"Obama Phones" and Altruism

On Monday several conservative talk show hosts were in a tizzy over a "new" program from Obama. According to these talking heads, Obama is now using tax money to provide free cell phones to welfare recipients. KTRH radio reports the following:

Low income Americans may have new rights under an old federal program. Welfare recipients and those who meet certain income requirements will be able to get a cell phone and free minutes through a modified federal program. David Williams with Citizens Against Government Waste is outraged. "Right now, it looks like it's being completely government funded."

This would be an outrage, if it were true. But it isn't, at least as it is being presented by the talk show hosts. And it would be rather easy for them to discover this fact. The program, which was mandated by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is funded by telecommunications companies. From the FCC web site:

All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies, and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

Of course, these "contributions" are extracted at the point of a gun, and amount to a tax on telecommunications providers. Unless...

Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge.

Whether a company recovers the "universal service" as a line item or build it into their pricing structure, the fact remains that consumers are paying this fee. And since this "fee" is imposed by the government, for all intents and purposes it is a tax, albeit a hidden tax.

I can only speculate as to the reason conservatives are presenting this in the manner they are. (The extension of the program to cell phones is new, but that is merely a detail.) My suspicion is that they see it as another opportunity to malign Obama, though there is already no shortage of such opportunities. Regardless of their motivation, they are ignoring the real issue. Host Michael Berry asked his listeners:

Is being wireless a want or a need?

Apparently, if cell phones are a "want" they Berry has a problem with this program. But if cell phones are a "need" then it is a different issue. We should provide for "needs" but not for "wants". And this is the heart of the issue.

According to altruism--which conservatives embrace as eagerly as liberals--one man's need is a claim on others. If one man has a need, others are responsible for providing that need. This is true in regard to food, shelter, health care, and cell phones. Refusing to question altruism, conservatives can only whine that cell phones are not a need.

So long as they refuse to question altruism conservatives will remain powerless to stop the growth of government. They can only argue that a particular program goes "too far" or a particular claim is not truly a need. They cannot defend individual liberty on moral grounds, because they have ceded morality to their opponents.

The issue is not whether cell phones are a need or a want. The issue is that such programs violate individual rights by forcing individuals to act contrary to their own rational judgment.

Until conservatives reject altruism they cannot defend individual rights. Until they reject the premise that the individual must live in service to others, they cannot defend the moral right of the individual to pursue his own values and interests. Until they reject altruism, they will remain accessories to the crime.

Individual Rights and The Houston Tea Party Society

To date I have been an avid supporter of the Houston Tea Party Society (HTPS). I attended an organizational meeting and have participated in two tea parties in Houston.

At the organizational meeting I expressed concern that the tea party movement would become irrelevant if it did not explicitly embrace individual rights. Without this unifying principle, the movement would become nothing more than a collection of interest groups, each promoting some specific cause under the banner of "liberty".

It appears that HTPS has not taken my advice. Their web site states:

We’re not contained by any particular ideology or party, but strive to be a pluralistic and populist movement committed to Liberty, especially economic liberty.

This might sound appealing to those who are disgusted by politicians in both parties. However, its deeper meaning is very troubling. "[Un]contained by any particular ideology" really means not guided by any particular principles. It can be appropriate for an ad hoc movement such as HTPS to include individuals who do not necessarily agree on every issue. But without a unifying principle there is no unity--there is only a collection of individuals rallying against a common enemy.

HTPS might claim that its unifying principle is "liberty". But what does this mean? Some claim that "liberty" means a government that responds to the "will of the people". Others claim that "liberty" means an absence of government. Still others claim that "liberty" means limited government--but limited to what? Each of these has entirely different meanings, and leads to vastly different results.

With no point of central agreement--other than the undefined "liberty"--anyone with a bone to pick with the government is perceived as an ally. But the truth is, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my ally.

For example, the "will of the people" means unlimited majority rule--that the majority may do as it pleases simply because it is the majority. This is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses, which is no friendlier to liberty than a tyranny of Washington bureaucrats. An absence of government is anarchy, which means gang warfare. This too is inimical to liberty.

Liberty--or freedom--means an absence of coercion. It means that each individual has the right to act according to his own judgment, free from interference from others (so long as he respects their mutual rights). Government's only legitimate purpose is the protection of this right. This is the proper meaning of "limited government"--government limited to the protection of individual rights.

HTPS should reconsider its position of being "[un]contained by any particular ideology". It should require that anyone who wishes to operate under the HTPS umbrella embrace the principle of individual rights. For while individuals may disagree on many issues, if they agree on that principle, they can work together and deliver a unified message. The principle of individual rights is not a "particular ideology", but the recognition that each individual should be free to think and act according to his ideology. (Again, he must respect the mutual rights of others to do the same.)

If the tea party movement is to remain relevant it must do more than fight against expanding government. It must fight for something. It must fight for the inviolate moral right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, his own property, and the pursuit of his own happiness.

Buckhead's Sanction

Sunday's Chronicle contained an OpEd article from Kevin Kirton, one of the principals of Buckhead Investment Partners. (Buckhead is the developer of the project at 1717 Bissonnet, which I and others have referred to as the "Ashby High Rise".) The article demonstrates precisely what I argued against in last week's open letter to Kevin and his partner--the sanction of the victim.

In the article, Kevin calls for "predictable rules" governing development in Houston, and points out that the city presently has such rules. The problem is, he argues, is that those rules are applied unfairly and unevenly. I would agree that developers, and indeed all businessmen, need objective rules under which to operate. However, the very nature of the rules to which Kevin refers cannot be applied fairly, evenly, and objectively.

The principle underlying those rules is that government has a "right" to regulate the actions of developers, that developers may act only with the permission of city officials. The developer's actions then, are not determined by his judgment, but by that of city bureaucrats. As evidence, consider Kevin's own words:

Here's some background. We finally received initial approval after 11 attempts, which were necessary because the city wanted a result that was unattainable without arbitrarily applying the existing rules. After first determining that traffic was the only potential regulatory mechanism, the city eventually contrived a “trip number” that was totally unsupported by any nationally recognized traffic engineering standards.

Having ceded to the city the "right" to determine what standards must be met, Kevin can only complain when those standards are arbitrary. Having accepted the premise that he must first secure government permission to build, he can only complain that the verdict is unfair or uneven. He cannot complain that it is morally wrong--which it is.

Kevin claims that the city ignored its own rules because of "a few influential constituents." Certainly, political considerations have played a significant role in the city's opposition to his project. But this shouldn't come as a surprise.

City officials do not operate in a vacuum. Eager to secure votes they exchange political favors for campaign support. And if government has the "right" to regulate and dictate to businesses, they will ultimately do the bidding of their constituents. Just ask Spec's Liquor or the sign industry.

City officials will justify their mandates and prohibitions on the grounds of the "public welfare" or the "common good" or something similar. But the public does not speak with one voice (as the Ashby project amply demonstrates) and city officials must decide whose voice they will follow. And despite their claims, they will typically be guided by political expediency--by the loudest, most persistent voice (as the Ashby project amply demonstrates).

The only moral and practical solution is to recognize and protect property rights, completely, consistently, and without exception. This is the only truly objective, fair, and predictable rule that is possible or necessary.

When property rights are recognized and protected, issues such as Ashby simply do not occur. "Influential constituents" cannot lobby government officials for special favors or laws directed at one individual because government officials cannot violate the property rights of citizens. Government officials cannot establish arbitrary standards for using one's property--property rights sanction one's freedom to act without government permission.

If Kevin truly wants predictable rules for development, he should call for the city to recognize and protect his property rights. Anything less leaves him and his partner vulnerable to further controls and arbitrary standards from the city.