The Lawn Bag Mandate: Immoral and Impractical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Pancakes to Nightmares

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houston's Biodegradable Leaf Bags Suck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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