The Alternative to Government Regulations

A truly free market is characterized by a separation of government and economics. Individuals are free to engage in the economic activities of their choice, so long as they do not use force or fraud in dealing with others. Many believe that this is impracticable. Without government regulations, they argue, consumers will have no "protection" and will be left to the mercy of businesses.

It is important to realize that government regulations do not protect consumers from fraud or dangerous products. Despite an abundance of regulations, Bernie Madoff, Enron, and numerous other businesses have engaged in wholesale fraud. Rather than protect consumers, regulations create a false sense of security. Believing that regulators are preventing fraud, consumers often fail to engage in due diligence.

What is the alternative? Certainly, nobody wants to discover that his doctor is an incompetent hack. Nobody wants to buy tainted food or medicines. Nobody wants to be defrauded.

Even in our heavily regulated society today, there are many alternatives to government regulations. Organizations such as the Better Business Bureau and Angie's List allow consumers to voice complaints about businesses and make recommendations. Organizations such as Good Housekeeping and Consumers Union test products and provide consumers with information to make intelligent buying decisions. Product manufacturers and trade organizations provide certification programs. And in a truly free market it is likely that other alternatives will be developed.

Advocates of regulation posit an irrational, and impossible, standard--preventing fraud and deceit. This is a Platonic ideal that does not and cannot exist. So long as men possess volition, they are capable of engaging in fraud. Rather than regulate and control all businesses, government's proper role is to prosecute those who actually do engage in fraud or knowingly market dangerous products.

The alternative to government regulation is freedom--the absence of coercion in the relationships between men.

"Necessary" Regulations

From what I can tell, Glenn Beck considers himself a libertarian. On Friday he was explaining libertarianism to a caller. At one point, Beck said that libertarians don't believe in government regulation. He then "corrected" himself and said that some regulations are necessary, such as those licensing doctors. Beck and his side kick, former Houston talk show host Pat Gray, then explained some of the horrors that would result without such licensing.

Unfortunately, Beck's position is typical of conservatives. Despite his constant talk about principles, he demonstrates over and over than he doesn't have any. For example, he does not complain that regulations are wrong in principle, but that too many go too far. How, and by what standard, does he determine what is "too far"? Without principles he can only decide each issue on a case-by-case basis.

Beck explained why doctors should be licensed: We don't want to discover that our surgeon is a butcher. Certainly this is true, but Beck wants us to believe that the same government he regularly chastises should be in the business of deciding who is competent and who isn't. Where Beck routinely calls for individuals to be more responsible for their lives, when it comes to doctors he argues that that responsibility should be ceded to government.

Not surprisingly, Beck shows no concern for the doctors who are subjected to arbitrary government decrees. His concern is with the patients, who he fears might be subjected to sub-prime health care without government involvement. Patients have a need--to be protected--and the rights of doctors are irrelevant.

The fact is, there are no necessary government regulations. Individuals have a moral right to offer any product or service they choose, so long as they do not use force or fraud. And they also have a right to purchase any product or service they choose.

In the context of health care, this means that anyone has a moral right to offer medical services, including my lawn boy. If he offers to remove my appendix, and I consent, he has not violated anyone's rights. Each of us acted according to our own judgment, even though mine would be extremely poor. But I, and every other individual, should be free to make poor decisions.

The Government's Monopoly on Roads

If you made a list of the places that you spend the most time waiting in line, I suspect that virtually all of those places would be some government agency or department. These government agencies have no incentive to provide fast and efficient service, because they have captive "customers." You must go to the government to get your driver's license renewed, or to obtain a building permit, or a myriad other activities, and there is no private alternative.

On the other hand, private businesses continually face competition. If one business routinely has long lines consumers will go elsewhere.

While it is probably impossible to calculate all of the time wasted by government mandates, controls, and regulations, the Texas Department of Transportation (TDT) recently released a study that provides a hint as to the time we waste on government roads.

The most congested roadway segment in Texas in 2009 was in Harris County, according to the data. Topping the list was the 9.3-mile stretch of road on Interstate 45 from Beltway 8 North to Interstate Highway 610, where the annual delay per mile was 484,630 hours and drivers dealt with 4.5 million hours of delay during the year.

This one section of road created a delay of nearly 1 hour for every man, woman, and child in the Houston metropolitan area. And that doesn't include all of the other congested highways and roads in Harris and adjoining counties. 

TDT calculated that the cost of these delays amounted to $21.75 per hour. All told, traffic delays cost Houstonians tens of millions of dollars every single year. Despite these costs in time and money, we are continually told that only government can build, own, and operate roads.

The government's monopoly on roadways is the cause of traffic congestion. First, consumers have no viable options (other than another government monopoly--mass transit). Second, consumers do not directly bear the cost of their use. Because government roads are supported through taxes, rather than user fees (or something similar) consumers have little incentive to modify their driving habits. 

All goods and services exist in a limited quantity, including the roadways. Prices are the means by which goods and services are allocated to those who value them most highly. But in the case of roadways, use is "free" and there is no pricing mechanism to moderate traffic. If the roadways were privately owned, the owners would seek to maximize efficiency by raising prices during periods of peak demand.

For two reasons I won't begin to attempt to explain how private roads could and do work. First, such an explanation would take far more space than a single blog post. Second, I won't claim to know what creative solutions entrepreneurs will come up with when they are motivated by the opportunity to profit.

But I will point out that it wasn't that long ago that defenders of the postal service claimed that private mail delivery would never work. Today, companies like FedEx and UPS are sapping customers from the postal service. And this is despite that fact that the USPS still enjoys a monopoly on first-class mail. In other words, to the extent that private businesses are free, not only can they provide they provide services, they do so more efficiently than the government. Consumers agree, as evidenced by their voluntary choice to use the private businesses.

Both Sides are Wrong

One benefit of being an Objectivist is that both Leftists and conservatives provide an endless stream of material for blogging. One example is Arizona's immigration law. The Chronicle recently ran a piece summarizing the arguments on both sides of the law, and not surprisingly, both sides are lacking.

Let us first consider a few of the arguments in favor of the law.

Arizona must take measures to protect its citizens, their lives and their property.

Since government's only proper purpose is the protection of individual rights this argument is plausible. However, an individual's right can only be violated by the initiation of force--by being compelled to act contrary to one's own judgment (the use of force is proper and just when used in retaliation against those who initiate force). But the fact that an individual is in this country illegally does not violate anyone's rights--his presence is not an initiation of force.

Of course, if he is sending his children to public schools, collecting welfare, or using public health care his actions do involve force. But he is hardly alone in that regard. The solution is not in declaring his existence illegal, but to abolish welfare and other programs that redistribute wealth.

No society can function effectively without a fundamental respect for the law.

This argument is also plausible. But an immoral law--one that initiates force--hardly fosters respect for the law. The law once declared that escaped slaves must be returned to their owners. In Nazi Germany it was illegal to harbor Jews. Only a monster would argue that these laws should have been respected.

Illegal immigrants are responsible for a wave of violent crime.

This is a sweeping generalization. Certainly some "illegals" commit violent crimes, but so do many American citizens. This argument treats all members of a particular group the same, regardless of their actions as individuals. Individuals who commit violent crimes should be severely punished, no matter where they were born.

With so many Americans out of work, immigrants illegally living in Arizona are costing citizens' jobs.

Every individual has a moral right to engage in free and voluntary trade. Nobody has a right to a job. The labor market, like all free markets, is subject to supply and demand. If an immigrant is willing to work for less money than an American, that is his right. It is also the right of the employer to hire whomever he chooses, for whatever terms he and the employee find mutually acceptable.

Until somebody comes up with a better idea, this will do.

This is perhaps the worst argument of all. It acknowledges shortcomings in the law, but accepts them.  Doing "something", it implies, is better than doing nothing, even if that "something" is flawed. 


The arguments in favor of the law are based on flawed premises: We should respect all laws, regardless of their nature; individuals should not be judged on the basis of their own actions, but by those of the group to which they belong; Americans have a right to welfare, but immigrants do not. Most of the arguments against the law are equally flawed.

The law will force local police to focus on immigration, rather than on violence or other crimes.

The police are asked to enforce many other laws that do not violate anyone's rights: Prostitution, drugs, and gambling are but a few. But opponents of Arizona's law do not oppose other laws that do not involve an initiation of force. Why?

Most law enforcement organizations consider the law a bad idea.

The implication of this argument is that truth is determined by a vote. At its core, this is an appeal to majority rule, and whatever the majority determines to be just, proper, or true is just, proper, or true by that fact. 

The number of people who support or oppose a particular law (or idea) has no relevance to the appropriateness of the law. For example, a majority favored putting Socrates to death for spreading unpopular ideas and a majority in the South wanted to retain slavery.


Neither side of this controversy is defending individual rights, for that concept is foreign to both Leftists and conservatives. Both demand that the individual sacrifice his values for some higher authority--society or God. Both treat the individual as a mere pawn, whose life may be disposed of as that authority decrees.

The Lawn Bag Mandate: Immoral and Impractical

On Wednesday I complained about the city's mandate that citizens use biodegradable leaf bags. Two readers responded with suggestions on how I could deal with the situation. One suggested that I buy a mulcher (perhaps sharing the cost with neighbors) and use the mulch in my beds. Another suggested that I hire a private company to haul away my yard debris. Both of these are certainly alternatives, but they miss my primary point.

(I hasten to add that posts such as this are not intended to discourage comments. I often do not have sufficient time to respond to comments as fully as I would like, and rather than leave a comment sitting in limbo, I approve it and write a brief response. Posts such as this provide me with the opportunity to respond more fully.)

Neither reader questions the city's "right" to impose such a mandate upon the citizenry. Both imply that this is proper and we must toe the line. Both suggest alternatives that would allow me to avoid the mandate.

While it is true that I have choices, those choices have been limited by government fiat. As one example, I cannot choose from among the wide assortment of lawn bags available--I am limited to one type of bag.  Both readers argue that I have other choices--such as mulching or using a private company--so what is my complaint? Such suggestions ignore the nature of those choices, as well as the full context.

Through my tax dollars I am already paying the city for solid waste service, and I have no choice in that matter. To use a private company (or buy a mulcher) means that I must spend additional money for a service that I am already forced to pay for.

To illustrate this point, consider another service provided by government and supported by tax dollars--education. A parent who is unhappy with public schools certainly has the option of home schooling or sending their children to a private school. But the cost can be significant, and many, if not most, middle class families cannot afford that expense because they are already forced to spend their education dollars on the sewer that is public education. In reality, most parents really don't have a choice in the matter. To claim otherwise is to drop the context.

Admittedly, the cost of a mulcher or a private trash service is considerably less than a private school. But the principle is the same--I am forced to pay for a government service regardless of my own judgment, needs, or desires. And if I don't like the service that I receive, I must pay for it again.

Few of us would tolerate this from a private company. We would complain to the company and demand that we get the service that we paid for. We would take our business elsewhere if the company refused to provide satisfaction. But we wouldn't be forced to pay 2 companies for the same service. Yet, when government is one of the service providers, this is precisely what occurs.

When government expands beyond its legitimate function--the protection of individual rights--it necessarily limits our choices. Government intervention necessarily limits and restricts our ability to act morally--according to our own rational judgment. My readers suggest that there are practical alternatives. But there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. When my choices are limited, whatever choices remain cannot be deemed practical for they necessarily limit what I can achieve in practice.

For example, if I pursue the mulching suggestion I must spend at least $200 to get one that would be sufficient for my needs. If I immediately place the mulch in my beds I will then have to deal with a nitrogen deficiency in those beds--decaying organic material depletes nitrogen. I would then need to add nitrogen to my soil, which would require additional expense and time. Further, I would need to regularly test the soil to be certain that I am adding the proper amount of nitrogen. Too much nitrogen can promote certain fungal diseases and too little can stunt plant growth. The time, effort, and expense involved in this process must necessarily come from somewhere.

This allegedly "practical" solution would require that I give up other values. If I must spend money on a mulcher, soil testing, and nitrogen supplements, I will necessarily have less money for other values. If I must spend time mulching, spreading the mulch, testing soil, and adding nitrogen, I will necessarily have less time for other values.

I have a moral right to live my life as I choose, so long as I respect the mutual rights of others. Government's purpose is the protection of this right. Yet, the city's bag mandate prohibits me from acting as I judge best. It forces me to spend money and time contrary to my own judgment, whether I use the city's bags or pursue some alternative.

Certainly, this is not the most threatening issue facing the nation or the city. But if we accept such minor violations of our rights then we pave the way for much more egregious violations. It isn't a matter of degree, it is a matter of principle.

From Pancakes to Nightmares

With Congress proposing a seemingly endless litany of inane bills, it is no surprise that many get little public attention. Fortunately, we have that bastion of investigative reporting, The Onion, to inform us of HR323, known as the IHOPs Should Stay Open All Night So We Can Get Some Pancakes Act. In addition to mandating the operating hours of IHOPs, the bill would also allocate $2 million to study whether pancake batter is the same as waffle batter.

In a blatant display of political power, the bill's sponsors have made it clear that the purpose is to fulfill their own whims. They want to be able to eat pancakes at any hour of their choosing, and the judgment of others is to molded by force to satisfy that desire. This of course, is nothing new.

Houston politicians for example, want to make the city "greener." So they have mandated that citizens use biodegradable leaf bags, tightened the building code, used stolen money to caulk the windows of the elderly, and numerous other "eco-friendly" activities. They want to "protect" neighborhoods, so they erected arbitrary barriers to the construction of the Ashby High Rise and want to strengthen the preservation ordinance. They don't like the "visual blight" of billboards and "attention-getting devices" so they have engaged in a decades long war to rid the city of the former and simply banned the latter.

And the atrocities are not limited to Houston. In Washington, politicians force mortgage companies to make loans to people that the lenders do not believe can repay the loans, and then those same politicians blame those same mortgage companies when those same lenders do not repay the loans. In Washington, politicians have long shackled doctors and insurance companies with mountains of regulations, and then blame those same doctors and insurance companies when they must charge for the time and resources required to meet Washington's mandates.

Similarly with the IHOPs Should Stay Open All Night So We Can Get Some Pancakes Act. IHOP will have to raise its prices and then the company will be blamed for making pancakes unaffordable for the middle class. And the Washington, in its infinite wisdom, will enact some kind of pancake price controls.

You may laugh at The Onion's satire and believe that it is absurd to force IHOP to stay open all night. But if you accept the principle that government may force the citizenry to act contrary to their own voluntary judgment, it is precisely the kind of absurdity that will, and has, become a reality.

One man's absurdity is another man's "public interest." What one man regards as vital to the "common good" another may regard as absurd. When men are free to act on their own judgment, they can pursue ideas that others deem absurd, but they may not compel others to support or act on those ideas. Freedom--the absence of coercion--sanctions each individual's moral right to act according to his own judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others.

However, when the power of government can be used to coerce individuals to act contrary to their own judgment, some are forced to act in support of ideas they consider wrong, evil, absurd, or all three. The result is far worse than the fictional absurdity of HR 323; it makes life--here in the real world--a nightmare for those whose lives are destroyed in the process.

Houston's Biodegradable Leaf Bags Suck

In April the city of Houston started forcing residents to use biodegradable bags for lawn debris. We were told that this was for our own good, as it would help the city avoid fee increases and thus save citizens money. When citizens complained about the bags, the city responded that the bags were fine. The city is wrong on both counts.

The bags are more expensive and hold less. But I have no choice in the matter. Only one size is available. I must use the city-approved bags or build a compost pile so large that I will surely receive a visit from the health department. 

The bags have a conical bottom, which makes no practical sense and significantly reduces the amount the bags can hold. The tops consist of some stupid butterfly design that match the bottoms in their impracticality. But again, I have no choice in the matter. I must use these stupid bags if I want the city to haul away my yard debris.

I can normally fill 4 or 5 bags when I clean my roof. The process takes about an hour. I attempted to do this over the weekend with the city's new eco-bags, and after 30 minutes of struggling to fill 2 bags and clearing about 10% of my roof, I gave up. I'm not certain what I'm going to do, but it is clear that it will take much longer than it has in the past. Of course, the fact that I must waste hours on this project is for my own good, not to mention the good of the planet.

Just to be clear, I'm as "environmentally friendly" as the next guy. I think that human beings should exploit the hell out of the environment, but I think that we should be friendly to one another as we do so. And that friendliness consists of respecting property rights and engaging in voluntary trade. I think that a society in which individual rights are recognized and protected is the only environment proper to human beings, and it is the only environment in which individuals can truly be benevolent and friendly.

In such a society landfills would be privately owned and trash collection would be provided entirely by private companies. I would be free to accept the terms of the trash collection company--including the use of "eco-bags"--or not. That of course, is not the kind of society that we live in.

Instead, my own judgment is rendered moot by the dictates of petty politicians who want to pander to the ecology crowd. My choices are simply wiped out by the stroke of a pen, while I am told that it is for my own good. The arrogance of those who make such claims is superseded only by willingness to use force to impose their values on me and all of Houston. And that, just like the biodegradable leaf bags, sucks.

Whose Life is It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houston: Model City...But Not for Long

I previously commented on a piece by Joel Kotkin titled "Houston: Model City" that appeared in Forbes. Kotkin writes:

Politicians in big cities talk about jobs, but by keeping taxes, fees and regulatory barriers high they discourage the creation of jobs, at least in the private sector. A business in San Francisco or Los Angeles never knows what bizarre new cost will be imposed by city hall. In New York or Boston you can thrive as a nonprofit executive, high-end consultant or financier, but if you are the owner of a business that wants to grow you're out of luck.

Houston, however, has kept the cost of government low while investing in ports, airports, roads, transit and schools. A person or business moving there gets an immediate raise through lower taxes and cheaper real estate. Houston just works better at nurturing jobs.

Kotkin is only partially right. Certainly, business owners in most major cities never know what arbitrary edicts will be forced upon them. But our politicians are working overtime to catch up.

Consider what city officials have done just in the past 2 years: taco tags, a ban on "attention-getting" devices, shutting down a Spec's liquor store, harassing CES Environmental Services, ever shifting demands regarding the Ashby High Rise, tougher restrictions on billboards, a "crackdown" on sexually-oriented businesses, a proposed tightening of the preservation ordinance, mandated use of biodegradable leaf bags, and more. Each of these measures drives up the cost of doing business, kills jobs, or both. Is this an environment that "nurtures jobs"?

Despite the praise that is regularly heaped upon Houston, including that of being a model city, our alleged leaders keep telling us that we must do this and do that if we want to be "world class". They keep telling us that we should emulate other cities, while the rest of the world is being told that they should emulate us. Why such a different view of our city?

The truth is, city officials are not concerned with Houston being a "world class" city. They aren't concerned with creating jobs, or protecting the environment, or improving our "quality of life". These are just empty platitudes that they toss out to the pressure group of the day in an obsequious attempt to win political support. All they want is power--the power to dictate and control our lives. And if you don't believe me, how do you explain the list of dictates and controls I cited above?

The pattern is generally the same. Some group gets mad because others are doing something that they don't like. So they assemble a bunch of nosy and noisy cohorts to pester City Hall. Once they find a council member willing to pander to their demands--which isn't hard--the issue is declared a matter of public safety, or "quality of life", or "neighborhood protection", or something similar that makes everybody feel good about themselves because they are "doing something".

And that "something" is forcing their values on the rest of their fellow citizens. That "something" is using the coercive power of government to dictate how others may or may not act. That "something" is the exact opposite of what made Houston great. That "something" is destroying the city that the rest of the world wants to emulate.

A Nanny State for Nannies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RENEW Houston and Flooding

Over the past week I have received 2 recorded messages and an oversized postcard/ petition from a group called RENEW Houston. According to their web site:

RENEW Houston is a charter amendment campaign to create a dedicated pay-as-you-go funding source to repair our drainage and streets.

Houston is an aging city. Over 60 % of all drainage and streets are past their useful life; 80% will be past their useful life in the next 20 years. When a street is assigned for re-construction, it takes the city 12 years before the work will commence due to lack of funding.

Not surprisingly, RENEW Houston presents its proposal as a complete panacea:

JOBS: Creates jobs for Houstonians. QUALITY OF LIFE: Rebuild the foundation of our communities with new storm sewers and streets, and maintenance of existing storm sewers, drainage ditches, and streets. PUBLIC SAFETY: Allow emergency vehicles easy and fast access to our neighborhoods and businesses. ECONOMY: Houston cannot be economically competitive with the rest of the nation without having good drainage and streets. 

If I had a dime for every group, politician, or special interest that made similar claims, I would be a very wealthy man. And if I had only a penny for every fallacy and evasion put forth by those making these claims, I would be equally wealthy. Let's look at a few of these in brief.

Jobs: Certainly, rebuilding infrastructure will create jobs. And it will destroy jobs too. The money to pay for that infrastructure must be taken from taxpayers and businesses--private citizens. They will have less money to spend at the grocer, or the movie theater, or the auto dealer. Reduced private spending means fewer jobs, a fact that RENEW Houston and its ilk conveniently evade.

Quality of Life: RENEW Houston does not explain why their vision of "quality of life" should be forced upon the entire city. I am no more a fan of flooded streets and homes than anyone else. But I also took responsibility to buy a home in an area that is not prone to flooding. My quality of life--along with many others--will be negatively impacted if my money is taken without my consent for purposes I do not agree with.

Economy: For nearly a century, Houstonians have heard threats that our city will never be economically competitive if we do not cede more power and money to government. We have heard it during the three failed attempts to implement zoning, we have heard it in support of various land-use restrictions, it was trotted out in support of more stringent controls on billboards. Given the actual facts, an honest person would look at the history of Houston's economy and be embarrassed to make such a claim. Yet, here comes RENEW Houston making the same false and disproved claims.

It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Groups like RENEW Houston simply want us to forget history, along with economics, morality, and property rights. They have a vision for the city, and like all of their intellectual brethren, they are determined to force it upon us, come hell or high water.

Accountability and Welfare

Politicians and pundits love to talk about the need for accountability in government. Lisa Falkenberg provides an example. She questions whether Sheltering Arms Senior Services (SASS), which uses stimulus money to improve the energy efficiency of homes, is being held accountable:

The monitoring report by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which is administering the stimulus funds, found that 60 percent of Sheltering Arms' weatherization work — 33 out of 53 units inspected— contained “workmanship deficiencies” that needed fixing.

“The Department is very concerned,” the report stated, with the organization's “capacity and commitment to implement” its Recovery Act weatherization contract. 

The report also cited the agency for spending nearly half its funding on administrative costs, which shouldn't exceed 5 percent by the end of the contract.

Falkenberg has no trouble with government taking from some for the alleged benefit of others. She just wants to be certain that it is done "wisely". She wants those benefiting from plundered loot to be held "accountable". What does she mean by "accountable"? And to whom? Unfortunately, Falkenberg doesn't tell us.

I can only assume that Falkenberg wants SASS to be held accountable to the government officials overseeing the program, and ultimately the taxpayers who are footing the bill. That might sound reasonable--no sensible person wants to see government waste the money it has stolen from the citizenry. But if we examine the full context, not only is this unreasonable, it is impossible.

When I purchase a product or service, I can easily hold the business I am patronizing accountable for fulfilling its end of the deal. I can complain if things go wrong, tell my friends of poor service, or take my business elsewhere. I can't do this with a government welfare program.

I did not choose to "patronize" the program. My participation is coerced. When the welfare program fails to fulfill its end of the "deal", I have no recourse. I can't take my "business" elsewhere. And I will be forced to "patronize" the next welfare scheme concocted by the statists. I can't hold anyone accountable because I have no choice in the matter.

I imagine that Falkenberg would respond that this is the role that she, and her fellow "reporters", are fulfilling. She is trying to hold SASS accountable for me--she is my eyes, ears, and mind. She will save me this effort so that I may spend my time laboring to pay for these give away programs. Thanks, but no thanks.

If Falkenberg is truly interested in accountability, then she must demand that individuals be free to spend their money as they choose. And she must demand that government officials be held accountable for protecting that freedom.

The Principal and the Principle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom is the Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Force vs. Personal Choice

Advocates of government regulations often argue that government intervention is necessary to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses. They ignore the many ways that individuals can make informed decisions and protect themselves from fraud and similar practices. An interesting example comes from the paint industry and the Better Business Bureau (BBB):

The Better Business Bureau’s advertising arm has recommended that The Sherwin-Williams Company modify or discontinue certain odor-elimination claims for the company’s Dutch Boy Refresh Paint.

Sherwin-Williams (SW) joined with Arm & Hammer to create a paint that allegedly absorbs odors within a home. This claim was challenged by a competing paint manufacturer--PPG Architectural Finishes.

(I hasten to add that neither the BBB nor PPG is claiming fraud on the part of SW. The claims against SW are that its advertisements for the product are "misleading". I should also note that I am a painting contractor and use SW products almost exclusively, though I have not used the product in question.)

The BBB's advertising unit, the National Advertising Division's (NAD), reviewed information submitted by both SW and PPG and found the information inconclusive.

In the absence of reliable evidence, NAD routinely steps into the role of the consumer to determine the reasonable messages conveyed by the adverting.

In short, the NAD seeks to determine how a consumer might interpret an advertising message. The article does not state how the NAD does this, and such methods could be highly subjective. But the objectivity of the NAD isn't the point here.

As a private organization, the NAD cannot compel advertisers to abide by its findings. Nor can it force consumers to heed its warnings. Both advertisers and consumers are free to consider the NAD's conclusions, and accept or reject them based on their own individual judgment. In other words, while providing the information consumers need to make informed decisions, the NAD cannot impose decisions upon others. And this is how it should be.

There are many other organizations that provide similar resources for consumers--Consumer's Union, Underwriter Laboratories, and Angie's List are three examples. In each instance the consumer can judge the information provided within their context and on the basis of their needs and values.

In contrast are government regulatory agencies that impose their findings upon everyone. Rather than allow consumers to judge for themselves, government agencies necessarily force consumers and businesses to accept and act according to their dictates, for better or worse.

Contrary to what advocates of government regulation imply, consumers are capable of making decisions. And often they may want and need products or services that don't meet the standards imposed by regulators. That is their right--they have a moral right to act according to their own judgment, no matter what others might think (so long as they respect the mutual rights of others).

The "Radical Center"

Thomas Friedman bemoans the political divisiveness that arose during the debate over health care "reform". He fears that Democrats will lose seats in November, resulting in more gridlock in Washington. His solution:

That is why I want my own Tea Party. I want a Tea Party of the radical center.

Unsurprisingly, the "radical center" is an alleged hybrid of ideas from Leftists and conservatives. Friedman gives us a few examples:

It advocates: raising taxes to close our budgetary shortfalls, but doing so with a spirit of equity and social justice; guaranteeing that every American is covered by health insurance, but with market reforms to really bring down costs; legally expanding immigration to attract more job-creators to America's shores; increasing corporate tax credits for research and lowering corporate taxes if companies will move more manufacturing jobs back onshore...

On the surface, this might appear to be the mix of ideas that Friedman claims. But if we look a little deeper, we see that these proposals--along with other examples--involve government intervention in one form or another. Each takes as an unquestioned premise the belief that government can and should be controlling, regulating, manipulating, and dictating how individuals live and work. Each is founded on the belief that government should compel individuals to put aside their own judgment and values for some alleged "common good".

There is nothing "centrist" about this. It is a complete capitulation to the Left.

Of course, Friedman cannot see this. He thinks that he is taking the "best" ideas from both sides and finding a workable compromise, a "compromise" that mixes government controls with individual freedom. But any freedom that Friedman allows to sneak into his proposals is tenuous at best, for if the government doesn't like the results, that freedom will quickly disappear. If, for example, the "free market" (which ignores the fact that the market hasn't been free for decades) doesn't bring down health care costs the government will step in.

As Ayn Rand noted:

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

The centrist wants us to believe otherwise--that there is no right or wrong, that both sides have valid points, and we all just need to find some happy meeting point. So, if a robber has broken into your home and wants to steal your possessions, the two of your should "compromise". Rather than take everything, the thief should agree to just take your computer and jewelry, and rather than insist on retaining what is rightfully yours, you should agree to let him. Most would find such a "compromise" absurd, but this is what Friedman and all "moderates" urge.

It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The truth is, the road to hell is paved with compromise.

Selling Health Care Repeal

In response to the unanimous opposition of Republicans to enslave doctors and subject the health care of every American to the whim of bureaucrats, the Chronicle predicts that GOP may suffer in future elections:

After the vote its [Republican] leaders vowed to make repeal of the legislation a theme of the fall congressional campaigns.

It will be interesting to see how receptive voters will be to a pitch to reinstate higher drug prices for the elderly, permit insurance companies to resume denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and cancel tax breaks for individuals and small businesses to pay for policies.

Talk about a hard sell.

To the Chronicle, Americans face the choice of being raped by private companies or subjecting ourselves to complete government control of health care. The paper ignores the real alternative: freedom for everyone.

The Chronicle, along with virtually everyone else, conveniently evades the fact that patients, drug companies, insurance companies, and doctors have long been subjected to an ever-growing mountain of government edicts, mandates, and controls. The paper's response to the failures of government intervention is more government intervention.

If Republicans truly want to make good on their promise to repeal the health care bill, they must reject the Chronicle's false alternative. If they make a case for individual freedom, and do so on moral grounds, they will actually have a relatively easy "sell". Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Republicans will do so, given the fact that they overwhelmingly embrace the same self-sacrificial ethics as Leftists.

Convincing the GOP and its supporters to abandon altruism and proudly promote egoism will be the true hard sell.

The Tyranny of Nullification

I have previously written that nullification--a state declaring a particular federal law unconstitutional and thereby inapplicable within that state--would ultimately lead to tyranny. But we do not need to rely solely on theoretic arguments to see the truth of my claim. We can look to history to see the results of nullification.

In 1833 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Barron v. Baltimore. According to Wikipedia:

John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

In a unanimous decision, the court held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." In short, unless the Constitution specifically stated an application to the states, the states were free to act contrary to its provisions.

In practical terms, this is precisely what advocates of nullification desire. They call for the states to unilaterally choose which federal laws they will honor and which they will not. And if this applies to statutes, why should it not also apply to the supreme law of the land--the Constitution? Indeed, this was the result in Barron v. Baltimore.

For John Barron, the actions of the city destroyed his business and he received no compensation for it. The court ruled: "We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states." In other words, the states can do whatever they choose, with no restrictions or constraints.

In theory and in practice this is the end result of nullification. For example, if the majority of Ohioans wish to nullify the First Amendment and institute censorship, the advocates of nullification have no basis for complaint. If the majority of Floridians wish to confiscate all guns within the state, the advocates of nullification must approve. If Texans want to outlaw trial by jury, or Utahans want to mandate the Mormon Church as the official state religion, or Alabamans want to prohibit blacks from voting, according to the advocates of nullification, such is the "right" of the citizens of those states.

Nullification is not about protecting individual rights; it is about unleashing the "will of the people". It is about a tyranny of the masses, in which the majority may do anything it pleases simply because it is the majority. (Interestingly, while nullification is endorsed primarily by conservatives, Leftists also argue that the "will of the people" should reign supreme, unrestricted by such things as the Constitution, principles, or individual rights.)

If the advocates of nullification truly wish to control the ever expanding powers of the federal government, then they must recognize and defend individual rights. They must declare that the rights of the individual may not be violated by any government--federal, state, or local. Anything less is an endorsement of tyranny.

The "Living" Constitution

A few weeks ago a commenter argued that the Constitution is a "living" document. According to Wikipedia:

The Living Constitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which claims that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. [links removed]

In other words, the Constitution does not have a specific meaning that is applicable across time. It simply provides some general guidelines that we should interpret according to the latest opinion poll. Which means, there are no principles within the Constitution. Which means, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. "Living" Constitution is in fact, an anti-concept:

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .

The idea of a "living" Constitution is intended to destroy the Constitution. It is intended to remove the constraints on government, constraints that are enumerated in that document. According to the "living" Constitution doctrine, limitations on government's powers--such as prohibitions on restricting speech--are subject to the opinions of the day. If the people want health care, or income redistribution, or censorship, the Constitution should not get in their way.

The Founders were well aware of the dangers of democracy--unlimited majority rule. They understood that the passions of the majority are as dangerous as the whims of a king. They sought to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the masses as well as a tyranny of one. They designed a government whose powers are limited, no matter who is in charge, no matter the fleeting desires of the citizenry.

The advocates of a "living" Constitution seek to unleash any such limitations on government. They seek to give "the people" the power to dictate how individuals may act.

The Constitution is a document of life. The "living" Constitution theory is not.

Reshaping the GOP

Texas Tea Party activists have been actively engaged in recruiting and training candidates to run for precinct chairs. While they have reached out to members of both major political parties, the focus has been on the Republican Party. The goal of these recruitment efforts is to reshape the GOP, much as social conservatives did in the early 1990s.

According to the Chronicle, the state Tea Party wants to shift the Republican's emphasis from social issues to "fiscal restraint by the federal government and individual freedom." On the surface, this sounds good. But what does it really mean?

The web site for the Houston Tea Party Society (HTPS) has a discussion on proposed resolutions for the state GOP. Some of the suggestions are good--such as abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy. Others--such as term limits--are superficial, and a few--such as closing the borders--are simply bad. But what is particularly noteworthy is what is not suggested--a call for the recognition and protection of individual rights. (That is, until I left a comment.)

As I have written previously, it is the principle of individual rights that underlies every good idea emanating from the Tea Party movement. No matter the issue--federal spending, taxation, the Federal Reserve, health care, immigration, etc.--it is the principle of individual rights that provides us with the proper solution. Without such a principle, and a proper understanding of it, the Tea Party movement finds itself advocating contradictory positions.

In the introduction to this discussion on resolutions, HTPS leader Felicia Cravens writes:

[P]lease remember to keep the resolution topics within our core principles of fiscal responsibility, personal and governmental accountability, limited government, free markets, and sovereignty.

Again, these are certainly sound principles worthy of our support, but what do they mean? What unites them? Let us briefly dissect just one of these principles--sovereignty.

Sovereignty means independence from the control of another, the freedom to act according to one's own judgment (so long as one respects the mutual rights of others). Sovereignty is the recognition of the fact that each individual must take action to sustain and enjoy his life, and morally, others may not interfere with this right.

This has profound implications for every political issue. For example, closing the borders interferes with an individual's right to immigrate--to move to the country he chooses. Taxation--in any form--forces individuals to dispose of their property contrary to their own choices. Similarly, the use of tax incentives to encourage certain activities (as was suggested on HTPS) compels tax payers to subsidize the activities of others. Each of these proposals interferes with an individual's right to act according to his own judgment. Each is an attack on individual sovereignty.

The HTPS is advocating sovereignty in theory and proposing its violation in practice.

If the HTPS (or anyone for that matter) wishes to resolve this contradiction, then it must understand and embrace the principle of individual rights. Until it does so, its efforts to reshape the GOP will have no long-term impact.