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. 

Truth is not Subject to a Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Necessary "Evil"

Yesterday I looked at the moral premise that underlies the belief that taxation is necessary. Today I will look at an implication of that view--that government is a necessary "evil".

On a daily basis we can observe individuals voluntarily purchasing the values that their life requires--such as food, cell phones, gasoline, and furniture. No government mandates are required. The self-interest of individuals--their desire to sustain and enjoy their lives--provides the only motivation necessary. Why then, is it believed that coercion is required to pay for the service provided by government?

Certainly, the fact that government has expanded far beyond its proper role of protecting our rights plays a part. Many, if not most, individuals would not voluntarily pay for welfare programs and other interventions. Coercive taxation is necessary to fund these illegitimate operations. But this is not the context to which I am speaking.

Most people believe (if they have thought about the issue) that even if the size of government was greatly reduced taxation would still be necessary. They claim that even if government was a fraction of its current size, individuals would not voluntarily provide the financial support required. Unlike bread, I-Pods, and vacations, individuals would not voluntarily pay for government. Government, they imply, is not a value--it is a necessary "evil".

Government is certainly necessary, and, while government can be evil, it is not inherently so. Government has a legitimate and proper purpose. Indeed, government is literally a matter of life and death. A proper government establishes and protects the social environment in which individuals can pursue the life-sustaining values that their life requires. An improper government turns the individual into a slave, whose life is disposed of as the state sees fit.

Absent government, individuals would have to arm themselves to protect their property and person. Each individual would be judge, jury, and executioner, with no recourse but to defend himself from criminals. The result would be gang warfare, or Somalia.

Those who claim that government is a necessary "evil" fail to identify the proper, life-sustaining purpose of government. They see the harm that government can inflict, accept this as a fact that cannot be changed, and then want to quibble over the victims of that harm. While numerous ideas contribute to this conclusion, two are worth mentioning.

The first pertains to man qua individual. Rather than view man as an independent, sovereign entity, they see the individual as a cog in the wheel, a cell in the organism of society. "No man is an island," they claim. "Each must contribute his "fair share" to society." According to this view, the individual has no right to his own life, but is subservient to the needs of "society". This flawed view of man's nature logically leads to altruism--the belief that it is proper for the individual to self-sacrificially serve others.

In one accepts these premises, one must conclude that government's purpose is to reign in man's selfish desires. The individual must be compelled to put aside his own self-interest for the good of "society" and government's role is to insure that all serve the "common good".

Consider the moral inversion that occurs: A necessary "evil"--government--is required to achieve the "good". It is hard to imagine a greater perversion, yet this is the fraud that most people accept. And it is repeated as a mantra that is above question--for to do so is to be selfish.

Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions. Those who believe that government is a necessary "evil" have drawn an erroneous conclusion. To correct that error, they must begin by checking their premises. They must begin by correcting their view of the individual.

The "Common Good" and Taxes

A recent comment stated that, "Sadly, there are certain costs that need to be borne by society. Therefore, taxation will be a necessity." He doesn't state what costs must "be borne by society" nor does he offer an explanation as to why this might be true.

Such assertions are common, repeated as a mantra that is beyond question and regarded as self-evident. All one need do is look at the world, and the necessity of taxation is directly observable. Without taxation, the claim goes, we wouldn't have roads, schools, parks, libraries, etc. and we can observe this.

Granted, when we look at the world we will indeed see that most roads, schools, parks, and libraries are operated by government. But "most" does not mean "all", and even a casual observer can easily find examples of roads, schools, parks, or libraries that are privately owned and operated. Given that private alternatives do exist, how can one claim that without government these services would be lacking? Given that there is observable evidence to the contrary, why is it claimed that government must provide these services?

We don't have to dig very deep to find an answer. As an example, last week the Chronicle lamented a budget reduction for the city's libraries:

But Houstonians can be forgiven for questioning the city's values, especially when it comes to inflicting such painful choices on our libraries. These are the engines of our democracy, of assuring a more level playing field for all of us, enriching all our lives.

The "justification" for public libraries is the "common good". Allegedly we all benefit from public libraries, and therefore each of us must be taxed to support them. The same "justification" is offered in support of government operated roads, parks, and schools.

This alleged "common good" is as delusive as a snipe hunt. It is an undefined and undefinable term, thrown out with a righteousness intended to disarm anyone who might question a particular policy or program. We must each do "our part". We must each contribute to "society". Above all, we must not be selfish--we must think of the "general welfare" rather than our own self-interest. You may not use public libraries, but others want and need such access, and you have an obligation to fulfill that desire.

That you might prefer to use your money for other purposes, such as books for your children, or a new television, or a vacation, is irrelevant. That you must sacrifice your desires and values so that others may "attain" theirs does not matter. To the advocates of the "common good", this is your unchosen obligation--a moral duty that government may rightfully enforce.

To claim that taxation is a necessity is to declare that the individual's property may be disposed of as the government chooses. But property is the means by which we sustain and enjoy our lives. If our property is not secure, neither is our life.

Kant and Gambling

The Chronicle's political blog informs us that three mayoral candidates recently taped a program for the local public television channel. Apparently, gambling was a hot topic, as the Texas legislature is considering a bill that would allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to allow gambling. The candidates are quoted as saying:

Councilman Peter Brown: "I think we ought to look at term limits (instead)."

City Controller Annise Parker: "I don't know about gambling necessarily in Houston . . . I have long thought since Ike that it would be of great benefit to Galveston to be the first city in Texas to have casino gambling."

Lawyer Gene Locke: "To me the operative word is that we should have a local referendum . . . I'm a big proponent of letting the people decide."

I am uncertain how term limits and gambling connect, but then I have found a number of things that spew from Peter Brown's mouth to be rather incoherent. At least Parker and Locke seemed to understand the question, but their answers show their continued rejection of individual rights.
An individual has a moral right to gamble, and he should not require the state's permission to do so. While I personally regard gambling as a waste of money, neither I nor the state nor anyone else has a right to impose his views on others.

Locke's position is not unusual. So long as the people can vote on an issue, virtually anything goes. This after all, is the democratic way--the "will of the people" shall reign supreme. Democracy--unlimited majority rule--is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses. Under democracy, the rights of individuals are continually threatened and may be violated whenever the majority deems it necessary.

Our Founders warned against the passions of the mob, and the threat posed to individual liberty. They recognized the fact that the majority could unite against an unpopular minority, and impose their views and values upon the recalcitrant. It was for this reason that they sought to protect the rights of individuals, for the individual is the smallest minority.

Morally, democracy holds that the individual is subservient to the majority. The individual must put aside his own selfish interests for the sake of the "public welfare" or the "common good".

Epistemologically, democracy holds that the "will of the people" determines truth and falsehood, right and wrong. What the majority decrees is the true and good, and the individual must cast aside his own independent judgment in deference to the majority.

Metaphysically, democracy holds that reality is a creation of the collective consciousness. If enough people believe it, it must be so.

I seriously doubt that Locke--or most proponents of democracy--have studied Immanuel Kant. Yet it is Kant who provides them with their intellectual ammunition. It is Kant who has taught them "the people" are the ultimate arbiters of truth, morality, and justice.

In truth, "the people" have no right to decide who may gamble, where they may do so, or the types of games they play. "The people" have no right to dispose of the lives of individuals, whether the issue is gambling, or land-use, or the operation of a business. Each individual has a moral right to live his life as he chooses without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. The rights of individuals are sacrosanct.

Under the pretense of freedom, democracy erodes individual liberty. Democracy is a cancer. Fortunately, we have a cure for this virulent philosophical disease--Ayn Rand.

Term Limits Aren't the Answer

Anger over the profligate spending of Congress is leading to renewed cries for term limits. If we throw the "bums" out, the thinking goes, we can elect representatives who are more responsive to voters. While the appeal of such thinking is understandable, it is fundamentally flawed.

The real problem is not in Congress, but in the voters. Voters are the ones who put the "bums" there in the first place. Congress is simply responding to the demands and values of voters. Wholesale replacement of Congress will not change this fact. We will just wind up with a different group of statists.

Politics is not a primary--it derives from ethics. Ultimately, the dominant ethics of a culture will determine its political system. So long as Americans embrace altruism--the belief that the individual must sacrifice his values to others--they will elect politicians who are eager to enact that tenet into law. Just as re-casting the roles in a poorly written play will not transform it into an inspirational performance, changing the actors in Washington (or any other governing body) will not change the plot in Congress.

Consider Houston city council for example. Enacted in the early 1990's, Houston limits council members to three two-year terms. This has only changed the faces, but not the essential policies. Houston has seen a steady parade of members pushing "quality of life" issues and seeking to expand city control of land-use. Before term limits we had Eleanor Tinsley and Jim Greenwood; today we have Sue Lovell and Peter Brown.

When voters demand that their rights be recognized, respected, and protected they will elect politicians who will do so. When voters reject the premise that government should be used to dispense political favors, engage in social engineering, and regulate the economy, they will elect politicians who share those views.

The web site for US Term Limits (USTL) states:

American politicians, special interests and lobbyists continue to combat term limits, as they know term limits force out career politicians who are more concerned with their own gain than the interests of the American people.

USTL stands up against this practice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a tyrannical ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.

Notice that there is no mention of individual rights or the proper purpose of government. The premise behind the term limits movement is that government should reflect the opinions and values of "the people". They are not opposed to violations of individual rights; they are opposed to legislation that does not reflect the voice of "the people". If "people" wish to enslave their neighbors, presumably USTL would not oppose such measures. In other words, they are opposed to a tyranny of the few, but not a tyranny of the many.

Democracy--unlimited majority rule--is precisely what the term limits crowd advocates. They want to put an end to career politicians and give "ordinary" citizens greater opportunities to run for office. But what will those citizens advocate? Will they support and defend individual rights? Or will they simply impose their pet causes upon the citizenry? USTL does not tell us because USTL does not regard the ideas being advocated as an important issue.

Term limits are not the answer because they are not addressing the question: What is the proper purpose of government? Until the citizenry can answer that question properly--the protection of individual rights--the term limits movement is simply tilting at windmills.

Demagogues and Voting

On his October 22 broadcast conservative talk show host Michael Savage said:

Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don’t. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote? I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They’re only gonna vote themselves a raise.

So if you get a demagogue like [Sen. Barack] Obama coming along, and he says to the welfare recipient, elect me, and I’ll make sure that we have trickle-up poverty, and the rich — so-called, that is anyone who works for a living — will give you more money, more welfare, of course you’re gonna vote for the demagogue Obama. See, if I was in charge, I’d pass a law which says, OK, you can’t support yourself for whatever reason, you’re on welfare, you lose the right to vote.

Ironically, Savage makes a valid point while simultaneously missing the fundamental issue. It is true that demagogues appeal to the emotions of voters. The path to elected office is often littered with promises of handouts, favorable legislation, and similar bribes. But the right to vote is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that government has the power to redistribute wealth, to regulate the economy, and to interfere in the lives of citizens.

In a free society, that is, one in which the government is limited to the protection of individual rights, citizens cannot vote to redistribute wealth or control the actions of others. In a free society, neither voters nor the government can violate the rights of individuals. Prohibiting welfare recipients from voting will not protect individual rights.

A few weeks earlier Minneapolis talk show host Chris Baker made a similar statement: “I don’t think homeless people should vote. Frankly, in fact, I have to be very honest. I’m not that excited about women voting, to be honest.” When asked why he is opposed to women voting, Baker replied, "Because women tend to vote more for security than freedom."

I do not know if Baker's contention about women is true or not, but it is irrelevant. Like Savage, he fails to address the fundamental issue. Rather than address the improper powers vested in government, both believe that prohibiting some individuals from voting will somehow improve the culture. Both are wrong.

This isn't the first time conservatives have put forth a proposal of this type. Since the 1990's conservatives (with some occasional liberal support) have pushed for term limits. The web site for Citizens for Term Limits states

Present occupants of the luxurious seats in Congress become more insulated and isolated from reality with each passing year of their perceived life tenancy.

It is time to remind Members of Congress that we citizens put them there to serve the country, and not themselves. It is time to remind them that the government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians.

The terms limit movement makes little mention of the ideas driving government policies. They simply argue that government should serve the people, and they believe that a new batch of politicians will somehow result in better policies. But replacing one demagogue with another will change little, except the name of the incumbent. Further, the purpose of government is not to serve the people, but to protect individual rights.

The fundamental issue is not who is voting on legislation, but the nature of that legislation. The issue is not who is in power, but the power vested in government officials. Replacing Mike with Mary will not change that. So long as government officials can vote away property rights, the name, gender, or time in office is irrelevant.

NIMBY Songs

“Not in my back yard” (NIMBY), is a song that we hear frequently, with a number of variations. The residents of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks sang that tune in regard to the Ashy High Rise. The residents of Eastwood sang a refrain in regard to Magnolia Glen.

It’s a song with lyrics that tug at the heartstrings of many. An “evil” developer or corporation seeks to construct a building or project that local home owners do not like. The project will attract derelicts, or impose on their view, or create some other situation—real or imagined—that they do not like.

And that is what NIMBY really comes down to—they don’t like it. They raise all kinds of objections—too much traffic, pollution, noise, etc. On occasion these objections are legitimate, but they often get lost in the hysterical refrain of “not in my back yard.”

The real issue is how to resolve such issues. More and more often, the home owners run to government and seek some law that will prohibit the proposed project. They reject the concept of property rights and seek to impose their values upon the rightful property owner. They reject voluntary, consensual interactions between individuals and seek to substitute the coercive power of government.

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it illustrates how NIMBY often works:

Now that I'm retired and have a little time on my hands, I decided to experiment with fighting a particular example of NIMBY-ism. Junipero Serra Blvd. is an arterial road just to the west of Stanford Campus. It has a 35-mile-per hour speed limit next to the campus, just as it does as it winds north, eventually becoming Alameda de las Pulgas through Menlo Park and other towns to the north. There are 18 houses that front on the street, and the residents decided to band together and complain to the county that the road was "unsafe" at 35 MPH.

I should comment that 35 is a very normal and appropriate speed for a road that is there to transport people long distances. We're not talking about a residential street whose sole purpose is to get people from their houses to major arteries like Serra Blvd. However, the traffic makes noise, which would be reduced if cars were, say, forced to go 25 MPH instead of 35, and apparently the residents of the 18 houses find it hard to get out of their driveways and into traffic. So it would benefit them if everyone else in the world had to slow down going past their houses.

I found out about a "public meeting" to discuss the proposed changes, and, being a retired dude with nothing to do, I decide to show up. The first thing I notice is that I am the only one at the meeting who was neither a county official nor a resident of one of the 18 houses whose owners stand to benefit (we had to mark our homes on a map). Coincidence? I don't think so. The 18 NIMBY's stand to gain a property-value windfall of $100K, at least. The county guys have to be there; it's their job (which also depends on there being enough projects in Santa Clara County to justify their existence). But what's the economic advantage to the residents of the other 700 or so houses on the campus? If they drive on the affected road once a week, and they are slowed down by 30 seconds, it would be decades before they recover the time wasted attending one of these meetings. That's why the NIMBY's always win. They steal a little from large numbers of people --- sufficiently little that it is in no one's individual advantage to fight back, although collectively the theft is huge.

I have previously written about how democracy is nothing but gang warfare, and this article illustrates that point. A small number of home owners ganged together to pressure county officials to do their bidding. Those who would suffer because of this were either uninformed of the proposal, and did not regard it worth their time. So a small number of individuals imposed their values upon the entire community.

Often, the gang of home owners goes against a developer. In those cases the developer is vastly outnumbered. The democratic thing to do is side with the majority, so the developer finds himself being forced to abide by the values of the majority.

NIMBY songs may “empower the people” and be democratic. But they are destructive to property rights, and that makes for a very ugly song.

The Smallest Minority

From the Washington Post:

The Mannassass, VA City Council passed a zoning ordinance that “restricts households to immediate relatives, plus one unrelated person, and excludes aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and other members of the extended family. A family of seven that includes nieces and nephews is now illegal in Manassas, for instance, even if the occupancy limit is 10.

City officials admitted that the ordinance was aimed at Hispanics and might have been a
mistake. But what happens when legislators don't admit to their mistakes? Who
pays the price for their errors and arrogance whether they admit to them or
not?

Some might say that only the target of the legislation suffers, such as Hispanics in the case of the Manassas ordinance. But the truth is, we all suffer and we all pay the cost.

Of course, legislation targeting specific people is frequently enacted, and in regard to many different issues. And usually the target is some “undesirable” segment of the population, such as sexually oriented businesses, or high rise developers, or smokers.

All that is required is a large enough group to pressure legislators. Acting on the democratic principle that the majority rules, those legislators happily trample on the rights of one group in an effort to appease the demands of another group. There are two things wrong with this.

The first is that the majority should rule—i.e., that the values of the majority can be imposed upon the minority. The Founding Fathers warned against democracy. Thomas Jefferson: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” James Madison: “There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.” John Adams: “Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

The Founders understood that democracy is incompatible with freedom. They established a constitutional republic in which the rights of the minority—and the individual is the smallest minority—were protected.

The second error is the belief that individuals are to be subservient to the group. Those who refuse are forced to do so, through the threat (or actual exercise) of fines or jail. This view holds that individuals are expendable, that only the welfare of the group matters. And this is precisely what occurs—individuals are sacrificed to the group. All of us are potential victims. All of us are always in the minority—all of us are individuals.

Most Houstonians would shudder in horror if our city officials suggested an altar be erected in downtown Houston for the purpose of human sacrifices. Yet they do not hesitate to run to those same officials to demand the same. They demand that developers be prohibited from pursuing their dreams. They demand that business owners be regulated, controlled, and prevented from using their own independent judgment to provide the goods and services consumers desire. They do not hesitate to sacrifice the money, time, dreams, and lives of those with whom they disagree.

That these sacrifices do not involve ripping the beating heart from their victims does not change the nature of their demands. They seek to place shackles on the ambitions of businessmen. They seek control over the lives of their fellow citizens. And when they can convince enough legislators to act according to their wishes, we all get laws like that passed in Manassas.

Sense and Sensibilities

In April I appeared on a panel to discuss the Ashby High Rise project. You can hear the audio by clicking here. The audience consisted largely of upper-middle income home owners from nearby neighborhoods. They became very angry and upset when I said that they were using the coercive power of government to impose their values on others.

Their reaction was consistent with what I had anticipated. I expected a hostile audience, and I knew that my words were not going to win me any friends. I knew that my words would be provocative.

Judging from the demographics of the neighborhoods, I strongly suspect that the home owners are professionals. They likely think of themselves as good citizens, and they probably are in the conventional sense of the phrase—they hold a steady job, they pay their taxes, they vote, etc. They aren’t scofflaws with a string of arrests.

This is why my words provoked such anger. I was essentially accusing them of being thugs, and they could see no resemblance between themselves and some gangsta rapper. But the fact is, these home owners are spiritual cousins of the gangsta rapper, and in some ways the latter is more honest than the former.

The gangsta rapper does not hide his methods. He openly admits that he lives by the creed that might makes right, that he is justified to seize what he wants, that force is an acceptable means of social interaction.

Conversely, the home owners explicitly reject such ideas. Indeed, during the question period I responded to one question by pointing out the implicit acceptance that might makes right, and the audience responded with boos and derogatory comments. But explicitly rejecting a premise does not mean that one has rejected all of its implications.

One audience member asked me how I could be so certain of my position in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of those in attendance disagreed with me. He questioned how I could reject “the public good” being sought in this exercise of “police powers”. Both questions imply that might makes right.

In the former, the implication is that the number of people holding an idea determines its truth. Which means, truth is determined by a vote and the majority can then impose “truth” on the minority. In the latter, the government’s police powers can be used to impose certain values upon the entire community. In short, the questioner was saying that a vote will determine how government coercion will be used.

Of course, the questioner did not put it into those words. He hid behind terms like “public good”. I was not so accommodating, and stripped his euphemisms to their essence.

For these upper-middle income home owners, my words shook their sensibilities. They are not accustomed to being equated with thugs. But thugs they are.

This group has sought government action to stop a development they do not like. Unlike the gangsta rapper who will simply pull his gun and demand that his desires be met, the home owners sought to use government as their proxy. But using a proxy does not change the nature of the action, nor does it absolve one of responsibility for the ideas advocated. (Similarly, hiring a hit man does not absolve one of the murder.)

This is not a class issue. This is democracy in action. This is the majority imposing their values upon the minority. This is one group of individuals using the power of government to prescribe the actions of others. That a majority supports such steps does not change that fact.

The United States Constitution was written to limit the powers of government and protect the rights of individuals. Our Founding Fathers established a republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers recognized the right of each individual to pursue his own happiness. Gangs do not, no matter the number of members or the auspices under which they act.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

Protecting Neighborhoods

Zoning advocates like to make lots of noises about how zoning will protect neighborhoods. Who could possibly be against that? Few people want to live in a crime infested neighborhood, or have neighbors with dilapidated cars in the front yard.

But like most advocates of government coercion, zoning supporters don’t acknowledge how they will protect neighborhoods. They don’t tell us the means by which they will achieve their ends. They want us to believe that the ends are so beneficial and so widely supported that the means are irrelevant.

But the ends do not justify the means. Any ends that require the initiation of force as their means are not justified. And this is precisely what zoning does.

Zoning imposes restrictions on how you may use your property. Under zoning, you may use your property, not by right, but only with the permission of zoning officials. And if you violate their edicts, you are subject to fines and/ or jail time.

What this means is that if you build a shed that violates zoning codes, you could go to jail. If you install shutters that violate the zoning code, you could be fined. If you do anything on your property that zoning officials do not approve, you become a criminal.

To be “democratic” and “empower the people” zoning officials solicit input from neighbors during zoning hearings. Typically, if neighbors disapprove of your intended use, zoning officials will reject it. Which means, your neighbors will have a greater voice in the use of your property than you will.

Personally, I would much rather have neighbors with junky cars in the front yard than neighbors who tell me how to use my property. Junky cars are ugly. Power lusting neighbors are equally ugly, and also immoral.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

Democracy and Rights

The newest survey by Rice University professor Dr. Stephen Klineberg shows that a majority of Houstonians’ favor additional land use restrictions. The results are being used to fuel a renewed debate over zoning and other land use controls. However, the debate is largely founded on a false premise. Those in favor of expanded government control over land use, and many of those opposed, imply that the desires of the majority should prevail. If the majority wants more restrictions, then it is right and proper. Some may argue that this is simply democracy in action. However, our Founding Fathers recognized that democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses:

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

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

Despite common perceptions, the Founders did not establish a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The Founders sought to protect the rights of individuals from the whims and passions of the majority. The individual, after all, is the smallest minority.

One of the most fundamental of rights is the right to property, that is, the right to own, use, and dispose of material values. The right to property means that the owner may use his property as he chooses, without interference from others. Of course, he must respect the mutual rights of others.

Those rights are not subject to a vote. The number of people espousing an idea, as James Madison wrote, does not determine the truth of that idea or the standard of right and wrong. The rights of the individual, including property rights, are sacrosanct.

Unlimited majority rule—i.e., democracy—allows the majority to do as it pleases because it is the majority. Principles such as individual rights get trampled in the process.

Our Founders understood the evils of democracy. It is time that we did so as well.

The Government versus Freedom, Part 2

This pamphlet was written in the aftermath of the zoning debate that took place in Houston in the early 1990’s. The ideas remain relevant today. References are listed at the end of part 7.

Attacks on Property Rights
In 1980 City Council passed an ordinance which, among other things, limited the size and location of outdoor signs and billboards.

Advocates of the ordinance referred to Houston's abundant sign population as "visual pollution" 1 and "a plague" 2 , thereby implying that the existence of these signs is a threat to one's health. Such an argument is clearly absurd-- Houston's medical facilities have yet to report a single case of billboard related illness or death.

The purpose of the ordinance was to reduce the number of-- and eventually eliminate-- billboards in Houston. The justification was not that the billboards violated anyone's rights, but that billboards "clutter" the landscape, i.e., they are "unpleasant" to look at.

In other words, some Houstonians, as well as a majority of City Council members, found billboards objectionable, and passed a law aimed at their abolition. Which means, the city initiated force against the owners of those signs, as well as the owners of the property upon which they are erected. Rather than protect the rights of its citizens, the city became a violator of those rights.

It should be noted that those who find billboards objectionable have legitimate means for implementing their values without infringing on the rights of others. For example, such individuals can choose a route for their travels which does not include billboards (such as the beltway); they can live in a planned community in which billboards are prohibited; or they can purchase the billboards from their owners and tear them down.

In the early 1990's City Council passed an ordinance which requires developers to plant a specific number and type of shrubs and trees in their projects. The purpose of the ordinance was to promote a better "quality of life". The justification was not that developers had violated anyone's rights by planting Chinese tallows, but that some Houstonians regarded such trees as "trash".3

In other words, some Houstonians, as well as the majority of City Council, found certain kinds of plants objectionable, and passed a law to compel developers to plant different species. Again, the city initiated force against its citizens.

More recently, City Council has debated an ordinance which would place restrictions on "historic buildings". The purpose of this law is to prohibit the demolition of older buildings. The justification for this ordinance was not that the owners of such buildings were violating the rights of any one, but the protection of our heritage.

The most controversial aspect of the proposed ordinance was not the fact that the city intended to violate the rights of property owners, but that the owners would have an opportunity to "opt out" of the "historic" designation.4 In other words, the controversy was not the violation of rights, but the fact that property owners would retain some control over their property.

Each of these ordinances is intended to place restrictions on the use of private property, either through proscription or through prescription. And each of these ordinances is intended to promote some "public good", such as a better "quality of life", or protect our "heritage", etc. (The same holds true of many other ordinances not addressed here, such as the sexually-oriented business ordinances and smoking ordinances). These similarities in practice are the result of the similarities in theory, i.e., the principles which underlie each of these assaults on property rights.

Underlying each of these ordinances are two principles -- collectivism and sacrifice.5

The proponents of each of these ordinances argued that the welfare of some group, such as the city or the community or our neighborhoods, required the proposed restrictions on the rights of individuals. In other words, the welfare of the group superseded the welfare of any individual. This is the doctrine of collectivism-- individuals are to be subservient to the group.

In practice, this means that the individual may act, not by right, but with the permission of the group. It means that he may use his property only in accordance with the dictates of the group. And since the concept "group" really means just a collection of individuals, subservience to the dictates of the group really means that some individuals may violate the rights of other individuals. To accomplish this, they need only assemble enough like-minded people who are willing to violate the rights of others and convince city officials to enact the appropriate laws.

While many may respond that this is the democratic way, it should be noted that our Founding Fathers did not establish a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. The American Constitution restricts the powers of government, including the powers of any majority which happens to control the government, not the actions of individuals.

A literal democracy means unlimited majority rule-- that the majority may do as it pleases because it is the majority. In a democracy, individual rights are in principle as non-existent as in a dictatorship. Remember that Socrates was put to death at the hands of the majority of the citizens of ancient Athens, and Adolf Hitler came to power in a democratic Germany.

Morally, collectivism holds that the individual must place the welfare of others above his own. Each of us must do his "fair share" for the "common good". Those who refuse to do so "voluntarily" are regarded as "selfish", "rugged individualists", etc. and may properly be forced to sacrifice their values. These two principles-- collectivism and sacrifice-- serve as the justification for all of the attacks on property rights, past, present, and future. The particular form and emphasis of the arguments may change, but the principles which underlie them do not.
The same holds true of the most comprehensive attack on property rights-- zoning.

© J. Brian Phillips and Warren S. Ross 2008