Galt’s Gulch

In the novel Atlas Shrugged, each summer the heroes of the story retreat to a secluded valley. This valley, called Galt’s Gulch, is a bastion of individual freedom, rational thinking, and respect for the rights of each individual. It provides the heroes with a respite from the increasing controls on individual freedom being enacted by the government.

While Galt’s Gulch is fictional, the principles embraced by the community are not. Those principles are eloquently captured in the oath taken by each individual entering the community:

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

The extent to which a community understands, accepts, and practices this principle is the extent to which that community thrives economically. The extent to which a community recognizes the moral foundation for individual freedom is the extent to which the individuals in that community prosper.

In the Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers recognized the essence of this principle when they stated that each individual has a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Founders recognized the fact that each individual has a moral right to his own life, that his life is not a commodity to be disposed of by society. They recognized the fact that each individual has a moral right to be free to pursue his own happiness, so long as he respects the mutual right of others.

In many ways Houston has embraced this principle. Houston has largely embraced the right of individuals to use their property in the pursuit of their values. But the principle has remained unnamed and implicit, and thus Houstonians have accepted numerous restrictions on personal liberty—the sign ordinance, the landscaping ordinance, and regulations on sexually oriented businesses to name a few.

The economic benefits of Houston’s freedom have been widely publicized during 2008. While many areas of the nation suffer from a collapsing housing market and a loss of jobs, Houstonians have continued to enjoy economic growth and prosperity. Our robust economy is the effect; freedom is the cause.

Because the principle has remained unnamed, Houstonians are vulnerable to continued assaults on their personal liberty. Those who seek greater control over our lives systematically target seemingly isolated issues, proposing new restrictions to control some “undesirable” land use, such as the Ashby High Rise, Magnolia Glen, or development around airports.

However, these are not isolated issues. In each instance the proposed restrictions require some individuals to sacrifice their values for the alleged benefit of the community. In each instance some individuals are forced to live for the sake of others.

So long as the principle remains unnamed Houstonians will continue to accept restrictions on personal liberty as “practical”. They will continue to advocate personal freedom while simultaneously accepting its infringement.

It is time for the principle to be declared openly, proudly, and without equivocation. Each individual has a moral right to the freedom necessary to sustain and enjoy his life. No individual has a moral right to force others to provide for his sustenance or enjoyment. And it is the responsibility of our government to protect this right.

Throughout the economic turmoil of 2008 Houston has set a shining example to the world. Houston has prospered because it has rejected the restrictive policies of other cities.

If we wish to continue and expand our prosperity, we must become a real-life Galt’s Gulch. We must refuse to live for the sake of others. We must refuse to force others to live for our sake. When we can do that, completely and consistently, our future will be secure. The glory of human freedom will be ours.

Walter Williams and Property Rights

Walter Williams is one of my favorite economists. He is principled, often humorous, and very good at concretizing complex ideas. Below are a few excerpts from articles he has written, followed by a few comments from me.

Failure to recognize the effect of different property rights structures on outcomes leads to faulty analysis. Think about several questions. Which lake will yield larger, more mature fish -- a publicly owned or a privately owned lake? Why is it that herds of cows flourished and buffalos did not? Who will care for a house better -- a renter or owner? Entire article here

Privately owned resources are always used more efficiently than “publicly” owned resources. When resources are publicly owned, no single individual has an incentive to maximize the long-term use of that resource. If he doesn’t use the resource today, someone else likely will. Consequently, his interests (like everyone else) lead him to deplete the resource. This is known as the “tragedy of the commons”.

Creating false distinctions between human rights and property rights plays into the hands of Democrat and Republican party socialists who seek to control our lives. If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or are in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property. Entire article here

Obfuscation is a common ploy among politicians and political activists. They fail to define their terms and play on emotion in an attempt to win votes. They can win much greater political support by decrying the plight of the poor than by championing the rights of the rich (which are the same rights all individuals possess). They can maintain their positions of power by encroaching on the rights of some to the benefit of others.

This is what politics has become in America. Despite the rhetoric, few (if any) politicians can define rights, let alone defend them. It is much easier to promise everyone roast on Sunday than tell them to go earn the money to pay for it. It is much easier to pass a law to prohibit the Ashby High Rise than defend the rights of the developers. Playing to the mob is always more politically expedient.

I disagree with the ways some people "unwisely" use their property. Many drink and smoke too much, wear gaudy attire, become couch potatoes, and don't buckle up when they drive. But the true test of one's commitment to liberty and private property rights doesn't come when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we agree. The true test comes when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we disagree.

Undoubtedly, my position is offensive to many, and mankind's history is on their side. Private property rights and self-determination has always received a hostile reception. People have always had what they consider to be good reasons for restricting the liberties of others. Entire article here

Freedom means the right to pursue one’s values without intervention from others, so long as you respect their mutual right to do so. The world is full of mother hens who cannot stand the idea that someone might actually be enjoying something that the mother hen finds abhorrent. And rather than accept the fact that others might have different values, the mother hen seeks to impose hers upon all of society.

We see this in virtually every infringement of property rights. Some group does not like the way a property owner is using, or proposes to use, his property. They descend upon City Hall demanding that somebody do something. And politicians, every wary of their next election, appease the angry mob.

NIMBY Songs

“Not in my back yard” (NIMBY), is a song that we hear frequently, with a number of variations. The residents of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks sang that tune in regard to the Ashy High Rise. The residents of Eastwood sang a refrain in regard to Magnolia Glen.

It’s a song with lyrics that tug at the heartstrings of many. An “evil” developer or corporation seeks to construct a building or project that local home owners do not like. The project will attract derelicts, or impose on their view, or create some other situation—real or imagined—that they do not like.

And that is what NIMBY really comes down to—they don’t like it. They raise all kinds of objections—too much traffic, pollution, noise, etc. On occasion these objections are legitimate, but they often get lost in the hysterical refrain of “not in my back yard.”

The real issue is how to resolve such issues. More and more often, the home owners run to government and seek some law that will prohibit the proposed project. They reject the concept of property rights and seek to impose their values upon the rightful property owner. They reject voluntary, consensual interactions between individuals and seek to substitute the coercive power of government.

I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it illustrates how NIMBY often works:

Now that I'm retired and have a little time on my hands, I decided to experiment with fighting a particular example of NIMBY-ism. Junipero Serra Blvd. is an arterial road just to the west of Stanford Campus. It has a 35-mile-per hour speed limit next to the campus, just as it does as it winds north, eventually becoming Alameda de las Pulgas through Menlo Park and other towns to the north. There are 18 houses that front on the street, and the residents decided to band together and complain to the county that the road was "unsafe" at 35 MPH.

I should comment that 35 is a very normal and appropriate speed for a road that is there to transport people long distances. We're not talking about a residential street whose sole purpose is to get people from their houses to major arteries like Serra Blvd. However, the traffic makes noise, which would be reduced if cars were, say, forced to go 25 MPH instead of 35, and apparently the residents of the 18 houses find it hard to get out of their driveways and into traffic. So it would benefit them if everyone else in the world had to slow down going past their houses.

I found out about a "public meeting" to discuss the proposed changes, and, being a retired dude with nothing to do, I decide to show up. The first thing I notice is that I am the only one at the meeting who was neither a county official nor a resident of one of the 18 houses whose owners stand to benefit (we had to mark our homes on a map). Coincidence? I don't think so. The 18 NIMBY's stand to gain a property-value windfall of $100K, at least. The county guys have to be there; it's their job (which also depends on there being enough projects in Santa Clara County to justify their existence). But what's the economic advantage to the residents of the other 700 or so houses on the campus? If they drive on the affected road once a week, and they are slowed down by 30 seconds, it would be decades before they recover the time wasted attending one of these meetings. That's why the NIMBY's always win. They steal a little from large numbers of people --- sufficiently little that it is in no one's individual advantage to fight back, although collectively the theft is huge.

I have previously written about how democracy is nothing but gang warfare, and this article illustrates that point. A small number of home owners ganged together to pressure county officials to do their bidding. Those who would suffer because of this were either uninformed of the proposal, and did not regard it worth their time. So a small number of individuals imposed their values upon the entire community.

Often, the gang of home owners goes against a developer. In those cases the developer is vastly outnumbered. The democratic thing to do is side with the majority, so the developer finds himself being forced to abide by the values of the majority.

NIMBY songs may “empower the people” and be democratic. But they are destructive to property rights, and that makes for a very ugly song.