Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 21

Tooting My Own Horn
I've always believed that if you got it, flaunt it. I got it--an article in the latest issue of The Objective Standard. The article is titled "Houston, We Have a (Zoning) Problem".


Fascism and Socialism
The confusion over fascism and socialism is sometimes amusing to watch. The left regards anything done by Republicans as fascist, while the right automatically declares Democrats to be socialists. Consider this uninformed nonsense from Brains and Eggs:

The 20th century saw the rise of two significant offshoots of totalitarianism: communism and fascism. Communism represented the far left and fascism, the far right.

[W]hen Obama fires the CEO of General Motors, that's more socialism than it is fascism... Bush is the fascist.

The truth is, under socialism the means of production are owned by society. Under fascism, the means of production are "privately" owned and controlled by society. But ownership without control is meaningless. In terms of essentials, fascism is no different from socialism. Both are statist. For more on this, check out Myrhaf's post at The New Clarion.


Forty Lashes
Though things are certainly growing worse in the US of A, they aren't as bad as Saudi Arabia--yet. CNN reports (HT: Politics without God):

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism and punishes unrelated men and women who are caught mingling.

And what horrible crime did this 75-year-old woman commit that warrants being beaten by the government? The two young men (the age of one was reported as 24) were delivering bread. They too will be whipped and imprisoned, all because they were delivering bread to a non-relative. And Islam is the religion of peace.


Another Money Grab
On Thursday the Texas House approved a new tax on sexually oriented businesses by a vote of 141-1. According to the Chronicle:

The new tax would apply to every sexually oriented business that charges an admissions fee. It would total 10 percent of the gross receipts of the business' admissions.

The money will be used for a fund to help victims of sexual assaults. Apparently, lawmakers think that the only people who commit sexual assaults are those who visit strip clubs. Even if this were true, which it isn't, it is a gross injustice to penalize those who have committed no crime.

This is just another money grab by the state. Rather than reduce the size and scope of government, they simply look for someone else to tax. And those who engage in unpopular activities, such as smoking and visiting strip clubs, are easy targets. If the Legislature wants to tax aberrant behavior, perhaps they should start in their own chambers.

I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the strip clubs find a way around this one. All they need to do is wave admission charges and have a drink minimum (if that is legal).

Parker Gets Snippy
This week mayoral candidate Peter Brown asked mayoral candidate Annise Parker why some of her financial numbers differed from those of a department head. Given that Brown is a Council member and Parker is the City Controller, this seems like a reasonable question. According to the Chronicle:

Parker, who is running against Brown and two others to become Houston’s next mayor, politely explained that the estimates were different because the two offices have their own methods of measuring city financial stability. Then it got a little testy.

“I’m not sure I know of another way to explain that to you, sir,” she snapped.

Personally, I like a woman who shows a little spunk. But Mayor White, who is positioning himself to run for the United States Senate, is concerned that city business will become politicized. I hate to break the news to him, but that is what he has been doing for the past five years. Whether it is forcing green building codes down our throat, or vowing to halt the Ashby High Rise, or granting tax favors for another development, he has been politicizing City Hall throughout his reign.

Political Legacies and Freedom

Politicians love to create legacies. Eleanor Tinsley was Houston's queen nannie. Kathy Whitmire was Houston's first female mayor. Bill White has been Houston's greenest mayor. Peter Brown wants to be Houston's planning mayor. Annise Parker wants to be Houston's first mayor named named after an herb.

Invariably, the legacies created by politicians involve an expansion of government power and controls. Tinsely for example, is remembered for her "quality of life" issues--restrictions on signs and indoor smoking. White will likely be remembered for pushing through green building codes. Politicians cater to special interest groups for political support, and as payback they push the agenda of that group.

What is interesting and revealing is that politicians almost universally ignore the largest "group"--the individual. While the green bloc, or the nannie bloc, or the pro-herb bloc may be large, each necessarily excludes many voters. For example, the green bloc excludes those who advocate unbridled pollution; the pro-herb bloc alienates those who prefer bland food.

I will admit to a tiny bit of sarcasm in the preceding paragraph. But the essential point is valid--politicians cater to groups, each of which has a narrow interest. To build sufficient political support, a politician must appeal to many different groups, and often these groups have competing interests.

Rational individuals however, do not have competing interests. All rational individuals have the same fundamental interest, whether they know it or not--individual liberty. The freedom to act according to one's own judgment, free from interference and coercion is an interest shared by all rational individuals. Those who do not share this interest are either criminals or statists (which is criminality on a much larger, albeit legalized, scale).

In general, I regard political legacies as second-handed--they are focused on the opinions and evaluations of others. Such politicians derive their self-worth from the accolades and praise of those they serve. But there is an exception. Those who advocate individual liberty, and its moral foundation of rational egoism, are not concerned with the opinions or praise of others. They advocate for freedom because it serves their own personal interests. In fact, freedom is the only social condition in which they can pursue their personal interests.

I believe that most individuals want to be left alone by government. They do not want to be told what kind of car to drive, or what kind of beverages to consume, or how many Big Macs they can eat, or how much insulation to put in their attic. Most individuals simply want to be free to pursue their values. Yet they often find themselves sucked into some political cause that seems to be motivated by benevolence and good intentions, and in the process, advocating policies that limit individual freedom. If a politician truly wished to establish a legacy, it should be as an advocate of individual rights, including property rights.

In "The Monument Builders", Ayn Rand writes:

No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel.

The legacy builders do not hesitate to trample on the rights of individuals. They will tell you that you cannot erect a sign on your property, or you cannot allow smoking in your restaurant, or you must install low-E glass. They will force you to act against your judgment and in defiance of your values. No matter the cause, no matter what irrational argument they use, their legacy is built upon the premise that might makes right. Their legacy is built on the premise that you may not live your life for your own personal happiness, but for the "general welfare".

I disagree. So did Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom is the True Economic Stimulus

The City of Houston has announced its own stimulus plan--grant special political favors to certain developers. Yesterday's Chronicle announced the plan:

The plan aims to entice developers not to put their multimillion-dollar projects on hold in exchange for millions in incentives if the companies begin building soon and agree to make improvements to public roadways, sidewalks and streetscapes.

City Council is scheduled to vote today on what would be the first such incentive package for Regent Square, a planned 4-million-square-foot, $850-million mixed-use development that city officials said was about to be put on hold indefinitely by Boston-based GID Urban Development Group. The development will abut Allen Parkway near Dunlavy and Dallas.

If council approves, the company will receive $10 million in reimbursements to be paid out of tax revenues generated by the development.

In one sense this is an act of justice, but in another it is grossly unjust, which illustrates how government meddling can create this seemingly contradictory evaluation. First the justice.

If the city government were confined to its proper functions, GID wouldn't be paying any property taxes. That they will get back some of the money forcibly taken from them is certainly fair and just.

But what about the other developers who don't get this sweetheart deal? They are forced to pay their taxes, and essentially subsidize GID. For them, this is a rotten deal. As Barry Klein, of the Houston Property Rights Association said:

It’s a zero-sum game. There’s no net gain to the economy. It doesn’t change the demand for commercial space, it simply changes the supply. The favored developer who owns the land is the beneficiary and the victims are taxpayers on the one hand and unfavored, unsubsidized developers on the other.

This is always the result when politicians have power beyond the proper scope of government. They dispense favors to some at the expense of others. Politicians, rather than the decisions of individuals as manifested in the free market, determine who will succeed and who will fail.


The proposed tax refunds will be generated by expanding the Memorial Heights Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone:

Under a TIRZ, property tax revenues generated within the boundaries are frozen at a specified level. As development occurs and property values rise, tax revenue above that level, known as the increment, is funneled back into the zone to pay for infrastructure and capital improvements to help attract further development.

Under the plan before council today, part of the increment will be given back to the specific developer rather than the redevelopment authority that operates the TIRZ.

GID's development will most likely increase the value of neighboring properties, which will also increase their property taxes. Which means, neighboring property owners will have money taken from them and given to GID. This is nothing more than legalized theft, in which GID will benefit at the expense of its neighbors. This is inexcusable and immoral.


Andy Icken, deputy director of the Department of Public Works and Engineering, who helped negotiate the deal, said:

The alternative to what we’re talking about would have been to have a great deal of investment going on in this community and to have a big, giant piece of property sitting vacant for a long period of time.

If the city is truly concerned about encouraging development, why does it continue to deny Buckhead Development permission to build the Ashby High Rise? We will never know exactly what was discussed in Icken's negotiations, but it is very clear the GID's development meets with the city's approval while Buckhead's does not. If I were inclined to making wild, speculative guesses, I might think that GID greased some wheels while many of Mayor White's political supporters oppose Ashby. But I'm not, so I won't. But whether anything nefarious occured is beside the point. The fact is, GID is getting preferential treatment. The city's proper function is the protection of our rights, not deciding which projects are politically palatable and which are not.

I have, on many occasions, laid out a true economic stimulus plan-- cut taxes, repeal land-use regulations, privatize city services, and create greater freedom for individual Houstonians. Greater freedom always leads to greater economic prosperity. Individuals have a moral right to use their property in the pursuit of their own values in accordance with their own judgment. Government's function is to protect this right. Freedom is not only moral, it is practical.