Jumping Off of a Bridge

When I was a child, I would occasionally defend my desire to engage in some activity by telling my mother, "Everyone else is doing it." My mother always responded with the same question: "If everyone were jumping off of a bridge, would you want to do that?"

Her point was quite clear--just because "everyone" else is doing something doesn't make it proper or advisable. This simple childhood lesson has apparently been lost on city council, which is poised to pass tighter restrictions on signs. Anne Culver, executive director of Scenic Houston, an anti-billboard organization, told the Chronicle:

This will help make us look a lot more like the other great cities in the nation and in the world. We can have pride and a sense of place and a business-friendly city. There is no reason why the two can’t coexist.

According to Culver, government can do whatever it wishes and the economy will keep chugging along. The city can continue to slap chains on businesses and there will be no ill consequences. Culver wants Houston to look like other cities, ignoring the fact that many of those cities are losing jobs and citizens precisely because government intervention has wrecked their economies. Apparently, shuttered businesses are more attractive to Culver than billboards and signs.

Culver fails to tell us her criteria for "greatness", but it is safe to assume that appearance is a big part of it. Never mind that Houston led the nation in job creation in 2008--that doesn't qualify as great. Never mind that Houston escaped the housing bubble--that is not important. Never mind that Houston has some of the nation's most affordable housing--that isn't great either.

To Culver and her ilk appearance is more important than facts:

People come here and they are consistently shocked by the city’s appearance and they often ask us how we let this happen to our city. Site consultants say all the time that they’re told not to put Houston on their lists because of pollution, the heat and how it looks.

These types of statements are common among statists. They cite unnamed experts and ignore the actual facts. If Houston is so horrible, and consultants exclude the city from their lists, how has our population continued to grow? Apparently, individuals disagree with the consultants.

And that is what irks Culver and the pro-regulation crowd. They don't like the decisions that some individuals make and they want to use government coercion to dictate what others may do. Unable to accept the fact that some individuals have different values, they seek to impose their views of attractive on the rest of the community. Houston's prosperity is the practical consequence of its general respect for property rights. And this is what Culver dislikes and seeks to change.

That other cities strangle their citizens with regulations does not make it proper--those cities are destroying jobs. That other cities violate the rights of their citizens does not make it right. That other cities are figuratively jumping off of a bridge does not mean that Houston should follow suit. Perhaps my mother needs to have a talk with Anne Culver and city council.

Blaming the Victim

I previously posted about the city's attempt to shut down a Spec's Liquor Store because it is too close to a school. John Rydman, the owner of Spec's, has filed suit against the city. Spec's had been issued a permit by the city, which now contends that the permit was a mistake--Rydman's. Rydman spent $2 million to open the store, and according to the Chronicle, all the state and the city wants to do is treat him like an ogre:

The Harris County Attorney’s office contends that the granting of the permit was a simple error — and Spec’s officials knew it.

“It is offensive that the largest retailer of alcohol in the state does not comply with the law when they have been told that they are violating the law,” said Terry O’Rourke, special counsel in the county attorney’s office.

The law required that Spec's seek permission to open a store, which is what is truly offensive about this story. Spec's--and indeed every business--has a moral right to operate where and how it chooses (so long as it respects the mutual rights of others) without groveling at the feet of petty bureaucrats. But Mr. O'Rourke would have us believe that even when permission is secured, the obsequious citizenry should dutifully obey their masters if they change their mind.

The county is hardly alone in blaming the victim:

City Attorney Arturo Michel said the permit Spec’s received was based on the exception given to restaurants that sell alcohol.

“This store was not built because of a city mistake,” Michel said. “Why they thought they could operate as a package store with that permit, I cannot say.”

Again, the city issued Spec's a permit. And Spec's acted on the premise that the permit was valid. The city however, will not hear of such things. Mr. Rydman is supposed to be omniscient, while government officials are to be absolved of their incompetence.

What is interesting is that the state contends that the permit was issued in error, while the city contends that it made no error. Who then, is responsible for the issuance of this permit that should not be? Both the state and the city contend that Spec's knew the permit should not have been issued, so it is Spec's fault. It wasn't enough that Rydman had to lick their boots, he also had to check their work for accuracy as well.

I do not know John Rydman, but I do know that it is impossible to build the largest retail liquor chain in Texas if one is not a very competent businessman. For the state or the city to imply otherwise is insulting to Mr. Rydman, as well as anyone who values competency.

But the real issue isn't the competency of the parties involved. The real issue is Mr. Rydman's moral right to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The real issue is whether Mr. Rydman--and indeed every individual--may live for his own sake, or whether his life must be lived in servitude to the government.

The city and the state are grossly wrong on this issue. I applaud Mr. Rydman for his courage in fighting both. Whether he wins or loses, I will drink a toast in his honor. And I will purchase my libation from Spec's.

Massage Parlor Blues

Houston's futile war on sexually oriented businesses (SOBs) continues. The Chronicle reports on the city's difficulty in closing brothels that are operating under the pretense of being a massage parlor or spa.

Not surprisingly, the primary driving force behind this effort is the desire to "protect neighborhoods". Bart Jones, president of the Briargrove neighborhood association, tells the paper:

There’s too much crime associated with those businesses that we don’t want to spill over into where our children play or into our neighborhood. It’s been our long-held hope that we could eventually run them all out.

While it might be natural to sympathize with Jones--I certainly would not want a brothel in my neighborhood--there is much more to this issue than keeping hookers off of neighborhood streets. Council member Anne Clutterbuck, who recently helped close a brothel near her home, states a common position:

These are not victimless crimes. It’s a blight on neighborhoods.

Clutterbuck, like Jones and many others, is using a "package deal" to justify her position. She sees drug use, public intoxication, and assaults occur near SOBs and proceeds to treat all activities at the establishment as essentially the same. But they are not the same.

Voluntary activities involving consenting adults do not violate the rights of anyone. This includes prostitution and taking drugs. Rights can only be violated by preventing an individual from acting according to his own judgment, which can only be accomplished through the use of force (or the threat of force). Consensual sex does not involve force. The exchange of money for any service provided voluntarily should not be a crime.

The absurdity of laws against prostitution becomes clear when one realizes that sex is a part of many "trades". It is not unusual for a man to take a woman to dinner, dancing, a movie, etc. with the implied expectation of "getting lucky". Nor is it unusual for women to willingly participate in such schemes. The fact that the exchange does not directly involve money does not change its essential nature. Consistency would demand that Jones and Clutterbuck call for the city to monitor the dating activities of the citizenry to prevent such exchanges. But the absurdity of anti-prostitution legislation is not the fundamental issue.

The premise underlying prohibitions on prositution (and many other laws) is that an individual does not own his own life, that the state may dictate which actions are acceptable and which are not. The number of people who find prostitution demeaning or disgusting is irrelevant--the state has no right to impose the morals of some upon the entire community. The individual's moral right to his own life is the reason prostitution should be legal.

It should not be necessary to point out that forcing a woman into prostitution is a violation of her rights. Assaulting a woman (or a man), whether she is engaged in prostitution or not, is a violation of her rights. But such actions are properly banned, and laws against prostitution are unnecessary. Further, if patrons of brothels are urinating in lawns, or littering private property, or otherwise violating property rights, then they should be prosecuted for those specific offenses rather than their choice of "entertainment".

While prostitution should be legal, property owners may not use their property as brothels with impunity. As with any right, the right to property does not allow one to violate the rights of others. Creating a nuisance--such as generating excessive noise or drawing excessive traffic--may be a nuisance. But such a determination requires clear and objective criteria.

As an indication of an objective criteria, let us consider noise. Objectively, loud noise can a disturbance--it can interfere with sleep, or watching television, or reading, or many other activities. But the fact that a neighbor generates loud noises does not, in and of itself, constitute a nuisance. If he does so at noon, such noise may not interfere with anyone's activities. If he does so at midnight, his actions are more likely to do so.

Further, if the noise generated--even at midnight--is not perceived in the normal course of one's activities, it cannot be claimed to be a nuisance. If I cannot hear his music inside my home, but must go outside and put my head over the fence to hear it, I cannot claim that his music is interfering with my sleep. In other words, if I must engage in extraordinary actions to perceive the alleged nuisance, my claim has no validity.

As I said, the above is only an indication of how valid and objective criteria should be established. The mere claim of a nuisance is insufficient--if it were, anyone could claim a nuisance on pure whim.

The government's proper purpose is to protect our rights, including the right to engage in activities that others find offensive, demeaning, or immoral. To claim otherwise is to reject America's founding principles--that each individual has a right to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.