David Crossley is Smarter than You

David Crossley, of Houston Tomorrow (HT), demonstrates what happens when one drops context in an attempt to promote a political agenda:

Standard of living is basically about stuff and working hard to get it, while quality of life is about human thriving with vitality and contentedness. It just seems totally rational that an individual’s top priority should be the quality of his or her life followed by the quality of life of family and friends. In fact, it’s rational to want everybody to have a high quality of life.

For me the biggest leap forward toward sustainable societies would be if entities in the Houston region, the US, and the world set improving the quality of life as their top priority. Job creation and economic development will follow, but it would be much more about ‘better’ than about ‘more.’

Taken out of context, this might seem plausible. It is certainly possible to have a high standard of living and live a miserable life. The endless parade of celebrities making a mess of their lives provides ample evidence of this. However, taken out of context, just about anything might seem plausible.

For example, Crossley states that "it’s rational to want everybody to have a high quality of life." Since I am not a misanthrope, I have no problem with others enjoying a high quality of life. Nor do I view the quality of life enjoyed by others as a threat to the quality of my life. But why should I care about his quality of life, or vice versa? Why should I, or anyone, care about the quality of life of strangers? And perhaps more importantly, what would this mean in terms of our own individual lives--how should we manifest this "care"?

We don't have to look very far to find the answers. HT advocates, among other things, "smart growth" and "public transit". On both of these issues--and many others--HT advocates the use of government coercion to achieve what it regards as "rational" ends. To HT, compelling you to act contrary to your own judgment is ultimately for your own good. As an example, see an article on their web site titled "Transit tax saves you money". In other words, you aren't smart enough to make such decisions on your own, nor is HT able to present an argument strong enough to convince you to act voluntarily. Instead, government must force you to act.

This is how Crossley believes that a high quality of life can be achieved. This, he believes, is rational.

But force is the antithesis of reason and the use of one's rational faculty. Force negates reason, rendering one's own judgment irrelevant. If you conclude that your money is best spent on a private automobile, Crossley doesn't care--he knows best and he intends to take your money to prove it. If you conclude that a particular use for your property is best, Crossley doesn't care--he knows better and he will force you to include green space, set backs, and whatever else he deems necessary to create a "livable" development. That is "smart growth", and if you don't believe it, you can ponder your "indiscretions" while sitting in jail for violating his edicts.

There is nothing smart about using force to impose one's values upon others. There is nothing rational about replacing the syllogism with compulsion. If Crossley truly wants to promote the rational, I suggest that he try beating us with logic instead of a club.

The Failure of Practical Arguments

Demographia's latest report on housing affordability again places Houston among the most affordable large cities in the world. (HT: Joe Reed) The report states:

Prescriptive land use regulation policies (principally compact development and urban
consolidation) have virtually destroyed housing affordability in many markets. (page 6)

Not surprisingly, prescriptive land use policies, such as zoning and "smart growth", are present where housing is less affordable. Cities with fewer land use policies, such as Houston, are more affordable. This is true across the globe.

While the connection between housing affordability and land use policies has been clear for decades, it hasn't stopped politicians, urban planners, and assorted activists from pushing for more controls and dictates. The practical benefits of freedom in land use, clearly evident in Houston, fails to convince statists. Despite all of their rhetoric about "quality of life", they are unmoved by evidence that freedom allows individual human beings to enjoy a higher quality of life.

In one sense, the reason is quite simple: They don't care about the individual. If one examines any argument for land use controls, it seldom takes long to find appeals to the welfare of the neighborhood, or the community, or some other collective. Underlying these appeals is the unquestioned assumption that the individual must sacrifice his own well-being to the collective. Thus, evidence that housing is more affordable to individuals is dismissed--the alleged "common good" or "public welfare" supersedes that of the individual.

While there is certainly value in reports such as those put out by Demographia, the practical benefits of freedom have long been clear. Until the morality underlying land use regulations is challenged, government intervention will continue to be seen as the solution. Until the practical is also regarded as the moral, government will continue to grow and control our lives.

When Tiger was Truly Selfish

During his public apology for marital infidelity, Tiger Woods blamed his actions on "selfishness". I thought of nobody but myself, he declared. As I pointed out last week, his actions were anything but selfish. Interestingly, Tiger has been truly selfish at times, and the consequences stand in stark contrast to his current woes and disgrace.

As a teenager Tiger set an audacious goal for himself: He was going to win more major golf championships than any golfer in history. This is not a goal that one accomplishes in the course of a year or even a decade, but over a career. It is a goal that requires a lifetime of dedication, effort, and passion.

The pursuit of that goal has involved much more than simply playing well at the majors. He has one of the most rigorous training schedules of any professional golfer. His tournament schedule is carefully selected to provide both rest and the highest level of competition. And at least twice during his professional career, he has significantly changed his golf swing. Both times he suffered short-term setbacks in the pursuit of his goal, but benefited enormously in the long-term.

Tiger's relentless focus on his long-term goals has been truly selfish. At least on the golf course, nothing could distract him from the pursuit of his values. The results speak for themselves.

Tiger is well on his way to accomplishing his goal. He was--until last November--almost universally admired, and rightfully so. In being truly selfish--placing nothing above his values--he achieved wealth, fame, and enormous success.

Contrast this with the results when he acted against his stated values, when he did not think about the long-term consequences of his actions. He placed the momentary "pleasure" of sexual conquest above his values--his marriage. The result has been disgrace, the potential destruction of his marriage, and a sidetracked career. Nothing that has resulted from his infidelity has been in his self-interest.

The past few months have witnessed a tale of two Tigers. The truly selfish Tiger achieved his values; the selfless Tiger destroyed those values. If Tiger wishes to get his career, his marriage, and his life back on track, he needs to re-dedicate himself to his values. He needs to place nothing above those values. He needs to be truly selfish once again.