Due to a rather intense schedule this week, posting may be light. Since radio hosts often replay old programs, today (like yesterday), I am going to link to a series of posts that rank among my favorites.
These posts are from early 2009, when I was "running" for mayor of Houston.
My Virtual Platform: Statement of Principles
My Virtual Platform: Crime
My Virtual Platform: City Services
My Virtual Platform: "Quality of Life"
My Virtual Platform: City Assets
My Virtual Platform: Taxes
My Virtual Platform: The Economy
My Virtual Platform: Protecting Neighborhoods
An Interview with Brian Phillips, Part 1
An Interview with Brian Phillips, Part 2
Showing posts with label virtual candidacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtual candidacy. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Houston's 2009 Mayoral Race
I have been commenting on Houston's mayoral candidates for nearly a year. As the candidates head down the home stretch, a recap of their positions is warranted.
What is particularly interesting about this set of candidates is how little they have done to differentiate themselves from the others. Certainly, there are superficial differences: we have a white urban planner, a black attorney, a gay city official, and a Republican Hispanic. But on the issues that matter, their positions are remarkably similar.
Peter Brown
As long as I have followed city politics, Peter Brown has been calling for "planning". While he denies that he supported zoning in the 1990s, planning without land-use regulations is a pointless exercise. And Brown knows this--he has favored all sorts of land-use controls, from outlawing billboards to stopping the Ashby High Rise. Brown wants to bring the arbitrary and tyrannical edicts of zoning to Houston, but he lacks the courage and the honesty to call it zoning. He wants government to control land-use in the city, and thinks that if we call it something else then it somehow be more palatable.
Brown isn't content to limit government controls to land-use. He wants to expand the city's control over the economy as well. His white paper on the economy states that government should get out of the way of business, yet he has seemingly never seen a government regulation that he doesn't like. He wants to create an "Office of Economic Development and Job Creation" that will determine which industries the city will encourage, and then use tax dollars to train workers.
Brown has tried to position himself as the hier to Bill White. He wants to continue White's program to make Houston America's greenest city. Brown supports light rail, providing job training to gang members (instead of throwing their sorry butts in jail), and virtually anything else you can think of that will involve spending taxpayer money. While he claims that he will reduce government waste (and which politician has ever claimed that he would increase government waste!?!), he continues to advocate programs and policies that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and destroy individual liberty.
Brown's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-
Annise Parker
Parker is the closest thing to a career politician in the mayoral mix. She has served on city council and as city controller. As a member of council, she had an atrocious record, supporting preservationist ordinances and "quality of life" issues. She has opposed the Ashby High Rise and declared that we need more regulations on development.
Parker has made a big issue of her management of the city's finances as controller. Yet, the city is facing a budget deficit and she has offered nothing more than a vow to cut waste (where have we heard that?). She has offered no concretes on how she will do this, and given her track record, we can be sure that she will support more government intervention into the economy and our lives.
Parker's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-
Gene Locke
Locke is the only candidate who is not currently an elected official, but he certainly is a political insider. He has served in numerous appointed positions, including city attorney. Because of this, he doesn't have quite the track record of Brown and Parker. For the most part, Locke is in lock-step with Brown and Parker on the issues.
Unlike Brown and Parker, Locke does seem to be reaching out to Republicans a little more than the other two Democrats. While this might be a good political strategy to get elected, it doesn't bode well for the city. The likely result will be a few more crumbs thrown to Republicans for their support, and more appeasing from the party that once had some desire to defend individual freedom.
Locke's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- D-
Individual Rights-- D-
Roy Morales
Morales is the lone Republican in the race, yet he has garnered little support from the party. In some ways that weighs in his favor from my point of view, but he has done little to really separate himself from the Three Stooges.
Like the others, Morales says that he will combat government waste. And like the others, he hasn't told us how he will do it. (I did email him with specific suggestions, but I never heard back and he apparently has not taken my advice.)
To his credit, Morales has opposed light rail. For this he gets some points. However, he also aligned himself with TJ Huntley, whose campaign lasted about fifteen minutes. Huntley wanted to turn the mayor's office into a bully pulpit for Christianity, and this loses Morales some points.
Morales's Scorecard:
The Economy-- C
Land-Use-- C
Individual Rights-- C
Brian Phillips
Admittedly I'm not a real candidate, but I get so disgusted writing about my choices that I have to write something to cheer myself up. Back in February I announced my "virtual" candidacy. Since that time, I have continued to address the issues, not that anyone in the media cared (though the Chronicle and other local bloggers have been linking to my posts with growing frequency).
Unlike the other candidates, I provided a clearly stated set of principles. In my platform statements I explained how limiting government to its proper function of protecting individual rights would benefit the economy, allow us to reduce taxes, and improve our quality of life. Not surprisingly, I am in complete agreement with myself on these issues.
Phillips's Scorecard:
The Economy-- A+
Land-Use-- A+
Individual Rights-- A+
I do not know if I will vote for mayor. If I do vote, it will be for Roy Morales. He will not make the runoff, which means that I will then be faced with the decision of voting for one of the Three Stooges or abstaining. But that is a decision I can delay for at least a few months. In the meantime I will continue to work for the day when I can rate a viable candidate with something above a "C".
What is particularly interesting about this set of candidates is how little they have done to differentiate themselves from the others. Certainly, there are superficial differences: we have a white urban planner, a black attorney, a gay city official, and a Republican Hispanic. But on the issues that matter, their positions are remarkably similar.
Peter Brown
As long as I have followed city politics, Peter Brown has been calling for "planning". While he denies that he supported zoning in the 1990s, planning without land-use regulations is a pointless exercise. And Brown knows this--he has favored all sorts of land-use controls, from outlawing billboards to stopping the Ashby High Rise. Brown wants to bring the arbitrary and tyrannical edicts of zoning to Houston, but he lacks the courage and the honesty to call it zoning. He wants government to control land-use in the city, and thinks that if we call it something else then it somehow be more palatable.
Brown isn't content to limit government controls to land-use. He wants to expand the city's control over the economy as well. His white paper on the economy states that government should get out of the way of business, yet he has seemingly never seen a government regulation that he doesn't like. He wants to create an "Office of Economic Development and Job Creation" that will determine which industries the city will encourage, and then use tax dollars to train workers.
Brown has tried to position himself as the hier to Bill White. He wants to continue White's program to make Houston America's greenest city. Brown supports light rail, providing job training to gang members (instead of throwing their sorry butts in jail), and virtually anything else you can think of that will involve spending taxpayer money. While he claims that he will reduce government waste (and which politician has ever claimed that he would increase government waste!?!), he continues to advocate programs and policies that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and destroy individual liberty.
Brown's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-
Annise Parker
Parker is the closest thing to a career politician in the mayoral mix. She has served on city council and as city controller. As a member of council, she had an atrocious record, supporting preservationist ordinances and "quality of life" issues. She has opposed the Ashby High Rise and declared that we need more regulations on development.
Parker has made a big issue of her management of the city's finances as controller. Yet, the city is facing a budget deficit and she has offered nothing more than a vow to cut waste (where have we heard that?). She has offered no concretes on how she will do this, and given her track record, we can be sure that she will support more government intervention into the economy and our lives.
Parker's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-
Gene Locke
Locke is the only candidate who is not currently an elected official, but he certainly is a political insider. He has served in numerous appointed positions, including city attorney. Because of this, he doesn't have quite the track record of Brown and Parker. For the most part, Locke is in lock-step with Brown and Parker on the issues.
Unlike Brown and Parker, Locke does seem to be reaching out to Republicans a little more than the other two Democrats. While this might be a good political strategy to get elected, it doesn't bode well for the city. The likely result will be a few more crumbs thrown to Republicans for their support, and more appeasing from the party that once had some desire to defend individual freedom.
Locke's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- D-
Individual Rights-- D-
Roy Morales
Morales is the lone Republican in the race, yet he has garnered little support from the party. In some ways that weighs in his favor from my point of view, but he has done little to really separate himself from the Three Stooges.
Like the others, Morales says that he will combat government waste. And like the others, he hasn't told us how he will do it. (I did email him with specific suggestions, but I never heard back and he apparently has not taken my advice.)
To his credit, Morales has opposed light rail. For this he gets some points. However, he also aligned himself with TJ Huntley, whose campaign lasted about fifteen minutes. Huntley wanted to turn the mayor's office into a bully pulpit for Christianity, and this loses Morales some points.
Morales's Scorecard:
The Economy-- C
Land-Use-- C
Individual Rights-- C
Brian Phillips
Admittedly I'm not a real candidate, but I get so disgusted writing about my choices that I have to write something to cheer myself up. Back in February I announced my "virtual" candidacy. Since that time, I have continued to address the issues, not that anyone in the media cared (though the Chronicle and other local bloggers have been linking to my posts with growing frequency).
Unlike the other candidates, I provided a clearly stated set of principles. In my platform statements I explained how limiting government to its proper function of protecting individual rights would benefit the economy, allow us to reduce taxes, and improve our quality of life. Not surprisingly, I am in complete agreement with myself on these issues.
Phillips's Scorecard:
The Economy-- A+
Land-Use-- A+
Individual Rights-- A+
I do not know if I will vote for mayor. If I do vote, it will be for Roy Morales. He will not make the runoff, which means that I will then be faced with the decision of voting for one of the Three Stooges or abstaining. But that is a decision I can delay for at least a few months. In the meantime I will continue to work for the day when I can rate a viable candidate with something above a "C".
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
An Open Letter to Houston's Mayoral Candidates
Last week the Chronicle reported that you have canceled your remaining forums. Political consultant Marc Campos told the paper:
One of the cardinal principles of advertising is the Unique Selling Proposition. This principle holds that an advertiser must present a unique offer to consumers to entice them to switch brands. In the context of a mayoral race, you must present voters with unique ideas--ideas that differ from your opponents. Otherwise, why should they vote for you rather than one of your opponents?
Your positions on the issues are essentially the same. Each of you advocates more government controls and regulations, differing only on the specific details of your positions. Not only does this fail to distinguish you from your opponents, it is offering more of the very causes that are creating the problems you allegedly seek to address.
You could truly distinguish yourself, and offer tangible solutions, by recognizing that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights. Government should not be "protecting" neighborhoods, but the rights of the individuals who comprise those neighborhoods. Government should not be promoting "quality of life", but the freedom of individuals to pursue their own values. Government should not be pandering to the interests of groups, but protecting the personal freedom of individuals.
Such a position would allow you to offer truly unique solutions. You could solve the city's budget deficit, reduce taxes, and stimulate the economy. You could eliminate controversies like light rail and the Ashby High Rise. In short, you would have a specific principle to guide your position on any particular issue--a principle that would provide consistency and eliminate the endless parade of special interest groups seeking government favors for their pet project.
From a campaign perspective, there are other benefits to adopting this position. Your message would not need to be changed depending on the group to which you are speaking. Individual rights apply to all individuals--black and white, Anglo and Hispanic, gay and straight, preservationists and developers, employers and employees. You could promote diversity--which I don't hold as a value--because the protection of individual rights allows for each individual to pursue his values without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights.
You might think that my proposal isn't practical. But practicality depends upon what one wishes to practice--the results that one seeks. If one seeks a peaceful, vibrant community, then individual freedom is eminently practical. Indeed, it is the only means to that end. If you seek government control over the economy and the lives of Houstonians, then I would agree that my proposal is impractical.
You might think that my proposal is too radical, that voters are not interested in their personal liberty. To this I say, the legitimate anger being expressed in town hall meetings and at tea parties is ample evidence to the contrary. Citizens are angry that their freedom is threatened, and they will respond positively to a candidate who offers to recognize and protect individual rights.
I doubt that I need to explain to you the importance of the position you seek. The mayor of Houston holds immense responsibilities, the most important being the protection of individual rights. As mayor you will be faced with difficult and complex issues. Holding clear principles will allow you to tackle these issues with relative ease. As mayor you will be asked to lead our city through uncertain times. Holding clear principles will allow you--and Houstonians--to move forward with confidence.
The most important principle you can hold is the sanctity of individual rights. Adopting this principle will not only help you get elected, but will also help you lead the city. Adopting this principle, and implementing it consistently, will require courage and conviction. But these are the qualities of a true leader. Are you up to the task?
They haven't distinguished themselves. Everybody pretty much knows where they're at on all these issues. They've been asked the same questions over and over and over, and they've all stuck to their own party line, so it's a little bit of, this is too much.
One of the cardinal principles of advertising is the Unique Selling Proposition. This principle holds that an advertiser must present a unique offer to consumers to entice them to switch brands. In the context of a mayoral race, you must present voters with unique ideas--ideas that differ from your opponents. Otherwise, why should they vote for you rather than one of your opponents?
Your positions on the issues are essentially the same. Each of you advocates more government controls and regulations, differing only on the specific details of your positions. Not only does this fail to distinguish you from your opponents, it is offering more of the very causes that are creating the problems you allegedly seek to address.
You could truly distinguish yourself, and offer tangible solutions, by recognizing that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights. Government should not be "protecting" neighborhoods, but the rights of the individuals who comprise those neighborhoods. Government should not be promoting "quality of life", but the freedom of individuals to pursue their own values. Government should not be pandering to the interests of groups, but protecting the personal freedom of individuals.
Such a position would allow you to offer truly unique solutions. You could solve the city's budget deficit, reduce taxes, and stimulate the economy. You could eliminate controversies like light rail and the Ashby High Rise. In short, you would have a specific principle to guide your position on any particular issue--a principle that would provide consistency and eliminate the endless parade of special interest groups seeking government favors for their pet project.
From a campaign perspective, there are other benefits to adopting this position. Your message would not need to be changed depending on the group to which you are speaking. Individual rights apply to all individuals--black and white, Anglo and Hispanic, gay and straight, preservationists and developers, employers and employees. You could promote diversity--which I don't hold as a value--because the protection of individual rights allows for each individual to pursue his values without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights.
You might think that my proposal isn't practical. But practicality depends upon what one wishes to practice--the results that one seeks. If one seeks a peaceful, vibrant community, then individual freedom is eminently practical. Indeed, it is the only means to that end. If you seek government control over the economy and the lives of Houstonians, then I would agree that my proposal is impractical.
You might think that my proposal is too radical, that voters are not interested in their personal liberty. To this I say, the legitimate anger being expressed in town hall meetings and at tea parties is ample evidence to the contrary. Citizens are angry that their freedom is threatened, and they will respond positively to a candidate who offers to recognize and protect individual rights.
I doubt that I need to explain to you the importance of the position you seek. The mayor of Houston holds immense responsibilities, the most important being the protection of individual rights. As mayor you will be faced with difficult and complex issues. Holding clear principles will allow you to tackle these issues with relative ease. As mayor you will be asked to lead our city through uncertain times. Holding clear principles will allow you--and Houstonians--to move forward with confidence.
The most important principle you can hold is the sanctity of individual rights. Adopting this principle will not only help you get elected, but will also help you lead the city. Adopting this principle, and implementing it consistently, will require courage and conviction. But these are the qualities of a true leader. Are you up to the task?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mayoral Tidbits
Huntley and Morales
Houston mayoral candidate TJ Huntley has "joined forces" with another mayoral candidate--Roy Morales. The two are the only conservatives in the race, and as Huntley explained (via the KTRK political blog):
Gene Locke
The Houston Association of Realtors (HAR) has joined the Houston Apartment Association Better Government Fund PAC and the Greater Houston Builders Association in endorsing Gene Locke for mayor. HAR's announcement stated (via the KTRK political blog):
Peter Brown
The "Funk Meister" is now claiming that:
Annise Parker
Parker has unveiled her plan to improve the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (cleverly known as BARC):
As the mayoral election approaches, I get more and more disgusted with the candidates. We are less than three months away from the election, and they continue to offer us little more than vague generalities about "protecting" neighborhoods, increasing government efficiencies, and similar butt kissing. It's too bad that there isn't a viable candidate who actually supports individual liberty.
Houston mayoral candidate TJ Huntley has "joined forces" with another mayoral candidate--Roy Morales. The two are the only conservatives in the race, and as Huntley explained (via the KTRK political blog):
We all know that this race isn't about me nor any one particular person. To many of us, it is about restoring the morals back into Houston and about having a Godly leadership that promotes Godly morals and principles. Houston is a city that has an abundance of liberal morals and liberal spending. Having two conservatives running in the same race gets very crowded and often when this happens, the two will split the vote when it's time for the elections. ... With this strategic merging of Republican forces, we have a strong army of voters that can take this city back. All the conservatives and Republicans are now combined onto one ticket along with the Christian and the young voters...Other than Morales' call for the recently enacted sign ordinance to be repealed, neither has offered many specifics on any issue. Overtly injecting religion into the campaign isn't going to play well with voters, but Republicans seem to have a difficult time learning that lesson. I had considered supporting Morales (I was even invited to the opening of his campaign headquarters last weekend) but I am going to have an extremely difficult time doing so not that he has "joined forces" with the crusading Christian.
Gene Locke
The Houston Association of Realtors (HAR) has joined the Houston Apartment Association Better Government Fund PAC and the Greater Houston Builders Association in endorsing Gene Locke for mayor. HAR's announcement stated (via the KTRK political blog):
Gene had the best vision for where the City of Houston is headed and fully recognized the importance that real estate and homeownership play in the overall economic health of the City.And what is Locke's vision for real estate? His web site states:
Gene... will also protect neighborhoods from unwanted development and work to ensure that any new development is in harmony with current residents’ desires.Locke is no different from his two main competitors--Brown and Parker. All want to "protect" neighborhoods and appease noisy neighborhood civic groups. And HAR thinks that this will somehow be good for real estate.
Peter Brown
The "Funk Meister" is now claiming that:
Citizens are investors in Houston and we can make government invest taxpayer money wisely by:The last time that I checked, an investor has a choice as to where he invests his money. The city of Houston does not give me an option--I am forced to "invest" my money in whatever boondoggle the city government can concoct. The only honest context in which Brown can call my tax money an investment is if he is running a Ponzi scheme.
- Exercising fiscal restraint
- Establishing a Department of Neighborhoods
- Making city services and government more accessible online
- Reforming METRO
Annise Parker
Parker has unveiled her plan to improve the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (cleverly known as BARC):
If elected mayor, I will do everything within my power to make sure BARC becomes a humane and adequately funded no-kill shelter.BARC is hardly the most pressing issue facing the city. Nor is it even a proper function of the government. Since Parker also wants to spend our money more efficiently (I've yet to hear a candidate want to waste more taxpayer money), she could begin by closing down BARC. That would save taxpayers money--which I would consider quite humane--and give her more time to actually run the city instead of worrying about abandoned pets.
As the mayoral election approaches, I get more and more disgusted with the candidates. We are less than three months away from the election, and they continue to offer us little more than vague generalities about "protecting" neighborhoods, increasing government efficiencies, and similar butt kissing. It's too bad that there isn't a viable candidate who actually supports individual liberty.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Plan for Crime
Sunday's Chronicle carries a story on the four major candidates for mayor, and their positions on crime. Not surprisingly, all are opposed to crime and pledge to take actions to reduce it. Aside from that not so startling revelation, the only aspect of the article that is informative is the absolute lack of plans on the part of any of the candidates.
Sure, they all spout off vague generalities, like hiring more officers and reducing inefficiencies to pay for them, but this hardly qualifies as a plan. As a public service--which is motivated by my selfish desire to be free--I will once again put forth a specific plan to reduce violent crime in Houston.
I would agree that reducing inefficiencies is a proper step, but in a much different fashion than the candidates endorse. Perhaps the most effective way to reduce inefficiencies is within the police department itself. Houston's police are charged with enforcing myriad laws that involve voluntary, peaceful activities between consenting adults. If the measure of efficiency is the most effective use of resources, arresting individuals for actions that do not violate the rights of anyone is horribly inefficient.
I do not have solid numbers to indicate how much police effort is involved in apprehending individuals for drug offenses, prostitution, and similar "crimes", but I think it is safe to say that it is substantial. My own limited exposure to the criminal justice system indicates that more than half of all the cases involve drugs. Rather than spend valuable resources protecting individuals from their own self-destructive actions, the police should be spending their time fighting real crime.
Further savings can be achieved by de-criminalizing other activities currently regulated by the city, such as building codes, restrictions on signs, tags on taco trucks, and a myriad other ordinances that violate the rights of individuals. In each instance, significant cost savings can be achieved and the city will take important steps towards recognizing individual liberty.
Of course, such measures will not be considered by any of the mayoral candidates. They embrace the idea that government should regulate individual behavior, and only differ in the extent and specific details of that regulation.
While improving government efficiency certainly has merit, it is really a non-essential issue. If one endorses policies that violate individual rights--as all regulations do--greater efficiency simply means more effective methods for violating rights. This is hardly a goal to aspire to.
Houston's city budget is bloated, not because of inefficiencies, but because the city government is engaged in activities far beyond its proper functions. Seeking minor cost savings is no different from having a diet soda with a double-meat burger and supersized order of fries. It is a mere pretense. The few calories saved by drinking a diet soda pale in comparison to the gluttony of the food. The obese must change their behavior if they desire to lose weight and regain their health. City government must do likewise if it is to truly fight crime--it must restrict itself to protecting our rights.
As it is now, most Houstonians probably violate one law or another on a routine basis without even knowing about it. For example, even our esteemed mayor was guilty of having an unregistered bicycle. If the mayor is unaware of the law, how is the average citizen to know? And why are our police charged with enforcing such absurdities?
If the mayoral candidates truly wish to do something constructive about crime, they would do well to begin by defining it. Until they do, they will be unable to control crime and average citizens will find their most mundane activities criminalized. And that is a crime that our next mayor should address.
Sure, they all spout off vague generalities, like hiring more officers and reducing inefficiencies to pay for them, but this hardly qualifies as a plan. As a public service--which is motivated by my selfish desire to be free--I will once again put forth a specific plan to reduce violent crime in Houston.
I would agree that reducing inefficiencies is a proper step, but in a much different fashion than the candidates endorse. Perhaps the most effective way to reduce inefficiencies is within the police department itself. Houston's police are charged with enforcing myriad laws that involve voluntary, peaceful activities between consenting adults. If the measure of efficiency is the most effective use of resources, arresting individuals for actions that do not violate the rights of anyone is horribly inefficient.
I do not have solid numbers to indicate how much police effort is involved in apprehending individuals for drug offenses, prostitution, and similar "crimes", but I think it is safe to say that it is substantial. My own limited exposure to the criminal justice system indicates that more than half of all the cases involve drugs. Rather than spend valuable resources protecting individuals from their own self-destructive actions, the police should be spending their time fighting real crime.
Further savings can be achieved by de-criminalizing other activities currently regulated by the city, such as building codes, restrictions on signs, tags on taco trucks, and a myriad other ordinances that violate the rights of individuals. In each instance, significant cost savings can be achieved and the city will take important steps towards recognizing individual liberty.
Of course, such measures will not be considered by any of the mayoral candidates. They embrace the idea that government should regulate individual behavior, and only differ in the extent and specific details of that regulation.
While improving government efficiency certainly has merit, it is really a non-essential issue. If one endorses policies that violate individual rights--as all regulations do--greater efficiency simply means more effective methods for violating rights. This is hardly a goal to aspire to.
Houston's city budget is bloated, not because of inefficiencies, but because the city government is engaged in activities far beyond its proper functions. Seeking minor cost savings is no different from having a diet soda with a double-meat burger and supersized order of fries. It is a mere pretense. The few calories saved by drinking a diet soda pale in comparison to the gluttony of the food. The obese must change their behavior if they desire to lose weight and regain their health. City government must do likewise if it is to truly fight crime--it must restrict itself to protecting our rights.
As it is now, most Houstonians probably violate one law or another on a routine basis without even knowing about it. For example, even our esteemed mayor was guilty of having an unregistered bicycle. If the mayor is unaware of the law, how is the average citizen to know? And why are our police charged with enforcing such absurdities?
If the mayoral candidates truly wish to do something constructive about crime, they would do well to begin by defining it. Until they do, they will be unable to control crime and average citizens will find their most mundane activities criminalized. And that is a crime that our next mayor should address.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Flooding Us with Non-Solutions
Peter Brown has unveiled his plan to address flooding in Houston, and as would be expected, it involves the violation of property rights:
It isn't enough for Brown to limit development within the city; he now wants to expand that arbitrary power to areas outside of city limits. He wants the power to control the property of individuals who can't vote for him and have no representation on city council.
The recognition and protection of property rights is the only practical and moral solution to flooding concerns. However, Brown has thoroughly rejected property rights--as evidenced by his continual calls for restrictions on development. No matter the issue, his automatic response is more government controls and regulations.
Flooding is certainly a complex issue. The actions of one property owner can have an impact on other property owners miles away. But this complexity does not justify government controls.
The right to property means the right of use and disposal. A property owner has a moral right to use his property as he chooses, so long as he does not interfere with the mutual rights of other property owners. If I use my property in such a way that it floods another's property, I have violated his rights and I am responsible for the resulting damages.
Because flooding is a widespread issue, impacting virtually the entire city, many believe that only government can properly address the issue. Only government, it is believed, has the resources and the power to develop a regional plan. Houston's recurring flooding problems stand as testimony to the effectiveness of that approach.
If property rights were respected, this would provide a powerful incentive to use my property wisely. It would provide motivation to examine the possible consequences of developing land upstream and take appropriate precautions. But when government intervenes with controls and regulations, that responsibility is removed from the individual property owner and vested in government.
Respecting and protecting property rights would not eliminate flooding, but neither has government. While politicians, such as Peter Brown, like to crow about their concern and their innovative solutions, they continue to offer us the same failed ideas. They continue to offer more government controls and regulations, and argue that they will somehow wield the power of government more effectively.
A truly innovative solution would be freedom--the recognition and protection of individual rights. A truly innovative solution would be to remove the arbitrary dictates and prohibitions of government. Until Houstonians demand that city government recognize the moral right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, his own property, and the pursuit of his own happiness, we will continue to be flooded with non-solutions.
Unchecked development just outside the city limits is creating flooding inside Houston. We need to use the tools available to protect neighborhoods from unchecked development that isn’t bound by the standards and policies of the City of Houston. Everyone needs to play by the same set of rules if we’re going to stop flooding in every part of Houston.
It isn't enough for Brown to limit development within the city; he now wants to expand that arbitrary power to areas outside of city limits. He wants the power to control the property of individuals who can't vote for him and have no representation on city council.
The recognition and protection of property rights is the only practical and moral solution to flooding concerns. However, Brown has thoroughly rejected property rights--as evidenced by his continual calls for restrictions on development. No matter the issue, his automatic response is more government controls and regulations.
Flooding is certainly a complex issue. The actions of one property owner can have an impact on other property owners miles away. But this complexity does not justify government controls.
The right to property means the right of use and disposal. A property owner has a moral right to use his property as he chooses, so long as he does not interfere with the mutual rights of other property owners. If I use my property in such a way that it floods another's property, I have violated his rights and I am responsible for the resulting damages.
Because flooding is a widespread issue, impacting virtually the entire city, many believe that only government can properly address the issue. Only government, it is believed, has the resources and the power to develop a regional plan. Houston's recurring flooding problems stand as testimony to the effectiveness of that approach.
If property rights were respected, this would provide a powerful incentive to use my property wisely. It would provide motivation to examine the possible consequences of developing land upstream and take appropriate precautions. But when government intervenes with controls and regulations, that responsibility is removed from the individual property owner and vested in government.
Respecting and protecting property rights would not eliminate flooding, but neither has government. While politicians, such as Peter Brown, like to crow about their concern and their innovative solutions, they continue to offer us the same failed ideas. They continue to offer more government controls and regulations, and argue that they will somehow wield the power of government more effectively.
A truly innovative solution would be freedom--the recognition and protection of individual rights. A truly innovative solution would be to remove the arbitrary dictates and prohibitions of government. Until Houstonians demand that city government recognize the moral right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, his own property, and the pursuit of his own happiness, we will continue to be flooded with non-solutions.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Peter Brown's Magical See-Saw Ride
Politicians seem to think that voters have no memory. They endorse policies or programs today that often contradict what they said yesterday. Take Peter Brown for example. On his web site he states:
Brown's hypocrisy isn't limited to signs. Consider his position on land-use regulations. His web site states:
His web site previously contained a section called "Lessons from U.S. Cities". One of his lessons came from New York City, which is divided into 59 districts. His site stated:
Brown, like many politicians, is a chameleon. He endorses whatever position seems to be popular at the moment. He never stops to identify the fact that today's unprincipled pandering contradicts yesterday's appeasing conformity. In his zeal to get elected--read, be popular--Brown votes to wipe out jobs while claiming that he wants to create jobs; he erects barriers to development while claiming that he wants to streamline regulations on developers. He wants to eat our cake, and have it too. And then he wants us to bake him another cake.
This is the type of short-term, out of context thinking that gives politicians a bad name.
While licking boots out of one side of his mouth, Brown likes to crow about his "accomplishments" out of the other side. His web site claims:
For all of his touchy-feely, "civic minded" rhetoric, Peter Brown is a typical politician. He stands for nothing, except expanding government power. Certainly, he mouths platitudes to the "pro-business" crowd with talk of cutting regulations, while simultaneously appeasing the pro-land-use regulation crowd with talk of banning billboards and controlling development. Forrest Gump said of a box of chocolates-- "You never know what you will get." The same is true of Peter Brown, except you know that somewhere a gun stands behind his edicts.
Houston’s economy can’t grow if we’re simultaneously losing jobs as we add them.This is certainly true, but Brown's actions belie his words. He has been an advocate for severe restrictions on the sign industry, and in a 1988 OpEd article in the Houston Post, called billboards "a plague". Apparently, the jobs destroyed--and to be destroyed--by Brown's support of anti-sign regulations don't count. Apparently, jobs in the sign industry are expendable. If Brown truly meant what he says, he would not vote to literally erase hundreds of jobs.
Brown's hypocrisy isn't limited to signs. Consider his position on land-use regulations. His web site states:
Businesses that try to build or expand within the city limits are subject to confusing and unpredictable standards. The city must streamline the permitting process by removing obstacles and streamlining Chapter 42 into a user-friendly, cross-referenced and consolidated development code. This will provide the predictability property owners and developers want.Yet, Brown supported zoning--the most confusing and unpredictable "standards" possible--in the 1990s. More recently he has called for central planning in Houston to dictate where development occurs. Apparently, Brown believes that city mandates enforced at the point of a gun are not confusing and unpredictable.
His web site previously contained a section called "Lessons from U.S. Cities". One of his lessons came from New York City, which is divided into 59 districts. His site stated:
Categorical performance standards are set for each District. Citizens therefore have real access to their government, with direct contact and coordination among the various city agencies at the “street” or grass-roots level, where it counts.In some ways, this is even worse than central planning. Each district could have radically different standards. If implemented in Houston, developers might have to deal with dozens of different standards, but Brown would have us believe that this wouldn't be confusing and unpredictable.
Brown, like many politicians, is a chameleon. He endorses whatever position seems to be popular at the moment. He never stops to identify the fact that today's unprincipled pandering contradicts yesterday's appeasing conformity. In his zeal to get elected--read, be popular--Brown votes to wipe out jobs while claiming that he wants to create jobs; he erects barriers to development while claiming that he wants to streamline regulations on developers. He wants to eat our cake, and have it too. And then he wants us to bake him another cake.
This is the type of short-term, out of context thinking that gives politicians a bad name.
While licking boots out of one side of his mouth, Brown likes to crow about his "accomplishments" out of the other side. His web site claims:
- Saved taxpayers millions by redesigning city initiated plans for critical city-wide firehouse renovations.
- As Chairman of the Sustainable Growth Committee, saved the city over $1 million through developing the City’s first “Green Waste” recycling program, preventing over 90,000 tons of waste from filling our landfills.
- Cut $800,000 from the proposed Riverside Health Clinic renovation plan, ensuring Council action and ultimately saving the clinic from closure.
- Generated $8 million in new revenue by prompting the city to collect unenforced commercial trash hauler franchise fees.
For all of his touchy-feely, "civic minded" rhetoric, Peter Brown is a typical politician. He stands for nothing, except expanding government power. Certainly, he mouths platitudes to the "pro-business" crowd with talk of cutting regulations, while simultaneously appeasing the pro-land-use regulation crowd with talk of banning billboards and controlling development. Forrest Gump said of a box of chocolates-- "You never know what you will get." The same is true of Peter Brown, except you know that somewhere a gun stands behind his edicts.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
A Path to Destruction
If I claimed that the leading candidates for mayor in Houston--Annise Parker and Peter Brown--are fascists, most Houstonians would dismiss me as a lunatic. But I am willing to take that chance, because they are fascists and I am not a lunatic.
To begin, I will define my terms. Contrary to popular opinion, fascism is not an extreme form of capitalism, but its opposite. Fascism is a form of statism--of government control over business, property, and the lives of the citizens. As Ayn Rand wrote in "The Fascist New Frontier":
Consider that both Parker and Brown favor regulation of land-use. Brown supported zoning in the 1990s and is a fervent opponents of billboards. Parker supported the preservation ordinance and opposed the Ashby High Rise.
Neither calls for government seizure of private property--they simply want to dictate how citizens may use their property. Neither opposes the fact that citizens must pay taxes and upkeep for their property--they simply want citizens to seek government permission to use their property. Private "ownership" with government control is the defining characteristic of fascism. But ownership without control is a contradiction.
The fascist tendencies of Parker and Brown do not stop there. Brown, for example, wants more government involvement in the city's economy. He proposes creating an Economic Development Office:
Government is an agent of force, and when it plans something the citizens must obey. In the context of the economy, government economic planning means that businesses must adhere to the city's plan under threat of fines, imprisonment, or both. Brown is not content to let individual make their own plans and act accordingly. He wants an economic czar to plan Houston's economy and force every business owner to honor his edicts.
Parker is no better. She wants to build "partnerships" with the oil and gas industry to create jobs. As Ayn Rand wrote:
Parker wants to forge a "partnership" in which her word is final, in which her demands are to be obeyed or else. I should not have to point out that, when government is involved, "or else" means "go to jail".
In addition to similar ends, both politicians are using similar means--both are calling for a consensus among Houstonians. Parker calls it "engaging the community"; Brown calls it a "common vision". Both terms mean the same thing--finding a "safe", middle ground that "everyone" can agree to. Both seek to forge compromise between the various interests involved.
In principle, this is a complete rejection of principles. What compromise is possible between a banker and a thief? What compromise is possible between an advocate of property rights and an advocate of zoning? What compromise is possible between an individual who upholds his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and a statist who declares that the individual's life and property belong to the government? In truth, no compromise is possible because any concession on the part of the advocate of individual rights means a complete surrender. In this context, to give an inch literally means to give it all.
Undoubtedly, a certain type of businessman will approve of the tactics endorsed by Brown and Parker. But what of the thousands of businessmen who do not? What of the businesses that will not grovel at their feet seeking government favors? They will be thrown under the bus and sacrificed for the “public good”.
Either Parker or Brown will likely be the next mayor of Houston. The only difference between them lies in the particular groups upon which they will dispense favors. They differ in details, but not in principle. Each wants more control over our businesses, our property, and our lives. Each advocates positions that will destroy jobs, increase the cost of living, and reduce choices. Each wants to take us down a path that will ultimately lead to the destruction of all that is great about Houston.
To begin, I will define my terms. Contrary to popular opinion, fascism is not an extreme form of capitalism, but its opposite. Fascism is a form of statism--of government control over business, property, and the lives of the citizens. As Ayn Rand wrote in "The Fascist New Frontier":
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibility of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership.
Consider that both Parker and Brown favor regulation of land-use. Brown supported zoning in the 1990s and is a fervent opponents of billboards. Parker supported the preservation ordinance and opposed the Ashby High Rise.
Neither calls for government seizure of private property--they simply want to dictate how citizens may use their property. Neither opposes the fact that citizens must pay taxes and upkeep for their property--they simply want citizens to seek government permission to use their property. Private "ownership" with government control is the defining characteristic of fascism. But ownership without control is a contradiction.
The fascist tendencies of Parker and Brown do not stop there. Brown, for example, wants more government involvement in the city's economy. He proposes creating an Economic Development Office:
A General Economic Development Plan will coordinate the city's efforts in an intelligent way resulting in well-planned and predictable growth.
Government is an agent of force, and when it plans something the citizens must obey. In the context of the economy, government economic planning means that businesses must adhere to the city's plan under threat of fines, imprisonment, or both. Brown is not content to let individual make their own plans and act accordingly. He wants an economic czar to plan Houston's economy and force every business owner to honor his edicts.
Parker is no better. She wants to build "partnerships" with the oil and gas industry to create jobs. As Ayn Rand wrote:
"Partnership" is an indecent euphemism for "government control." There can be no partnership between armed bureaucrats and defenseless private citizens who have no choice but to obey.
Parker wants to forge a "partnership" in which her word is final, in which her demands are to be obeyed or else. I should not have to point out that, when government is involved, "or else" means "go to jail".
In addition to similar ends, both politicians are using similar means--both are calling for a consensus among Houstonians. Parker calls it "engaging the community"; Brown calls it a "common vision". Both terms mean the same thing--finding a "safe", middle ground that "everyone" can agree to. Both seek to forge compromise between the various interests involved.
In principle, this is a complete rejection of principles. What compromise is possible between a banker and a thief? What compromise is possible between an advocate of property rights and an advocate of zoning? What compromise is possible between an individual who upholds his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and a statist who declares that the individual's life and property belong to the government? In truth, no compromise is possible because any concession on the part of the advocate of individual rights means a complete surrender. In this context, to give an inch literally means to give it all.
Undoubtedly, a certain type of businessman will approve of the tactics endorsed by Brown and Parker. But what of the thousands of businessmen who do not? What of the businesses that will not grovel at their feet seeking government favors? They will be thrown under the bus and sacrificed for the “public good”.
Either Parker or Brown will likely be the next mayor of Houston. The only difference between them lies in the particular groups upon which they will dispense favors. They differ in details, but not in principle. Each wants more control over our businesses, our property, and our lives. Each advocates positions that will destroy jobs, increase the cost of living, and reduce choices. Each wants to take us down a path that will ultimately lead to the destruction of all that is great about Houston.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 30
Parker on Infrastructure
Mayoral candidate Annise Parker recently released a white paper on the city's infrastructure. Claiming that she will reform how the city provides roads, sanitation facilities, and bridges, she writes:
So what is her proposal for reform? She wants to create a dedicated fund for infrastructure that will remove politics from the process.
Those who are unable to think in principles may find this plausible and consider it an effort at reform. But tinkering with details is not reform--it is tinkering with details. True reform means to change the essential character of the item or issue in question.
Parker believes that a dedicated fund will remove politics from infrastructure decisions. But politicians will remain in control of the process, which means, politics will invariably be involved in one form or another. If she truly wishes to get politics out of the process, then she should advocate getting politicians out of the process. In other words, she should advocate privatizing the city's infrastructure.
Parker concludes her paper:
This is a large part of why Parker's alleged reform won't amount to anything. If "all voices are heard" on these important issues, how will she reconcile the competing and contradictory ideas she hears? The answer is quite simple: Those with the most political influence will get their way, which means, nothing will change.
Brown on Crime
Mayoral candidate Peter Brown also recently released a white paper. His addressed crime in Houston, and like Parker, he thinks that tinkering with details amounts to reform. He too is wrong.
Apparently, the way to address crime is through better relationships:
In other words, if the citizens get to know police officers, criminals will lay down their guns, quit breaking into homes, and change their ways. If we all just sit in our front yards singing Kumbaya crime will plummet.
As sweet as this may sound, it isn't the way to combat crime. The most effective method for reducing crime is to punish criminals--those who violate the rights of other individuals. And the best way to accomplish this is quit wasting time on policing strip clubs, running prostitution stings, and otherwise interfering with the voluntary, consensual activities of adults.
The Cult of Compromise
Both Parker and Brown have called for greater citizen input into the decisions made by government officials. This is a common theme among politicians, who like to posture themselves as "servants of the people". What the politicians don't tell us is--the process of greater citizen input demands that all parties compromise.
For example, if some citizens demand that billboards be outlawed, while the billboard companies want to retain their moral right to use their property, how can politicians reconcile these diametrically opposite demands? We can find the answer by looking at history--the billboard companies will accept some controls and regulations and the anti-billboard crowd will accept a reduced presence of billboards. In short, both sides compromise.
But the result is actually a complete victory for those who oppose billboards, for the billboard companies have conceded that their business, their property, their lives can be disposed of by others. The billboard companies have conceded that their rights are subject to the approval of others, and the only issue to be decided is which rights will be violated and to what extent. As we have seen, once this principle is conceded, it is only a matter of time before the statists are knocking on the door demanding more blood.
Underlying this process is the belief that developing a consensus will lead us to the truth. If enough citizens express their views, the truth will emerge out of the mish-mash of conflicting ideas. In short, while one Houstonian is probably wrong, a million Houstonians can create the truth.
Truth is not determined by a vote. Reality is not malleable to the demands of the majority. And these facts will not change, no matter how many people believe otherwise.
Mayoral candidate Annise Parker recently released a white paper on the city's infrastructure. Claiming that she will reform how the city provides roads, sanitation facilities, and bridges, she writes:
Infrastructure funding decisions are made in a yearly budget process that, even when it works well, can be intensely political. The short-term interests of politicians who can serve only six years may not coincide with the long-term planning necessary to maintain and upgrade our infrastructure.
So what is her proposal for reform? She wants to create a dedicated fund for infrastructure that will remove politics from the process.
Those who are unable to think in principles may find this plausible and consider it an effort at reform. But tinkering with details is not reform--it is tinkering with details. True reform means to change the essential character of the item or issue in question.
Parker believes that a dedicated fund will remove politics from infrastructure decisions. But politicians will remain in control of the process, which means, politics will invariably be involved in one form or another. If she truly wishes to get politics out of the process, then she should advocate getting politicians out of the process. In other words, she should advocate privatizing the city's infrastructure.
Parker concludes her paper:
Houston is the best place in America to live and raise a family. To keep it that way, we need a government that takes care of the basics – and makes sure that all voices are heard as these important decisions are made. That’s my job as your next mayor.
This is a large part of why Parker's alleged reform won't amount to anything. If "all voices are heard" on these important issues, how will she reconcile the competing and contradictory ideas she hears? The answer is quite simple: Those with the most political influence will get their way, which means, nothing will change.
Brown on Crime
Mayoral candidate Peter Brown also recently released a white paper. His addressed crime in Houston, and like Parker, he thinks that tinkering with details amounts to reform. He too is wrong.
Apparently, the way to address crime is through better relationships:
Almost half of Houston's police force is behind a desk instead of out on patrol, keeping us safe. Peter’s plan would get police officers out of downtown and into the community. Police officers will get to know our neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods will get to know their local officers, fostering relationships of trust and accountability, whether you live in Kingwood or the Third Ward.
In other words, if the citizens get to know police officers, criminals will lay down their guns, quit breaking into homes, and change their ways. If we all just sit in our front yards singing Kumbaya crime will plummet.
As sweet as this may sound, it isn't the way to combat crime. The most effective method for reducing crime is to punish criminals--those who violate the rights of other individuals. And the best way to accomplish this is quit wasting time on policing strip clubs, running prostitution stings, and otherwise interfering with the voluntary, consensual activities of adults.
The Cult of Compromise
Both Parker and Brown have called for greater citizen input into the decisions made by government officials. This is a common theme among politicians, who like to posture themselves as "servants of the people". What the politicians don't tell us is--the process of greater citizen input demands that all parties compromise.
For example, if some citizens demand that billboards be outlawed, while the billboard companies want to retain their moral right to use their property, how can politicians reconcile these diametrically opposite demands? We can find the answer by looking at history--the billboard companies will accept some controls and regulations and the anti-billboard crowd will accept a reduced presence of billboards. In short, both sides compromise.
But the result is actually a complete victory for those who oppose billboards, for the billboard companies have conceded that their business, their property, their lives can be disposed of by others. The billboard companies have conceded that their rights are subject to the approval of others, and the only issue to be decided is which rights will be violated and to what extent. As we have seen, once this principle is conceded, it is only a matter of time before the statists are knocking on the door demanding more blood.
Underlying this process is the belief that developing a consensus will lead us to the truth. If enough citizens express their views, the truth will emerge out of the mish-mash of conflicting ideas. In short, while one Houstonian is probably wrong, a million Houstonians can create the truth.
Truth is not determined by a vote. Reality is not malleable to the demands of the majority. And these facts will not change, no matter how many people believe otherwise.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mayoral Preview: Roy Morales
Of the mayoral candidates, I have been most interested in hearing Roy Morales' positions. Unfortunately, his web site had very little information until recently. The retired Air Force officer currently is a Harris County School Trustee and business owner.
His web site addresses four issues: The Economy, City Services, Public Safety, and A New Vision.
On the economy, Morales sounds similar to the other candidates:
While I completely agree with reducing the size of government, he offers no concrete plan. As far as stimulating the economy, he claims that he will attract business. But the other candidates say the same thing. None have offered any specifics, and Morales is no different.
Morales argues that his military experience will help him fight crime:
I am not convinced that top secret clearance makes one better equipped to fight crime. And I am certain that phrases like "man-made disasters" are nothing more than political pandering. Ike was a disaster; 911 was a terrorist attack. Besides, fighting terrorists is primarily a federal responsibility.
Like the other candidates, Morales wants to assure us that city services won't suffer, even in these tough economic times:
The problem isn't the leadership. The problem is that the government is doing things it shouldn't be doing. If Morales, or any candidate, truly wanted to improve services like water and trash collection it would privatize those services. If he wants to improve the permitting process, he should simply abolish it.
Morales' "New Vision" sounds a lot like stale altruism:
I certainly agree that education and hard work are important. But the only role the government should be playing in either is to get out of our way. But Morales wants to expand the mayor's role in education.
At the end of the day, Morales offers nothing new. He talks about cutting the size of government, but the absence of any specifics indicates that his reductions will be drops in the bucket. Like the other candidates, he embraces government's growing role in our lives. He just thinks that he will make a better czar.
His web site addresses four issues: The Economy, City Services, Public Safety, and A New Vision.
On the economy, Morales sounds similar to the other candidates:
I will battle the current economic crisis by stimulating our economy, reducing the size of government and providing tax relief to our families. In the first 100 days of my administration, I will begin reducing the size of government. During these difficult times, when our citizens are struggling, we at City Hall need to set an example.
While I completely agree with reducing the size of government, he offers no concrete plan. As far as stimulating the economy, he claims that he will attract business. But the other candidates say the same thing. None have offered any specifics, and Morales is no different.
Morales argues that his military experience will help him fight crime:
I’m also the only candidate that has an active SECRET clearance and has had a TOP SECRET CLEARANCE with Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program accesses. This in-depth knowledge of our enemies will significantly assist me in protecting our region from man-made disasters.
I am not convinced that top secret clearance makes one better equipped to fight crime. And I am certain that phrases like "man-made disasters" are nothing more than political pandering. Ike was a disaster; 911 was a terrorist attack. Besides, fighting terrorists is primarily a federal responsibility.
Like the other candidates, Morales wants to assure us that city services won't suffer, even in these tough economic times:
I will ensure that the city improves your day-to-day services like trash pick-up, clean drinkable water to your homes and businesses, repairing your streets, and granting building permits in a timely manner. These improvements will be made by selecting better leadership in our city departments, using more efficient and effective procedures and cutting edge technology.
The problem isn't the leadership. The problem is that the government is doing things it shouldn't be doing. If Morales, or any candidate, truly wanted to improve services like water and trash collection it would privatize those services. If he wants to improve the permitting process, he should simply abolish it.
Morales' "New Vision" sounds a lot like stale altruism:
It is time to stop talking about breaking the cycle of poverty and start doing something about it. It should be our mission in the 21st century to move our children up the ladder of success not with welfare checks or government handouts but with education and hard work.
I certainly agree that education and hard work are important. But the only role the government should be playing in either is to get out of our way. But Morales wants to expand the mayor's role in education.
At the end of the day, Morales offers nothing new. He talks about cutting the size of government, but the absence of any specifics indicates that his reductions will be drops in the bucket. Like the other candidates, he embraces government's growing role in our lives. He just thinks that he will make a better czar.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
A Tax Haven in Texas
As a part of my platform for "virtual" mayor of Houston, I previously proposed that the city cut property taxes. I called for an initial reduction of 10% in the first month, and a reduction of 50% over six years. These reductions would be financially prudent if the city got out of the sanitation and water business, sold assets, and repealed regulations that violate individual rights.
I am sure that some find such proposals impractical--how could a city as large as Houston possibly balance its budget and reduce property taxes by half? As I have said many times, if the city government were limited to its proper functions--the police and the courts--its financial requirements would be a small fraction of what they are today. Reduced taxes would also improve the economy by allowing tax payers to keep more of their money.
An article in Monday's Chronicle provides evidence that such policies actually work when applied. Stafford--a suburb of Houston--has not levied property taxes since 1995. The city of 20,000 people relies on sales and franchise taxes (these too should be reduced, but that is a different issue). While other cities are struggling financially, Stafford has managed to reduce its debt and accumulate a cash reserve of $10 million.
The absence of property taxes provides tangible benefits to property owners. Home owners have lower mortgage payments. Business owners have more money to re-invest in their business. As a result, the city is attracting new businesses and recently placed number 36 on Fortune magazine's best places to launch a business.
While Stafford is exhibiting financial prudence, Houston city council members are gorging at the public trough. A Chronicle editorial reports that council members have increased their own budgets by 3.6% for the 2010 fiscal year. This has occurred despite Mayor White's insistence that the city make "difficult choices" and re-examine all spending.
In the past, council members have often approached the end of the fiscal year with money left in their budget. Last year several council members went on shopping sprees--two took staff members to Galveston, several bought new office furniture, and a total of 22 television sets were purchased. When Mayor White spoke of "difficult choices" I doubt he meant choosing between LCD and plasma.
In the context of the city's $4 billion budget, the additional $13,331 per council member is a drop in the bucket. But the issue is not the number of dollars--council members are forcibly taking money from Houstonians so that their staff members can watch Rachel Ray and Oprah. They have no problem dictating to the citizenry how we live our lives, but they cannot exercise even a modicum of self-restraint.
I am sure that some find such proposals impractical--how could a city as large as Houston possibly balance its budget and reduce property taxes by half? As I have said many times, if the city government were limited to its proper functions--the police and the courts--its financial requirements would be a small fraction of what they are today. Reduced taxes would also improve the economy by allowing tax payers to keep more of their money.
An article in Monday's Chronicle provides evidence that such policies actually work when applied. Stafford--a suburb of Houston--has not levied property taxes since 1995. The city of 20,000 people relies on sales and franchise taxes (these too should be reduced, but that is a different issue). While other cities are struggling financially, Stafford has managed to reduce its debt and accumulate a cash reserve of $10 million.
The absence of property taxes provides tangible benefits to property owners. Home owners have lower mortgage payments. Business owners have more money to re-invest in their business. As a result, the city is attracting new businesses and recently placed number 36 on Fortune magazine's best places to launch a business.
While Stafford is exhibiting financial prudence, Houston city council members are gorging at the public trough. A Chronicle editorial reports that council members have increased their own budgets by 3.6% for the 2010 fiscal year. This has occurred despite Mayor White's insistence that the city make "difficult choices" and re-examine all spending.
In the past, council members have often approached the end of the fiscal year with money left in their budget. Last year several council members went on shopping sprees--two took staff members to Galveston, several bought new office furniture, and a total of 22 television sets were purchased. When Mayor White spoke of "difficult choices" I doubt he meant choosing between LCD and plasma.
In the context of the city's $4 billion budget, the additional $13,331 per council member is a drop in the bucket. But the issue is not the number of dollars--council members are forcibly taking money from Houstonians so that their staff members can watch Rachel Ray and Oprah. They have no problem dictating to the citizenry how we live our lives, but they cannot exercise even a modicum of self-restraint.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Private Parks: Practical and Moral
I have previously argued that the city of Houston should begin selling off assets, such as parks and libraries, in an effort to reduce spending, cut taxes, and return to its proper function of protecting individual rights. An editorial in the Chronicle last week provides some evidence regarding the practicality of such a plan.
Citing Hermann Park, Discovery Green, and the Lee and Joe Jamail Skatepark, the editorial explains how these amenities are are funded:
While urging Houstonians to lobby city council to spend more on neighborhood parks, the editorial acknowledges that police salaries and fire trucks take priority. With the city "tightening its belt", the Chronicle advocates "direct action": "Give money. Raise money. Volunteer your time."
This is all well and good, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue--the city should not be in the park business. The city should sell its parks, beginning with the neighborhood parks.
Economically, taxpayers benefit from the elimination of the costs associated with park maintenance. Those who value parks would be free to provide financial support, and those who do not will be equally free to spend their money as they choose. The editorial makes it clear that there are individuals and groups who value the parks and are willing to pay for them.
Some may fear that the parks would disappear as developers buy up the land and build town homes. There is some justification in this. But considered in its full context, and by implementing appropriate measures, such concerns can be easily addressed.
I have previously advocated selling the neighborhood parks to the home owners of the neighborhood. The "cleanest" arrangement would be for the home owners association to own and operate the park. This is currently done in many subdivisions. As a part of the sale, deed restrictions could be attached to the property so that it cannot be used for other purposes while the deed restrictions are active. When the deed restrictions lapse, the owners could then decide to renew them and retain the park, or use the property for other uses.
Such a plan provides short term protection for property owners who purchased their home because of its proximity to a park, yet allows the owners to control the use of their property without intervention from government.
Morally, individuals should not be forced to provide financial support for parks (or anything else) against their own judgment. If Jane Doe wants to have a park down the street with clean restrooms and freshly painted equipment, she should be willing to pay for it. She should not--nor does she have a right to--force taxpayers to provide her children with a place to play.
Privatizing the city's parks is both practical and moral.
Citing Hermann Park, Discovery Green, and the Lee and Joe Jamail Skatepark, the editorial explains how these amenities are are funded:
In large part, it’s Houston’s private donors. Most obviously, a check from the Jamail family launched the skate park. But just as admirable are the many members of the two conservancies that support Hermann Park and Discovery Green; they provide money for the endless extra love and care that top-notch parks require.
While urging Houstonians to lobby city council to spend more on neighborhood parks, the editorial acknowledges that police salaries and fire trucks take priority. With the city "tightening its belt", the Chronicle advocates "direct action": "Give money. Raise money. Volunteer your time."
This is all well and good, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue--the city should not be in the park business. The city should sell its parks, beginning with the neighborhood parks.
Economically, taxpayers benefit from the elimination of the costs associated with park maintenance. Those who value parks would be free to provide financial support, and those who do not will be equally free to spend their money as they choose. The editorial makes it clear that there are individuals and groups who value the parks and are willing to pay for them.
Some may fear that the parks would disappear as developers buy up the land and build town homes. There is some justification in this. But considered in its full context, and by implementing appropriate measures, such concerns can be easily addressed.
I have previously advocated selling the neighborhood parks to the home owners of the neighborhood. The "cleanest" arrangement would be for the home owners association to own and operate the park. This is currently done in many subdivisions. As a part of the sale, deed restrictions could be attached to the property so that it cannot be used for other purposes while the deed restrictions are active. When the deed restrictions lapse, the owners could then decide to renew them and retain the park, or use the property for other uses.
Such a plan provides short term protection for property owners who purchased their home because of its proximity to a park, yet allows the owners to control the use of their property without intervention from government.
Morally, individuals should not be forced to provide financial support for parks (or anything else) against their own judgment. If Jane Doe wants to have a park down the street with clean restrooms and freshly painted equipment, she should be willing to pay for it. She should not--nor does she have a right to--force taxpayers to provide her children with a place to play.
Privatizing the city's parks is both practical and moral.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
If I Were Mayor: The City Budget
Mayor White unveiled the city's budget for fiscal year 2010 on Tuesday. The mayor's introductory letter instructed city employees to "manage every single cost", which is certainly good advice. At a news conference the mayor bemoaned the fact that the $4 billion budget will not allow him to address all of his priorities:
Among the items the mayor cannot address are flood control, updates to the emergency medical system, and expanding the city's recycling program. None of these are proper functions of government. Indeed, more than 75 percent of the budget is for functions that should be provided by the private sector.
The budget for the police department will increase 2.7 percent to $675 million. The police, the courts, and administrative costs are the only functions that should be on the budget. Which means, limited to its proper function of protecting individual rights, the current budget should be less than $1 billion.
Council members and the mayor made the usual noises about tightening the city's belt and making hard choices. But the fact remains that the city should not be in the business of providing parks, libraries, "cultural services", trash collection, or a myriad other things. The budget represents business as usual.
Cutting the budget really isn't that hard. I have previously pointed out how this can be achieved--privatizing services, selling assets, and repealing laws that violate individual rights are a good starting point. Paying off the city debt would save $240 million for a savings of approximately 11.4 percent of the general fund.
Mayoral candidates talk about economic growth and make vague statements about how they will encourage business. But they continue to advocate exorbitant spending, government intervention in the economy, and programs that stifle economic activity. Freedom is the true economic stimulus.
If the mayor, or any of the candidates for that position, were truly serious about job growth and tightening the belt, they would heed my suggestions. If the city government were limited to its proper functions, Houstonians would retain more than $3 billion that will be taken from them. Economically, that money would be saved, invested, or consumed by those who earned it. And all of these involve economic activity that creates jobs and leads to economic growth.
Morally, taxpayers have a right to the money that they have earned. Confiscating money to pay for parks, libraries, "cultural services", and similar programs punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive.
The truth is, city officials want to have our cake and eat it too. They want to pretend that they care about "quality of life" and economic growth, while they simultaneously take actions that destroy both. This may sound trite, but actions speak louder than words. City officials--including mayoral candidates--want more control over the economy and our lives. They may claim otherwise, but their actions are aimed at doing precisely that.
The blame does not entirely lie with politicians. Voters and taxpayers demand and tolerate such actions. They believe that need supercedes rights, that fantasies can be fulfilled by government. Until the citizenry believes differently--which requires a philosophical revolution--an actual campaign for mayor is pointless. Until the citizenry demands freedom, they (and we) won't get it.
None of us are happy that there are any unmet needs. But in a city of this size, there will always be unmet needs.
Among the items the mayor cannot address are flood control, updates to the emergency medical system, and expanding the city's recycling program. None of these are proper functions of government. Indeed, more than 75 percent of the budget is for functions that should be provided by the private sector.
The budget for the police department will increase 2.7 percent to $675 million. The police, the courts, and administrative costs are the only functions that should be on the budget. Which means, limited to its proper function of protecting individual rights, the current budget should be less than $1 billion.
Council members and the mayor made the usual noises about tightening the city's belt and making hard choices. But the fact remains that the city should not be in the business of providing parks, libraries, "cultural services", trash collection, or a myriad other things. The budget represents business as usual.
Cutting the budget really isn't that hard. I have previously pointed out how this can be achieved--privatizing services, selling assets, and repealing laws that violate individual rights are a good starting point. Paying off the city debt would save $240 million for a savings of approximately 11.4 percent of the general fund.
Mayoral candidates talk about economic growth and make vague statements about how they will encourage business. But they continue to advocate exorbitant spending, government intervention in the economy, and programs that stifle economic activity. Freedom is the true economic stimulus.
If the mayor, or any of the candidates for that position, were truly serious about job growth and tightening the belt, they would heed my suggestions. If the city government were limited to its proper functions, Houstonians would retain more than $3 billion that will be taken from them. Economically, that money would be saved, invested, or consumed by those who earned it. And all of these involve economic activity that creates jobs and leads to economic growth.
Morally, taxpayers have a right to the money that they have earned. Confiscating money to pay for parks, libraries, "cultural services", and similar programs punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive.
The truth is, city officials want to have our cake and eat it too. They want to pretend that they care about "quality of life" and economic growth, while they simultaneously take actions that destroy both. This may sound trite, but actions speak louder than words. City officials--including mayoral candidates--want more control over the economy and our lives. They may claim otherwise, but their actions are aimed at doing precisely that.
The blame does not entirely lie with politicians. Voters and taxpayers demand and tolerate such actions. They believe that need supercedes rights, that fantasies can be fulfilled by government. Until the citizenry believes differently--which requires a philosophical revolution--an actual campaign for mayor is pointless. Until the citizenry demands freedom, they (and we) won't get it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Mayoral Preview: TJ Huntley
TJ Huntley, the latest entrant into Houston's mayoral race, has a "business plan" for the city:
I am sure that many Houstonians will find this appealing, but I am not one of them.
I certainly agree that attracting business is important for the city's long term economic growth. However, the most practical and moral means for doing so does not consist of marketing--it consists of promoting freedom.
Practically, I can only imagine the script that these telemarketers will use:
I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that telemarketing is going to be an effective means for attracting businesses to Houston.
Morally, such tactics are improper. Government's purpose is to protect our rights, not use annoying marketing methods to badger business owners to move their operations. Huntley is little different from the other mayoral candidates--he believes that city government should be actively engaged in the economy.
Regarding crime, Huntley offers a superficial solution similar to Peter Brown:
According to Huntley, crime is essentially an educational issue--our crime rate will drop if we teach children that crime is dangerous. While I would agree that education should play a role in addressing crime, the nature of that education is considerably different. Rather than running vocational programs and "crime is dangerous" classes, government should be educating by example--if you violate the rights of others you will be punished. That is the only "lesson" that the city should be teaching.
Huntley's "me-tooing" goes beyond the economy and crime. He also wants to protect the planet and expand light rail. These positions are typical among Houston's politicians, and they are unprincipled pandering. He continues this trend when he writes about zoning:
When government "encourages" certain actions, it can only mean a carrot and stick approach. It means granting unearned benefits to some, punishing others, or both. It means using tax money to bribe individuals to act as government desires, prohibiting actions government dislikes, or both.
It would be easy to conclude that TJ Huntley offers nothing new in the mayor's race. But alas, that is not the case. His web site tell us that:
While acknowledging that the mayor can have little, if any, impact on these issues, Huntley promises to "promote honorable morals". He makes it very clear that he would use the mayor's office to promote Christianity. He may dispute my claim, but if he seeks to make Houston great--which he does--and greatness can only be achieved "under the hand of God", his meaning is beyond question.
It is bad enough that Huntley promotes the same tired ideas as the other mayoral candidates. That he also wants to promote his religious beliefs puts him at the bottom of the list.
We will create a panel of telemarketers that will be trained and employed specifically for the purpose of attracting businesses. They will possess the necessary sales skills to ensure the largest possible business growth. In addition to his Business Growth Plan, TJ Huntley is creating a plan to aid the citizens of Houston in starting their own business. These two plans will work hand in hand to achieve short and long term economic growth.
I am sure that many Houstonians will find this appealing, but I am not one of them.
I certainly agree that attracting business is important for the city's long term economic growth. However, the most practical and moral means for doing so does not consist of marketing--it consists of promoting freedom.
Practically, I can only imagine the script that these telemarketers will use:
Good morning Mr. Gates. How is the weather in Seattle? I am calling today because your company is eligible for a special program being offered by the City of Houston. Because of the reputation of your company, we are prepared to offer seven years of tax rebates if you move your headquarters to Houston. We don't make such offers to everyone, and you should feel honored that we have placed your company has such an elite status. And if you sign up today, we will also give your company exclusive use of Discovery Green for an entire day.
I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that telemarketing is going to be an effective means for attracting businesses to Houston.
Morally, such tactics are improper. Government's purpose is to protect our rights, not use annoying marketing methods to badger business owners to move their operations. Huntley is little different from the other mayoral candidates--he believes that city government should be actively engaged in the economy.
Regarding crime, Huntley offers a superficial solution similar to Peter Brown:
TJ Huntley plans to stop crime at the root by investing in our children and future generations. Various programs are offered throughout Houston that educate children about the dangers of crime and encourage them to live an appropriate lifestyle. Through support of these organizations we can help keep children and teens off our city streets and in safe habitable conditions.
According to Huntley, crime is essentially an educational issue--our crime rate will drop if we teach children that crime is dangerous. While I would agree that education should play a role in addressing crime, the nature of that education is considerably different. Rather than running vocational programs and "crime is dangerous" classes, government should be educating by example--if you violate the rights of others you will be punished. That is the only "lesson" that the city should be teaching.
Huntley's "me-tooing" goes beyond the economy and crime. He also wants to protect the planet and expand light rail. These positions are typical among Houston's politicians, and they are unprincipled pandering. He continues this trend when he writes about zoning:
We will work with real estate developers and encourage them to invest in these poorly constructed neighborhoods, giving the residents and their neighbors a better lifestyle.
When government "encourages" certain actions, it can only mean a carrot and stick approach. It means granting unearned benefits to some, punishing others, or both. It means using tax money to bribe individuals to act as government desires, prohibiting actions government dislikes, or both.
It would be easy to conclude that TJ Huntley offers nothing new in the mayor's race. But alas, that is not the case. His web site tell us that:
He is a strong advocate for pro-life, is passionately dedicated to the rights of the unborn, and believes that marriage should only take place between a man and a woman. Like our Founding Fathers, TJ does not support a state sanctioned or required religion but believes our nation can only achieve greatness under the hand of God.
While acknowledging that the mayor can have little, if any, impact on these issues, Huntley promises to "promote honorable morals". He makes it very clear that he would use the mayor's office to promote Christianity. He may dispute my claim, but if he seeks to make Houston great--which he does--and greatness can only be achieved "under the hand of God", his meaning is beyond question.
It is bad enough that Huntley promotes the same tired ideas as the other mayoral candidates. That he also wants to promote his religious beliefs puts him at the bottom of the list.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Funky, But Chic
On Saturday I wrote about Peter Brown's endorsement by George Clinton, aka "The Godfather of Funk". A Brown supporter responded to my post, pointing out that Brown has spoken to the Houston Property Rights Association on multiple occasions:
This is a common approach among politicians. They will "listen" to anyone, and then "agree to disagree". They treat opposing views as a matter of opinion, and every opinion as equally valid. The truth is, my disagreement with Brown is at fundamental level and our views are diametrically opposed.
I hold that individual rights, including property rights, are sacrosanct and cannot be violated for any reason. Brown rejects individual rights and treats them as a minor obstacle that must be overcome in pursuing his "common vision". As a few examples, he supports restrictions on billboards and supported zoning in the 1990s. This is not a minor disagreement--this goes to the very core of our view of man, morality, and politics.
Brown's reaching out to the funk crowd is certainly not unusual. Politicians often try to build a "big tent" under which individuals with widely different ideas can feel comfortable. They try to throw enough crumbs to enough people that they can get the votes needed to win election. But what they, and their supporters, do not understand is that they cannot be all things to all people. In the end, they must pander to their core constituency.
For example, what will happen when Brown must choose between protecting property rights and billboards? How will he respond when some noisy gang wants to stop a development project? Brown has made it clear--time after time--that he is willing to use government coercion to stop land uses he does not favor.
I have previously pointed out that the ideas offered by Brown do not differ in any essential way from those of his chief opponent--Annise Parker. Both are offering the same conventional ideas.
Since Brown is playing to the funk crowd, I would suggest something really funky. (One definition for funky is "Characterized by originality and modishness; unconventional".) I would suggest that Brown defend individual rights, including property rights. This would certainly be unconventional, and it would distinguish him from Parker.
Such a position would have broad appeal--individual rights apply to all individuals. Brown would not have to choose between his constituencies--there are no conflicts between the rights of individuals. And in ushering in a new era of freedom, not only would Brown be funky, he'd be funky, but chic. He might even get an endorsement from David Johansen.
I merely wanted to point out that Peter has listened to property rights groups and answered their questions. Just because he doesn't always share your views does not mean he has avoided hearing them. [punctuation and capitalization corrected]
This is a common approach among politicians. They will "listen" to anyone, and then "agree to disagree". They treat opposing views as a matter of opinion, and every opinion as equally valid. The truth is, my disagreement with Brown is at fundamental level and our views are diametrically opposed.
I hold that individual rights, including property rights, are sacrosanct and cannot be violated for any reason. Brown rejects individual rights and treats them as a minor obstacle that must be overcome in pursuing his "common vision". As a few examples, he supports restrictions on billboards and supported zoning in the 1990s. This is not a minor disagreement--this goes to the very core of our view of man, morality, and politics.
Brown's reaching out to the funk crowd is certainly not unusual. Politicians often try to build a "big tent" under which individuals with widely different ideas can feel comfortable. They try to throw enough crumbs to enough people that they can get the votes needed to win election. But what they, and their supporters, do not understand is that they cannot be all things to all people. In the end, they must pander to their core constituency.
For example, what will happen when Brown must choose between protecting property rights and billboards? How will he respond when some noisy gang wants to stop a development project? Brown has made it clear--time after time--that he is willing to use government coercion to stop land uses he does not favor.
I have previously pointed out that the ideas offered by Brown do not differ in any essential way from those of his chief opponent--Annise Parker. Both are offering the same conventional ideas.
Since Brown is playing to the funk crowd, I would suggest something really funky. (One definition for funky is "Characterized by originality and modishness; unconventional".) I would suggest that Brown defend individual rights, including property rights. This would certainly be unconventional, and it would distinguish him from Parker.
Such a position would have broad appeal--individual rights apply to all individuals. Brown would not have to choose between his constituencies--there are no conflicts between the rights of individuals. And in ushering in a new era of freedom, not only would Brown be funky, he'd be funky, but chic. He might even get an endorsement from David Johansen.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 24
Happy Birthday Live Oaks
I began this blog one year ago today. My initial goal was to build a library of literature defending property rights in Houston. Somewhat to my surprise, Mayor White, city council, and many others have provided an abundance of topics to address. It has been an interesting and fun year, and I look forward to many more.
I'd like to thank all of my readers for your comments, suggestions, and support.
Another Medal for Houston
Forbes Magazine recently announced that the Houston area is home to 29 Fortune 500 companies, second only to New York City. (HT: Houston Strategies) Texas continues to lead the nation, with 64 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state. The state also continues to be an economic powerhouse, landing the magazine's top five large metropolitan areas for job growth--Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Ft. Worth, and Dallas.
Advocates of liberty know that economic prosperity is the practical consequence of freedom. Unfortunately, our legislators haven't made that connection and are doing their damnedest to emulate the statist policies of California and the Northeast. If they are successful, we will wind up with the same economic results.
Hey Mayor, Look Here
Mayor White has ordered department heads to find ways to cut expenses, according to the KTRK political blog. White is willing to bring in an outside consultant to find savings:
All he had to do was ask me. I have already pointed out how the city could save nearly $100 million:
I began this blog one year ago today. My initial goal was to build a library of literature defending property rights in Houston. Somewhat to my surprise, Mayor White, city council, and many others have provided an abundance of topics to address. It has been an interesting and fun year, and I look forward to many more.
I'd like to thank all of my readers for your comments, suggestions, and support.
Another Medal for Houston
Forbes Magazine recently announced that the Houston area is home to 29 Fortune 500 companies, second only to New York City. (HT: Houston Strategies) Texas continues to lead the nation, with 64 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state. The state also continues to be an economic powerhouse, landing the magazine's top five large metropolitan areas for job growth--Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Ft. Worth, and Dallas.
Advocates of liberty know that economic prosperity is the practical consequence of freedom. Unfortunately, our legislators haven't made that connection and are doing their damnedest to emulate the statist policies of California and the Northeast. If they are successful, we will wind up with the same economic results.
Hey Mayor, Look Here
Mayor White has ordered department heads to find ways to cut expenses, according to the KTRK political blog. White is willing to bring in an outside consultant to find savings:
If I can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get millions of dollars of efficiency, I'm willing to do it.
All he had to do was ask me. I have already pointed out how the city could save nearly $100 million:
More than $60 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating building inspections and similar functions. Building codes, regulations controlling occupancy of residential and commercial buildings, and similar ordinances violate the rights of individuals to use their property as they choose.The good news for the mayor is that this advice won't cost him a penny--I am offering it for free.
Save $5 million by eliminating sign administration. Ordinances regulating and controlling billboards and signs violate the rights of individuals to use their property as they choose.
Nearly $10 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating the Mobility Response Team. Clearing roadways is not a proper function of government.
Eliminate the Planning and Development Department and save $9 million. Planning and development are not government functions and should be left to the discretion of private individuals.
Privatize solid waste collection over a four year period. This will translate to a savings of about $19 million each year.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Pandering Politicians and Principles
On Wednesday I wrote about two local politicians--Anne Clutterbuck and Annise Parker--and their pandering to constituents. Both have expressed support for HB 3709, which will revoke some of the Texas Medical Center's (TMC) eminent domain powers. I concluded:
A reader responded to my post, pointing out:
I will stand corrected--I had written that the bill would strip "most" of the TMC's eminent domain powers. But whether it is "most" or "some" is not the point. Indeed, the situation is worse--both Clutterbuck and Parker are less principled--than I originally thought.
In a letter to the Chair of the Committee on Land and Resource Management, Parker expressed concern that TMC's eminent domain powers threatened "individual property rights". Parker is correct. But the property rights of commercial property owners are also threatened, and I haven't seen a peep out of Parker or Clutterbuck in regard to protecting those property owners.
If TMC's eminent domain powers are a threat to property rights, then those powers are a threat to the rights of all adjacent property owners, not just those with residential property. The truth is, despite any talk about creating jobs or improving our economy, politicians are willing to sacrifice other businesses to the city's largest employer. They are willing to allow TMC to condemn commercial property and close businesses.
This is nothing but political pandering. TMC undoubtedly has more political pull than the businesses threatened with condemnation. Similarly, the homeowners in the nearby neighborhoods form a voting bloc that dwarfs that of the business owners. So politicians can play to both TMC and the home owners, and the business owners become victims in these shenanigans.
Like most politicians, Parker and Clutterbuck present themselves as principled individuals. In truth, they are devoid of political principles. They deal with each situation on a "case by case" basis and engage in verbal gymnastics to justify their hypocrisy. They will assail the property rights of one individual while feigning support for the property rights of another.
A reader responded to my post, pointing out:
The bill repeals ONLY the power to condemn single family homes, defined in a way that reflects the antiquated but still-prevailing development patterns of Houston's surviving pre-WWII neighborhoods.
In fact, there remains an unlimited supply of non-residential property adjacent to the north, east, south, and southwest of the Medical Center. All of the condemnations by TMC Inc since 1959 have been of business and commercial properties, so it is clearly incorrect to say the bill "strips most of its eminent domain powers."
I will stand corrected--I had written that the bill would strip "most" of the TMC's eminent domain powers. But whether it is "most" or "some" is not the point. Indeed, the situation is worse--both Clutterbuck and Parker are less principled--than I originally thought.
In a letter to the Chair of the Committee on Land and Resource Management, Parker expressed concern that TMC's eminent domain powers threatened "individual property rights". Parker is correct. But the property rights of commercial property owners are also threatened, and I haven't seen a peep out of Parker or Clutterbuck in regard to protecting those property owners.
If TMC's eminent domain powers are a threat to property rights, then those powers are a threat to the rights of all adjacent property owners, not just those with residential property. The truth is, despite any talk about creating jobs or improving our economy, politicians are willing to sacrifice other businesses to the city's largest employer. They are willing to allow TMC to condemn commercial property and close businesses.
This is nothing but political pandering. TMC undoubtedly has more political pull than the businesses threatened with condemnation. Similarly, the homeowners in the nearby neighborhoods form a voting bloc that dwarfs that of the business owners. So politicians can play to both TMC and the home owners, and the business owners become victims in these shenanigans.
A principled individual does not make distinctions on the basis of non-essentials. The use of a particular piece of property does not determine the rights of the owner. All individuals possess the same rights. In regard to property, ownership means the right of use and disposal--the right to use one's property as one chooses, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others.
But Parker and Clutterbuck believe that homeowners possess rights that are superior to commercial property owners. Both have opposed the Ashby High Rise (a commercial project) in favor of "protecting neighborhoods". Again, the homeowners have more political muscle than the developers of Ashby.
Pandering to homeowners has been a tactic used by Houston's politicians for decades. Politicians can show how much they care by vowing to "protect neighborhoods". They have promoted ordinance after ordinance as a means to "stabilize" the character of a neighborhood. They have even had the audacity to proclaim that their coercive tactics protect property rights, even as they violate the property rights of all Houstonians.
Such positions may help politicians win elections, as they exchange political favors for votes. They take the "easy" path, abandoning principles for political expediency.
Houston, and America, needs a new species of politician. We need politicians who hold rational principles and possess the integrity to uphold those principles, even when it means telling constituents "no". We need politicians who protect the rights of all individuals. We need politicians who do not regard individuals as pawns to be sacrificed to the "public welfare" or the "common good". And we will get such politicians when we, as individuals, embrace those ideals.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Footsies and Other Political Games
There are countless examples of government intervention in the economy creating unintended consequences. Invariably these results lead to further government interventions in a futile effort to correct the problems created by the initial intervention. As a case in point, consider Discovery Green--the park in downtown Houston that was built with a combination of public and private money.
Land around the park has soared in price, and now costs between $200 and $300 per square foot. Less than 1 mile east of the park, land is selling for only $60 per square foot. While the park has added another feature to downtown, it has also distorted land values in the area. The city wants more hotel rooms downtown in an effort to attract conventions, but the high cost of land makes such projects unfeasible. The city finds this unacceptable, and now plans to offer nearly $10 million in tax rebates to Embassy Suites to build a 262 room hotel.
The city had two conflicting goals--increasing park space downtown and also increasing hotel rooms--and neither are proper functions of government. In pursuing the first goal the city made the second goal more difficult, and found itself needing to offerbribes tax rebates.
I am sure that city officials would argue that additional downtown hotel rooms will be good for the city. We can attract more conventions and the millions of dollars that they bring to the local economy. Construction on the project will create jobs. And the city will eventually reap scads of tax dollars. This may be true, but what other distortions will this scheme create? And what about those who do not receive these cushy political favors?
MayorGreen White has taken it upon himself to transform Houston into his image of what the city should be. He wants Houston to be a world-class city and thinks that we need a downtown park, lots of hotel rooms, light rail, and green building codes in order to rate such a designation.
But I have news for our dear mayor--Houston is a world-class city and it has nothing to do with dog walks, model trains, or funny looking light bulbs. It has to do with freedom and the right of individuals to live their lives as they choose. It has to do with the affordable housing and lower cost of living that results when government stays out of our lives. It has to do with a healthy economy and expanding job market.
Houston's success as an economic powerhouse was achieved despite the lack of feel-good, politically correct programs being touted by the mayor. Houston attracts conventions, but not the kind the mayor wants to attract. Houston businessmen create jobs, but they aren't green enough for White. And when White is unhappy with the decisions that private individuals make, he is more than willing to use a combination of incentives and punishments to get the desired actions.
For example, if he doesn't like your proposed multi-use project, he will use whatever means available to him to stop it. This might include revoking permits that have already been issued, or pressing for a new ordinance aimed specifically at your project, or some other nefarious tactic. If however, he likes your project he may grant you tax breaks or some other political favor.
White continues to play these political games, and he will continue to get unintended consequences. He will distort the market in an attempt to mold the city into his vision, and then he (or future city officials) will deal with those distortions through further interventions.
If White were omniscient and infallible, then his interventions might be somewhat excusable. But he isn't and they aren't. His interventions are violating the rights of all Houstonians, and setting the city on a course that will greatly undermine our freedom and our economic prosperity.
Land around the park has soared in price, and now costs between $200 and $300 per square foot. Less than 1 mile east of the park, land is selling for only $60 per square foot. While the park has added another feature to downtown, it has also distorted land values in the area. The city wants more hotel rooms downtown in an effort to attract conventions, but the high cost of land makes such projects unfeasible. The city finds this unacceptable, and now plans to offer nearly $10 million in tax rebates to Embassy Suites to build a 262 room hotel.
The city had two conflicting goals--increasing park space downtown and also increasing hotel rooms--and neither are proper functions of government. In pursuing the first goal the city made the second goal more difficult, and found itself needing to offer
I am sure that city officials would argue that additional downtown hotel rooms will be good for the city. We can attract more conventions and the millions of dollars that they bring to the local economy. Construction on the project will create jobs. And the city will eventually reap scads of tax dollars. This may be true, but what other distortions will this scheme create? And what about those who do not receive these cushy political favors?
Mayor
But I have news for our dear mayor--Houston is a world-class city and it has nothing to do with dog walks, model trains, or funny looking light bulbs. It has to do with freedom and the right of individuals to live their lives as they choose. It has to do with the affordable housing and lower cost of living that results when government stays out of our lives. It has to do with a healthy economy and expanding job market.
Houston's success as an economic powerhouse was achieved despite the lack of feel-good, politically correct programs being touted by the mayor. Houston attracts conventions, but not the kind the mayor wants to attract. Houston businessmen create jobs, but they aren't green enough for White. And when White is unhappy with the decisions that private individuals make, he is more than willing to use a combination of incentives and punishments to get the desired actions.
For example, if he doesn't like your proposed multi-use project, he will use whatever means available to him to stop it. This might include revoking permits that have already been issued, or pressing for a new ordinance aimed specifically at your project, or some other nefarious tactic. If however, he likes your project he may grant you tax breaks or some other political favor.
White continues to play these political games, and he will continue to get unintended consequences. He will distort the market in an attempt to mold the city into his vision, and then he (or future city officials) will deal with those distortions through further interventions.
If White were omniscient and infallible, then his interventions might be somewhat excusable. But he isn't and they aren't. His interventions are violating the rights of all Houstonians, and setting the city on a course that will greatly undermine our freedom and our economic prosperity.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Eminent Domain in the Medical Center
I previously wrote about the use of eminent domain by the Texas Medical Center to seize land for an expansion. Now, the Texas legislature is considering a bill that will strip Houston's largest employer of most of its eminent domain powers. While this is certainly a good step, several local politicians are using HB 3709 to engage in political grandstanding.
Council member Anne Clutterbuck supports the measure because it will "protect" the nearby neighborhoods. Clutterbuck also used the "protection" argument in opposing the Ashby High Rise. Apparently, "protecting" neighborhoods is more important to Clutterbuck than protecting property rights.
Clutterbuck considers it wrong for the Medical Center to condemn homes, but it is not wrong for the city to erect arbitrary barriers to the construction of Ashby. Eminent domain is wrong because it initiates force and compels individuals to act contrary to their own judgment. The city's opposition to Ashby does exactly the same thing. Clutterbuck might attempt to justify her hypocrisy by arguing that in both instances she is working to "protect" neighborhoods, and therefore her position is consistent.
Such an argument is based on the premise that groups possess rights separate and distinct from the individuals comprising it. Such an argument holds that the group--the neighborhood--can violate the rights of other property owners.
Clutterbuck is hardly alone in taking such a stand. Annise Parker has also jumped into the fray. In a letter to Representative Dennis Bonnen, Chair of the Committee on Land and Resource Management, Parker wrote:
Parker, who also opposes the Ashby High Rise and supports preservation ordinances, obviously does not see such positions as a threat to "individual property rights". Apparently, it is acceptable for the city to use force against citizens, but unacceptable if a "private venture" does so. The truth is, the initiation of force is always immoral, and the number of individuals supporting its use does not change that fact.
The right to property is the right of use and disposal. It means that the owner can use his property as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual right of others. Eminent domain, preservation ordinances, and the city's efforts to stop Ashby all prevent the respective property owners from acting in accordance with their judgment. Yet, neither Parker nor Clutterbuck sees this as a problem. Their mantra is "protect neighborhoods", and if they have to use a concept like "property rights" then so be it. But to them, "property rights" is a floating concept--they are unable to connect it to concrete situations.
Like most politicians, Parker and Clutterbuck present themselves as principled individuals. In truth, they are devoid of political principles. They deal with each situation on a "case by case" basis and engage in verbal gymnastics to justify their hypocrisy. They will assail the property rights of one individual while feigning support for the property rights of another.
A truly principled politician would not pander to noisy constituents. He would support and protect the rights of all individuals. A truly principled politician would be just like me.
Council member Anne Clutterbuck supports the measure because it will "protect" the nearby neighborhoods. Clutterbuck also used the "protection" argument in opposing the Ashby High Rise. Apparently, "protecting" neighborhoods is more important to Clutterbuck than protecting property rights.
Clutterbuck considers it wrong for the Medical Center to condemn homes, but it is not wrong for the city to erect arbitrary barriers to the construction of Ashby. Eminent domain is wrong because it initiates force and compels individuals to act contrary to their own judgment. The city's opposition to Ashby does exactly the same thing. Clutterbuck might attempt to justify her hypocrisy by arguing that in both instances she is working to "protect" neighborhoods, and therefore her position is consistent.
Such an argument is based on the premise that groups possess rights separate and distinct from the individuals comprising it. Such an argument holds that the group--the neighborhood--can violate the rights of other property owners.
Clutterbuck is hardly alone in taking such a stand. Annise Parker has also jumped into the fray. In a letter to Representative Dennis Bonnen, Chair of the Committee on Land and Resource Management, Parker wrote:
Allowing the TMC, or any other private venture, special authority to condemn property and override these deed restrictions threatens quality of life, neighborhood stability and individual property rights.
Parker, who also opposes the Ashby High Rise and supports preservation ordinances, obviously does not see such positions as a threat to "individual property rights". Apparently, it is acceptable for the city to use force against citizens, but unacceptable if a "private venture" does so. The truth is, the initiation of force is always immoral, and the number of individuals supporting its use does not change that fact.
The right to property is the right of use and disposal. It means that the owner can use his property as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual right of others. Eminent domain, preservation ordinances, and the city's efforts to stop Ashby all prevent the respective property owners from acting in accordance with their judgment. Yet, neither Parker nor Clutterbuck sees this as a problem. Their mantra is "protect neighborhoods", and if they have to use a concept like "property rights" then so be it. But to them, "property rights" is a floating concept--they are unable to connect it to concrete situations.
Like most politicians, Parker and Clutterbuck present themselves as principled individuals. In truth, they are devoid of political principles. They deal with each situation on a "case by case" basis and engage in verbal gymnastics to justify their hypocrisy. They will assail the property rights of one individual while feigning support for the property rights of another.
A truly principled politician would not pander to noisy constituents. He would support and protect the rights of all individuals. A truly principled politician would be just like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
