. It is a violation of individual rights, and the perpetrator is not God, but the government.

That defenders of TOBA routinely argue that the victims were warned about the law demonstrates their callous disregard for individual rights and individual lives. While posturing as humanitarian guardians of "the public", they do not hesitate to destroy the lives of some of the individuals who constitute that public.

Their justification for trampling on individuals is altruism. They believe that the individual must place the welfare and interests of others before his own, that the "good of society" or the "public welfare" supersede any individual good. And who will determine the "public welfare"? The public, or their appointed spokesmen. This elevates "the public" above any principles; "the public" may do as it pleases with no constraints. If a few "dirty" individuals get hurt in the process, that's just too bad.

Ironically, while supporters of TOBA substitute society for God as the ultimate moral authority, they rely on an "act of God" to justify their brazen and heartless thievery. Their ethics are just as irrational as the most devout mystic, and the consequences are the same--the use of force as the means for dealing with others.

Neither TOBA nor any other statist policy can be defeated while clutching to altruism. Defenders of liberty must reject the premise that man's purpose for existence is to serve others. More importantly, they must defend the right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, the pursuit of his own happiness, and his own property.

Texas Beaches and Property Rights: An Exemption

In a story filled with special deals, hypocrisy, and political intrigue, the Chronicle reports that Texas legislators have approved an exemption to the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA)--for one of their own. State Rep. Wayne Christian received an exemption to TOBA that will allow him to rebuild his home on Bolivar Peninsula.

The Texas Constitution prohibits bills that target a specific area of the state. Lawmakers sidestep this prohibition through a process called "bracketing"--they define the area without specifically naming it. The exemption, which was attached as an amendment to another bill, was carefully worded to apply only to Bolivar:

The amendment “brackets” Bolivar by saying that it applies to houses on a peninsula in a county with more than 250,000 population and less than 251,000 population. The only area fitting that description is Bolivar.

The sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton, R-Mauriceville, defended his actions:

Yes it does benefit (Christian), and I know it does, but I did it 99 percent for the benefit of my constituents.

Christian also denied any wrong doing:

If I were to pass a law that affected only Wayne Christian, that would be a conflict.

This is not an unethical, deceptive method of doing anything. This is the way it’s been ever since government was invented.

Contrary to what Christian thinks, such legislation is unethical. Many property owners on Galveston Island are in the same situation as Christian, yet the legislation provides them no relief. Instead, the state will use force to seize their property while Christian and his neighbors can rebuild. If it is proper for property owners on Bolivar to rebuild (which it is), it is equally proper for property owners on Galveston to rebuild.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who is responsible for enforcing TOBA, has asked Gov. Rick Perry to veto the bill when it reaches his desk. Patterson has stated that he will not enforce the bill it is signed, and legislators will have to impeach him.

“I don’t think building houses on the beach, with the waters of the Gulf beneath them, is a good idea or good public policy,” Patterson said.

As I have previously argued, this isn't a decision for Patterson, or any other lawmaker to decide. This is a decision properly left to the property owners. And Patterson isn't content with legislators making arbitrary decisions--he wants to get in on the action too by unilaterally deciding which laws he will enforce and which he won't enforce.

Patterson's position would be admirable if he was refusing to enforce an unjust law. However, the exemption, while clearly reeking of political favoritism, does grant some measure of justice. It will provide some recognition of property rights to Bolivar property owners. While the rights of property owners on Galveston remain threatened, Patterson wishes to extend that threat to Bolivar.

Government's purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. If Christian, Hamilton, and other legislators believe that Bolivar property owners have a right to rebuild on their property, then so do the property owners on Galveston. This is bad legislation, not so much because it grants an exemption, but because it doesn't go far enough.

Texas Beaches and Property Rights, Part 3

Those who defend the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) offer several arguments to justify controlling or seizing private property. I have addressed the most common in the previous two days. The last argument I will address is nothing more than blatant paternalism.

When beachfront property owners questioned the justice of TOBA in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, the author of TOBA--A.R. "Babe" Schwartz--told the Dallas Morning News:

We're talking about damn fools that have built houses on the edge of the sea for as long as man could remember and against every advice anyone has given.

Jim Blackburn, an environmental attorney and coastal expert based in Houston, echoed this sentiment:

We have to protect people from themselves and certainly from developers.

Both "Babe" and Blackburn believe that individuals should be prohibited from acting on their own judgment. Neither likes the decisions that others make, and they believe that they are justified to use force to prevent individuals from acting on those decisions.

If one accepts this premise, then every human activity is subject to government regulation and control. For example, sex can lead to unwanted pregnancies, which is certainly not good for those involved. Would "Babe" and Blackburn suggest that the government regulate sex to protect individuals from themselves?

The fact is, each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. He cannot compel others to act contrary to their judgment, just as they cannot compel him to act contrary to his.

But nannies like "Babe" and Blackburn do not like this. They provide any number of arguments to justify their position--such as public spending on infrastructure. But underlying their arguments is one motivation--power. They seek the power to control the lives of other individuals. They do not believe that individuals have a right to their own lives, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness.

Morally, "Babe" and Blackburn believe that individuals should place the "public good" before their own interests and desires. More fundamentally, they believe that individuals should acquiesce to the judgment of others. They believe that the individual must be subservient to the group--both physically and intellectually. They believe that those who do not do so "voluntarily" may properly be forced to do so.

This November Texans will have an opportunity to reject these ideas when they vote to make TOBA a part of the state Constitution. Texans will have an opportunity to reject the idea that their lives belong to the state. It will be a small step, but it will be an important step.

Texas Beaches and Property Rights, Part 2

Following Hurricane Ike the Texas Land Commission announced that many beachfront homes were now sitting on "public property". The owners of those homes would be forced to cede their property to the state.

When the home owners complained about this injustice, defenders of the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) responded that the home owners had been warned about this possibility. In other words, since the home owners have been warned that an injustice might occur, they have no reason to complain when that injustice does in fact transpire.

Defenders of TOBA also argue that tax dollars are used to provide infrastructure--such as roads, water, and sanitation--for the beachfront properties. Therefore, the argument goes, if "the public" must pay for such things, "the public" has a right to beach access.

This amounts to nothing more than using one violation of property rights to justify another violation of property rights. That is, since tax payers are compelled to finance infrastructure, it is justified to force beachfront property owners to cede their property to the state. There is no rational justification for this gross injustice.

The owners of beachfront property are as much a part of "the public" as anyone else. Yet, they are forced to play the role of sacrificial victims simply because of the consequences of a storm. They have not violated the rights of anyone, and yet they are now declared criminals.

The long term solution is to privatize the roads, water, and other infrastructure. If individuals wish to build along the ocean, they have a right to do so. They do not have a right to force others to pay for roads, sanitation, or repairing their homes. The state government should limit itself to its proper function--protecting individual rights. This applies to taxpayers as well as beachfront property owners.

Some may argue that because the shoreline has shifted, and some beachfront property is now underwater, that land should now revert to the state. But this ignores a principle in common law--riparian rights. According to Wikipedia:

Riparian rights (or simply riparian rights) is a system of allocating water among those who possess land about its source. It has its origins in English common law. Riparian rights exist in many countries with a common law heritage, such as Canada, Australia, and states in the eastern United States. Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose property is adjacent to a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it.

Riparian rights include such things as the right to access for swimming, boating and fishing; the right to wharf out to a point of navigability; the right to erect structures such as docks, piers, and boat lifts; the right to use the water for domestic purposes; the right to accretions caused by water level fluctuations. Riparian rights also depend upon "reasonable use" as it relates to other riparian owners to ensure that the rights of one riparian owner are weighed fairly and equitably with the rights of adjacent riparian owners.

While "reasonable use" is a vague term, it is generally taken that a riparian owner may not interfere with the right of other riparian owners to use their property. For example, one owner may not construct a dock that extends onto the property of another owner.

More importantly in the present context, it is often recognized that the owner of land adjacent to a waterway also owns the land under the water to the middle of the waterway. For example, the Michigan Supreme Court has recognized this principle as applying to both rivers and lakes (with the exception of the Great Lakes).

In general, this is an appropriate and just principle. However, I would argue that extending riparian rights to the middle of a large body of water (such as the Great Lakes or the oceans) is not proper. The owner of the adjacent property has no legitimate claim to the land miles from shore, unless he has taken action to enhance the value of that property. Exactly where the line should be drawn is not the issue here--the principle of recognizing and protecting property rights is.

Thus, even if the land owned by beachfront property owners is submerged by storms or erosion, riparian rights recognize ownership of that land. Use of that land may be more difficult and expensive, but that fact is not a legitimate concern of the state. The state's only proper role in this issue is to identify, define, and protect the rights of property owners.

Texas Beaches and Property Rights, Part 1

This November Texans will have an opportunity to express their support for property rights. An amendment to the Texas Constitution is on the ballot, and while the outcome is not likely to have any significant short-term impact, Texans can make a significant statement. Last week, legislators approved a ballot measure that will make public access to Texas beaches a part of the state Constitution.

Such access is currently guaranteed under the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA), which defines the area between the permanent vegetation line and the water as "public property". As a result, when storms and erosion move the vegetation line, private home owners can suddenly find themselves living on "public property" and they are forced to vacate their homes.

Supporters of TOBA claim that the public has a "right" to beach access. But they fail to explain the source of this alleged right, or why that "right" supersedes the rights of those who rightfully own the property. The web site for a group called the Texas Open Beach Advocates (TOBA II) tries to make an argument based on common law:

The late Bob Eckerdt saw what development, and the power of development money, could do to undermine the ability of the average citizen to enjoy this most basic and traditional right to some of the best of God's creation. He wrote the Texas Open Beaches Act. This was not a new law, but only served to codify what was already common law. In other words, the beaches were highways that the public used since "time immemorial." Nobody could block off the beaches or hinder access to them the same way landowners could not block access to a cattle trail, or other highway that the public had always used for trade, commerce, and transportation.

This might seem to be a reasonable argument. On the surface, it doesn't seem to differ from John Locke's identification of the source of property rights in The Second Treatise on Government:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left in it, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

Mixing one's labor with material objects, according to Locke, gives that object value. An apple on an unowned tree is of no value until it is picked, and the individual who picks that apple gives it value by his labor. That apple becomes the picker's by virtue of his labor. The same holds true of any unowned property. The mineral resources of Mars, for example, are sitting there waiting for anyone who can use them. The individual who can figure out how to get those minerals owns them by virtue of his efforts.

Superficially, this is the argument put forth by TOBA II--"the public" has long made use of Texas beaches, and therefore, "the public" owns those beaches. But this argument fails on two counts.

First, there is no such entity as "the public". "The public", in this context, consists of all Texans. To say that all Texans own the beaches is to say that nobody owns the beaches.

Second, use alone is insufficient to claim ownership. Using a beach adds no value to it--a day of frolicking in the sand does not bring additional value to that beach. (Indeed, a consistent environmentalist would argue that the value of the beach has been degraded by man's use of it.) If use alone were a sufficient claim to ownership, then I could claim ownership of the golf course I play, or the store I patronize, or even the Internet.

The owners of beachfront property are the victims of a gross injustice. Texans can take a step towards rectifying that situation by rejecting the amendment.

Apartment Inspections are Coming

It appears that the legislature will pass a bill requiring Houston to draft an ordinance governing the inspection of multi-family housing. The city sought the bill to clarify its authority. The Chronicle reports:

The bill requires the city to craft an ordinance by December 2010 that details standards for habitability and health and safety at multifamily properties. A key provision, already passed by the House, would also require a proactive inspections program by the city’s building, fire and health officials, rather than the current system that largely is driven by resident complaints.

And who will pay for these inspections? Undoubtedly, the owners of multi-family housing properties, who will then pass these costs on to their residents. Since the majority of the properties at issue are for low-income citizens, the poor are going to be negatively impacted by this bill.

Co-author of the bill, Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, said:

Regular inspections are important because owners of these properties will now know that an inspection is coming and will not be able to shirk their responsibilities by simply relying on a complaint from a resident.

If the property owners are truly "shirking their responsibilities" then this is a civil matter, that is, a breach of their agreement with residents. This is not an issue in which the city or the state should be involved, except to resolve any disputes that arise.

And what about the responsibilities of the residents? Shouldn't they exercise some discretion when selecting a home? Don't they have a responsibility for their actions? Apparently the legislature doesn't think so.

This paternalism is precisely one reason why individuals refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions. They can engage is careless behavior and then rush to government to bail them out. They expect government to take care of them, and unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of legislators willing to do so.

Metro and Eminent Domain

According to the Chronicle, Metro's light rail expansion plans are being threatened by a bill under consideration in Austin. The bill would limit Metro's ability to use eminent domain to obtain land needed for proposed routes. George Smalley, Metro’s vice president for communications and marketing, said:

It effectively kills the light rail program.

If you lose a line like the University Line because you lost the power of condemnation, then the whole thing is at grave risk.

Several legislators, including John Whitmire, D-Houston, vowed to fight any attempt to limit Metro's powers. Whitmire claimed that such limits “would prevent the common good.” Whitmire does not define "common good". Apparently, he assumes that we all know and agree to the meaning of that undefinable term. The controversy surrounding Metro's plans demonstrate otherwise.

Whitmire's position rests on the premise that some individuals must put aside their own selfish interests for the alleged betterment of the community. Those who refuse to do so voluntarily will be forced to comply.

Something is very wrong when an alleged good can only be achieved through the use of government force. The proponents of eminent domain (in any context) argue that the "common good" justifies the means. But noble ends cannot be achieved through ignoble means. When government must resort to the initiation of force against innocent citizens, neither its ends nor its means are justifiable, proper, or moral.

Government should not be in the transportation business. Having expanded beyond its legitimate function--the protection of individual rights, including property rights--government must invariably resort to force. Government must compel individuals to act as it decrees, regardless of their values, judgment, or rights.

State legislators should revoke Metro's eminent domain powers, just as they should revoke the similar powers of the Texas Medical Center. Indeed, they should revoke the eminent domain powers of every entity in the state, private or public. More importantly, they should question the ends that they are pursuing.

There is only one context in which the "common good" or the "public welfare" has any meaning--the recognition and protection of individual rights. This is the only "good" which all individuals share. The "common good" is individual liberty--the right of each individual to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Until legislators recognize this fact, and act accordingly, they will continue destroy the lives of some Texans for the alleged benefit of others.