This was originally posted as a series on Live Oaks in September 2009. Comments have not been migrated.
That is what I mean when I say that “right” is the same thing in all states, namely the interest of the established government; and government is the strongest element in each state, and so if we argue correctly we see that “right” is always the same, the interest of the stronger party…
To be really precise one must say that the ruler, in so far as he is a ruler, makes no mistake, and so infallibly enacts that which is best for himself, which his subjects must perform. Plato, The Republic
The Greek philosopher Plato died more than 2,300 years ago, yet he is waging war on Houston today. His ideas live on, made manifest in the myriad proposals to shape the city through government regulation and controls.
Plato held that this world is an imperfect reflection of true reality, that knowledge of that reality is available only to a select group of elitist intellectuals, and those intellectuals must rule over society for the good of all. We see Platonism reflected in past calls for zoning, Peter Brown’s proposals for planning, suggestions that Houston implement the “SmartCode“, and the entire “New Urbanism” movement. Each embraces the fundamental ideas of Plato.
Plato began by postulating an ideal that exists in another realm and decrying the imperfection of this world. In the language of the advocates of land-use regulations, the ideal consists of segregating land-use (traditional zoning), or pedestrian friendly, multi-use developments (New Urbanism), or a mixture of the natural and the man-made via “transects” (SmartCode). And like Plato, they advocate government coercion when their ideal does not materialize in the world we inhabit.
During the Progressive Era, segregating land-uses to prevent “incompatible” land-use was regarded as the ideal. The result was Euclidean zoning, which has subsequently been demonstrated to be devastatingly destructive. Fortunately, Houstonians have rejected zoning on three separate occasions. Not to be deterred, the Platonists went back to the drawing board.
Today, the ideal takes a different shape and form. Decrying urban “sprawl”, the decay of the inner city, and dependency on the automobile, their ideal now consists of denser, multi-use developments that are pedestrian friendly and tied to mass transit. In other words, the ideal of 100 years ago is no longer an ideal. But while their ends may have changed, their means remain the same–government coercion, regulations, and controls.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with seeking to improve the world in which we live. Indeed, that is a part of my motivation for writing this blog. But the ends to not justify the means. A better world will not, and cannot, be achieved through tyrannical means.
In this context, the error of the Platonists is that they divorce their ideal from reality. They posit a world that fails to account for or recognize that individuals desire different things in life, that the things they–the Platonists–value may not be shared by all Houstonians. Yet they seek to impose those values upon the entire city through government mandates.
This Platonic ideal rests largely on a homogeneous view of mankind. It assumes that the values of some are in the best interest of the entire society. The “enlightened” few believe it their duty to spread their wisdom through the coercive power of government. And those malcontents who hold different values and refuse to go along should properly be compelled to put aside their “selfish” desires. In short, the individual is to be subservient to the demands and decrees of “society”. In this view, society—the “will of the people”—is the supreme ruler, and the individual is obligated to obey.
To a significant measure, Houston has rejected this view. City government has refrained from enacting many of the draconian restrictions and regulations found in other cities. City government has more consistently recognized the property rights of individuals. But in recent decades this has changed—in the past thirty years city council has enacted ordinance after ordinance that restricts individual freedom. And all of it has been done in the name of some ideal—such as “quality of life”.
But this ideal remains elusive, for it is divorced from our world. This however, has not stopped the Platonists from seeking government power to impose their views and values upon all of Houston. And their efforts put them at war with every Houstonian who values his freedom.
Plato is the Commander-in-Chief in the war on Houston. But he has numerous generals. Over the next three days, I will introduce two of them. Their ideas too, live on.
Part 2
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man’s feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant breathed new life into Platonism. However, Kant put a twist on Platonism and held that the world we perceive is a creation of the “collective consciousness”. All that is required to achieve some goal is for the collective–such as a race, a city, or a nation–to believe it. In current parlance, all we need is hope–reality will mold itself to our desires.
This was the view held by Houston’s zoning advocates in the 1990s. Today it is held by Peter Brown in his calls for a “common vision”, by the advocates of the SmartCode, and by the New Urbanism movement. Each embraces a Platonic ideal, to be determined by a consensus (they only differ in the size and constituents of the participating group) and implemented through government regulations and control.
In the 1990s Jim Greenwood, the leader of the pro-zoning movement, promised that he would develop a consensus on zoning. Then-mayor Kathy Whitmire supported zoning, telling the Chronicle:
That consensus reflects the will of the people in this community. I have certainly heard from a lot of neighborhood groups about the need for protection.
Both Whitmire and Greenwood dismissed the principles that underlie zoning, implying that the “will of the people” would somehow allow Houston to avoid the destructive consequences experienced in cities with zoning. In other words, if enough of us put our mind to it, then reality would somehow conform to our desires. Today, Peter Brown agrees, previously stating on his web site that he would:
Update Houston’s planning and development standards; adopt a comprehensive plan to realize our shared VISION for the future and to shape the quality growth our citizens want.
The problem with other cities, Brown, Whitmire, and Greenwood would like us to believe, is that the citizens there were not united in their vision for the future. That dissension undermined the collective will. In other words, zoning (or “planning”, as Brown calls it) hasn’t worked in other cities because the people didn’t believe strongly enough.
Some have realized that a city-wide consensus is impossible to achieve. Land-use regulations applied uniformly throughout a city are too rigid and do not account for the various opinions of citizens. To overcome this, the advocates of the SmartCode seek to shrink the size of the group involved:
The SmartCode enables the implementation of a community’s vision by coding the specific outcomes desired in particular places. It allows for distinctly different approaches in different areas within the community, unlike a one-size-fits-all conventional code. To this end, it is meant to be locally customized by professional planners, architects, and attorneys.
In other words, rather than struggle to get all of Houston to agree, what we really need to do is to get the citizens in a neighborhood to agree. Each neighborhood can create its own Platonic ideal and then force it upon recalcitrant neighbors.
Some might argue that this is simply democracy in action, that the “will of the people” should reign supreme. Such claims ignore the fact that America was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A democracy means unlimited majority rule—the majority may do as it pleases because it is the majority. But rain dances will not coax water from the sky, no matter how many participate in such mystical endeavors. The fact that the majority believes something to be right and proper does not make it so.
The advocates of consensus, “common vision”, and all of its variants believe that the collective can and should establish an ideal for the city. And when the voluntary actions of individuals fail to achieve that result, government must use regulations to achieve the desired state. Ignoring the obvious failures of past attempts to create their fictitious Utopia, they march forward with their banner of civic pride. But they do not know their destination, for they have abandoned the only tool that allows them to project the future—thinking in principles.
Tomorrow, we will meet the man who taught them that principles are useless, that what worked yesterday won’t necessarily work today, that our only concern should be the expediency of the moment.
Part 3
By itself, as a distinctive theory, the pragmatist ethics is contentless. It urges men to pursue “practicality,” but refrains from specifying any “rigid” set of values that could serve to define the concept…
In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental”… When Dewey wrote, the political principle imported from Germany and proliferating in all directions, was collectivism. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels
John Dewey was the most influential Pragmatist in America. He explicitly dispensed with principles, declaring that there are no absolutes. We must act, judge the results, and then modify our actions. Most of all, we must fly by the seat of our pants. This is the approach embraced by all of the advocates of land-use regulations.
During the debate over zoning in the early 1990s, Jim Greenwood insisted that Houston would avoid the corruption, economic turmoil, and other ill effects experienced by other cities with zoning. We would avoid these problems because we would have “Houston-style” zoning, which he never actually bothered to define. But many thought that that sounded nice, and such things as definitions were an unnecessary impediment.
What Greenwood and his ilk ignored were the principles underlying zoning. They ignored the fact that sticking adjectives in front of “zoning” does not change its nature, or its consequences. They implied that all that was required was a vaguely stated ideal and the “will of the people”. Somehow, he implied, we will figure it out and make it work.
The advocates of the SmartCode, New Urbanism, and other variants of “form-based code” make the same mistake. They readily acknowledge that Euclidean zoning has failed. It is too rigid and inflexible, it has created “sprawl”, it has fostered dependency on the automobile. But rather than question their basic premises, they attempt to tweak and modify their means for achieving the unachievable. Rather than identify the principles that underlie zoning—as well as the SmartCode and New Urbanism—they proclaim that their plan is different.
Superficially, they are right—they seek higher density, mixed-use developments in contrast to the segregated land-use policies of zoning. Rather than the rigid city-wide tyranny of zoning, they propose dozens (or hundreds) of “flexible” tyrannies within a city, each being guided by the “will of the people” residing in a particular area.
In principle there is no difference between zoning and the more recent “alternatives”. Each seeks to impose a Platonic ideal through government force. Each allows non-owners of a particular parcel of property a voice in its use. Each violates the moral rights of land owners.
Interestingly, many advocates of the SmartCode claim to also be advocates of the free market. How is it that alleged advocates of the free market can endorse ideas that require government coercion for their implementation?
The answer lies in Pragmatism. They are unable to see any connection between zoning and their proposals. They see some element that resemble the free market—all I can find is de-centralized control of land-use—and regard that as the equivalent of a truly free market. But stripped of incidental details, the SmartCode is nothing more than government regulation of land-use.
Euclidean zoning has failed because it must. A is A. The very nature of zoning is a violation of individual rights. Zoning compels individuals to use their property differently than they would voluntarily choose—it forces them to act contrary to their own rational judgment. The result is market distortions, such as housing bubbles. The result is graft and corruption, as developers and builders attempt to sidestep draconian controls. The result is higher prices for everything, as the arbitrarily lowered supply of land for each use increases the cost of housing and of doing business. The result is the destruction of lives, and with it, the cities that attempt to live a contradiction.
The SmartCode attempts to overcome these problems, not by renouncing force, but by using force in a different manner. Rather than prohibit commercial establishments in residential areas, the SmartCode will require it. However, the height, setback, landscaping, “public realm”, and other details will be dictated by government. Like zoning, the SmartCode will prohibit the land owner from using his property as he chooses. Like zoning, the SmartCode will impose additional costs upon the property owner. Like zoning, the SmartCode violates property rights.
But the “free market” advocates of the SmartCode do not see it that way. They see details that differ and believe that their proposal is different. They have different ends (though only superficially) and believe that their proposal is different. They see differences, and ignore the nature and essence of those differences. My cats are different in size, color, personality, and in many other ways, but they are still cats. Land-use regulations are land-use regulations, whether they are called zoning, or the SmartCode, or New Urbanism.
In the end, the SmartCode and New Urbanism must also fail. They must do so for the same reasons that zoning fails. And that becomes very clear if one thinks in principles.
Tomorrow I will examine the only real alternative to zoning—true freedom in land use.
Part 4
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Ayn Rand, Man’s Rights
The solution to the problems of zoning is not a different gang leading the city, or a different set of rules and regulations. The solution is a different ideal—an ideal that is founded in reality. The solution is an ideal that recognizes the moral right of each individual to live his life as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual right of others. The solution is capitalism—the unknown ideal.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects individual rights, including the right to property. It is the only system that prohibits individuals from interfering with the actions of others. It is the only system of individual liberty.
The extent to which a nation, or a city, recognizes and protects individual rights is the extent of the happiness and prosperity enjoyed by the citizenry. America—the nation which has been most dedicated to individual rights—is arguably the most prosperous nation in the world. Houston—the city in American most dedicated to individual rights—is arguably the most prosperous city in the nation. That freedom has allowed individuals to pursue their own values, and in turn offer their fellow citizens more choices and opportunities. All Houstonians have benefited.
It is quite easy to look around Houston and find many things with which one disapproves. A neighbor may paint his house an obnoxious color or plant hideous shrubs. A business may advertise its wares in a gaudy fashion or open in a location we dislike. A national chain may displace a locally owned shop or the character of a neighborhood might change. We may find such facts frustrating and wish someone would “do something” to prevent such things.
Life will be a constant disappointment to those who dream of a Platonic ideal—of a world that contains no such frustrations. Unhappy with the world around them, for centuries men have dreamed of such an Eden, renouncing this world and seeking their dream through brute force. If others will not act as they deem proper, the Platonic idealists do not hesitate to seek mastery over their fellow citizens.
We must reject Plato, Kant, Dewey, and all of their variants. We must develop a different dream and then act to make it real. We must dream of a world in which individuals—all individuals—are free to live as they choose, free to aspire to greatness and take the actions necessary to achieve it. It is a world in which we are not our brother’s keeper, unless we voluntarily choose to be so. It is a world in which talent and achievement is celebrated, not penalized with higher taxes and guilt trips about helping the needy.
Such a world is possible, here on earth. But we must first renounce force as a means for dealing with other men (except in retaliation against those who initiate its use). We must embrace reason and persuasion as our sole means for dealing with others. It is a world in which all interactions are based on the voluntary consent of each individual involved.
The Platonists speak of developing a consensus, whether city-wide or within neighborhoods, as the means for establishing their ideal. They argue for using compulsion to create a better society, while destroying the lives of the individuals who comprise that society. They refuse to allow the individual to develop and pursue his ideal—the individual must subjugate his dreams and aspirations to those of the collective.
Our Founding Fathers bravely asserted that each individual has a right to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. They sought to great a nation in which these rights were protected, and nobody—including government—could violate these rights. The freedoms they established unleashed the citizenry, resulting in unprecedented prosperity and happiness.
The Founders dared to dream of individual liberty, and risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for that cause. It was a glorious and just cause, and it is no less so today.