In February 2009, I announced my “virtual” candidacy for Mayor of Houston. It was a campaign conducted solely through my blog, Live Oaks, and was intended to demonstrate the positions that a freedom-loving candidate would take. Below is my platform.
Over the past few months I have previewed some of the potential candidates for the Houston Mayoral election in 2009. I have even fantasized about my ideal candidate. But rather than continue to wait in vain for my ideal candidate to emerge, I am now declaring my virtual candidacy for Houston Mayor. (By virtual candidacy, I mean that I am not literally running for Mayor. But I will address the issues as if I were.)
Since I am approaching this as if I were actually running for the City’s top position, I must keep in mind political and economic realities. For example, it would not be possible to eliminate taxes and privatize all city services in a single mayoral term (two years). Therefore, I will not advocate such positions. This does not mean that I will compromise; it means that I must recognize that creating more freedom must be a gradual process. Moving towards greater freedom is not as easy as throwing a switch. Weening the public from government services without creating chaos will require careful planning to insure an orderly transition.
I have two reasons for this virtual candidacy. The first is that it is an interesting intellectual exercise. It is one thing to advocate that all property be privately owned. It is another to lay out a plan to get from where we are to that ideal. When Margaret Thacher was dismantling the British welfare state, she created constituencies for her proposals. She appealed to the self-interest of the various individuals who would be impacted by her plans. She was able to get support for her proposals by doing this, and thus was able to get them implemented. My second reason is to be pro-active.
Rather than simply criticize the actual mayoral candidates, I will offer actual solutions. Rather than tell them what they are doing wrong, I will offer real solutions to the issues facing Houston. This is a form of intellectual activism.
For those who support freedom, my virtual candidacy will offer concrete, positive alternatives to the expansion of government. My platform will offer you ideas that stand in stark contrast to those offered by the mainstream candidates. These ideas will provide you with the intellectual ammunition needed to combat the trend towards greater government control of our lives.
Since this is a “political campaign” I do not know what twists and turns it will take. Since I will not be an actual participant, it will require some creativity to inject these ideas into the debate. For those who support me, this can be a fun and rewarding opportunity to spread the right ideas.
Between now and November I will run a virtual campaign. I will write OpEd articles (I will actually submit them, though not under the pretense of running for Mayor). I will “participate” in debates. I will leave comments on other blogs. I will seek speaking engagements and writing opportunities–not for the purpose of becoming Mayor, but to put forth a positive argument for individual freedom and property rights.
In the coming weeks I will lay out my platform and my position on the issues I think most important. Unlike actual candidates, I will provide real solutions to these issues. Unlike actual candidates, my proposals will not involve an expansion of government powers. The important issues facing Houstonians that I will address are:
- Crime
- City services
- Taxes
- Quality of life
- The economy
- City assets
- “Protecting” neighborhoods
My message will not cater to the myriad special interest groups that attempt to influence local politics. Politicians who do such are continually changing their message to appeal to the group du jour. My message will be aimed at all individuals, no matter their skin color, their sexual orientation, or their religion. My message will appeal to the best within each individual. My message will be one of individual freedom, and the opportunities which that freedom provides.
Since I am a virtual candidate, I ask for your virtual support. I ask you to share my ideas with the media, voters, and politicians. I ask for your help in delivering my message by commenting on blogs and web sites. I ask you to link to my position statements.
I do not ask that you do so for some higher cause, but rather, I ask that you do it as a matter of your own self-interest. If you value individual freedom and property rights, promoting the ideas that support freedom is in your self-interest. That is my motivation, and I would expect nothing less of my supporters.
I am a political outsider. To run an actual campaign at this time would be an exercise in futility and a waste of resources. The ideas that I advocate are rejected by the political mainstream. However, injecting these ideas into the debate can have positive short term benefits, as well as set the stage for long term success. In the short term we can slow the growth of government; in the long term we can reverse that trend and move towards greater freedom. This virtual campaign is not about winning votes; it is about spreading ideas.
I do not have political connections, nor I do not know the minute details of city or state government. If I were an actual candidate, this would undoubtedly be a liability. However, the fact that such connections and knowledge seems to be necessary to run for office is an indictment on our culture, not my ideas. I say this, not as an excuse, but because such details are largely irrelevant. To argue over details is to accept the premise that government should regulate and control the lives of individuals. I reject that premise. I am not trying to fine tune city government. I am trying to pare it down to size.
Many people run for political office and promise a more business-like approach. But government is not a business–it is an agent of force. Making the use of that force more efficient in the violation of individual rights is not a virtue. My goal is not greater efficiency in government, but greater freedom for individuals.
A year from now, Houston will have a new Mayor. It will not be me. But with your help we can have an influence on the debate. With your help we can move towards greater recognition and protection of the rights of all individuals.
Statement of Principles
I will begin my virtual candidacy for Mayor of Houston by doing something that is virtually unheard of in modern politics– I will state the principles that underlie my candidacy.
The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. Every policy I propose, every position I take, every piece of legislation I endorse will serve this end.
A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. A right places boundaries on others– it prohibits them from interfering with your actions. Their mutual rights prevent you from interfering with their actions. Rights pertain to action–the freedom to take the actions necessary to achieve your values. Rights are not a claim on the values of others.
The only manner in which rights can be violated is through physical force. Only physical force can prevent you from acting as you choose. Only physical force can deprive you of your life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness. Again, the mutual rights of others prevents you from depriving them of their life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness.
Rights pertain only to individuals. There are no such things as “black rights”, which imply that blacks have rights separate and distinct from non-blacks. There are no “gay rights”, or “women’s rights”, or “Hispanic rights”. There are only individual rights, and they apply to all individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
You have a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy your life. You do not have a right to demand that others provide your sustenance, or an internet connection, or a flat screen television. You have a moral right to pursue your values, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others. This is true whether you are black or white, male or female, gay or straight. This is true whether you were born in Texas, Ohio, Yucatan, or Southeast Asia. This is true of all individuals.
(It was the philosopher/ novelist Ayn Rand who articulated and defended these moral and political principles. The interpretation and application of these ideas is my responsibility, and I do not purport to represent or speak as an official representative of her philosophy. For more information on her ideas, I refer you to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness.)
Government today has expanded far beyond its legitimate functions and purpose. On the local level, government has only two legitimate functions–the police and the courts. The purpose of the police is to apprehend criminals–those who violate the rights of other individuals. Properly defined, only those actions that initiate force against others is a crime. The purpose of the courts is to determine the guilt or innocence of accused criminals, and to resolve disputes over contracts. Beyond these two purposes everything the government does necessarily involves the violation of the rights of some individuals for the benefit of other individuals.
In such an environment, government becomes a magnet for special interest groups, each declaring that its agenda is in the “public welfare”. Each scurries to develop political influence with the intent of imposing its values upon the entire community. It is a civil war, in which ballots are used in place of bullets. But the results are just as destructive.
When government expands beyond its legitimate functions, it must necessarily become an initiator of force. It must necessarily use force against citizens, not because they have robbed, raped, or murdered, but because they have not secured permission to use their property or operate their business, or because they engage in peaceful, voluntary actions that do not meet the city’s approval, or because they have the audacity to use “attention-getting devices” outside their business.
When government provides services not within its proper sphere, it must necessarily limit or prohibit competition. It must secure its “customers”, not by their consent, but by mandate. It secures its “customers” by prohibiting competition under the penalty of law. The city government should get out of the water, sewage treatment, and park businesses. It should divest itself of libraries and roads. It should limit itself to the protection of the rights of Houstonians.
Some may think that I am an impractical idealist to advocate such dramatic reductions in the size of government. Let me be clear–I do not intend, nor do I think it prudent to reduce city government to its legitimate functions in the span of two years. To do so would be virtually impossible. But we can begin to move toward that end. We can begin to dismantle city government and return it to its proper sphere. While we will move rapidly, we will also move cautiously–taking every effort to insure an orderly transition.
Our goal is to increase individual freedom. Our goal is to allow Houstonians greater control over their lives. The first steps we take will be to rescind those violations of individual rights that do not involve city services–such as business and building permits. We will move to decriminalize voluntary interactions between individuals that do not involve coercion. Such steps will allow us to reduce taxes and allow Houstonians to keep more of their money. Such steps will allow our police to focus on the real criminals–those who violate the rights of others.
My opponents will argue that we need more government control of our lives. They will claim that individuals must put aside their personal values for the betterment of the community. Some will insist that if we develop a “common vision” we can build a better city. I reject these claims and arguments. All require that you be subservient to the community. All demand that you place the interests of others before your own interests. In contrast, I declare that you have a moral right to live your life for your own happiness. And with your help, the City of Houston will not stand in your way. With your help, Houston will become the freest city in America.
Crime
If we are to properly address the issue of crime in Houston, we must begin by identifying the nature of crime and those actions that should be criminal. We cannot make assumptions about such an important matter.The government’s sole legitimate purpose is the protection of individual rights–the freedom to act without intervention from others, so long as you respect their mutual rights.
Rights can only be violated through physical force (or the threat of force). For this reason, the police are a legitimate and proper function of government. The purpose of the police is to apprehend those who initiate force against others, that is, violate the rights of other individuals. Only those actions that involve an initiation of force (including fraud, which is a form of force) should be criminal.
Those adults who engage in voluntary actions that do not involve force should not be treated as criminals, and all such actions should be legalized. The city should not be in the business of monitoring and controlling the actions of adults. While state and federal law will not allow Houston to decriminalize all such actions, there are many city ordinances that initiate force against the citizenry, and are therefore immoral and should be repealed.
Regulations on business operations, including occupancy permitting, signage, and health mandates, are an improper use of government power. The operation of a business is an issue to be decided between the business owners, employees, and customers. Government regulations on business operations force the business to operate in a manner prescribed by law, no matter the judgment of the owner and employees, and regardless of the desires of customers. Such regulations involve an initiation of force against the individuals involved.
Land use controls, including building codes, parking regulations, set back requirements, and landscaping dictates, are also improper and immoral. Such regulations and controls force property owners to use their land as dictated by government officials, regardless of the judgment of the owner. Such regulations involve an initiation of force against property owners.
The above ordinances–and many others–involve an initiation of force. Such ordinances compel an individual to act contrary to his own judgment and values. Such ordinances force an individual to act in a particular manner simply because city council has decreed certain actions illegal. Such ordinances should be repealed.
There are voluntary, non-coercive methods for achieving the alleged ends of building codes and land-use regulations. In the yellow pages, there are dozens of companies offering inspection services. Those who desire to have a home or building inspected can hire a private service. Deed restrictions–private, contractual agreements between property owners–can be and are used to provide stability in land-use.
Ordinances that violate individual rights also deprive the police department of valuable resources and turn the police into nannies, rather than protectors of our rights. The police should be dealing with real criminals–robbers, murderers, and rapists–rather than pursuing business owners who erect “illegal” signs or fail to put a “tag” on their taco truck.
Individuals have a moral right to live their lives without intervention from others, including government. Repealing such laws recognizes this right.
Equally important, repealing immoral laws will greatly reduce the city’s enforcement responsibilities–police will have more time and resources to combat true crimes, not monitor adults who are not violating the rights of anyone.
One of my opponents has suggested putting more police on the street, but he has not told us how he will do so. We do not necessarily need more police on the street; if the police are limited to enforcing moral laws, the number of criminal activities will be reduced. This same opponent has suggested mentoring and job training programs as a means for reducing crime. Such programs are not proper functions of government. Training would-be criminals to engage in productive behavior is not a job for government; apprehending and punishing those who engage in criminal acts is.
In regard to crime, my administration will focus two issues: drunk driving and gangs. When officers must no longer enforce laws regarding the conduct in sexually-oriented businesses they will be able to spend more time focusing on actual criminal activity. Rather than monitor conduct that some in our community finds distasteful, the police will be arresting those who violate the rights of other citizens.
This does not mean that we will give carte blanche to individuals and businesses to engage in any conduct they desire. A property owner has a right to use his land as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. However, when his use objectively threatens others–such as conducting target practice in one’s back yard or sending noxious fumes over a fence–he has violated the rights of his neighbors to the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
While we will be decriminalizing voluntary interactions between adults, we will simultaneously increase enforcement of those laws that are a violation of the rights of individuals. Those who use force–directly or indirectly–against other citizens are the true criminals and we will provide the police with the resources necessary to apprehend those criminals.
City Services
The purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, not providing water, sanitation services, or picking up trash. These are not legitimate functions of government, and should be privatized. My administration will seek to return government to its proper functions. In the process, Houstonians will gain more freedom of choice in obtaining the services they need and desire.
Many neighborhoods in Houston currently use private services for removing trash. We will extend this with the intention of ending all city trash collection within a period of four years. During the transition phase, those areas that are using private services will receive a rebate that will reflect the cost savings to the city. At the end of the transition, the city will remove itself from the process and the parties will contract privately.
We will begin to privatize water and waste water services. Our privatization plan for water will involve the sale of the city’s water rights, the city’s water treatment plants, the city’s groundwater pumping stations, and the associated pipeline distribution systems. The waste water system will be privatized by selling the waste water treatment plants and the associated pipelines.
As we privatize we will we be guided by two principles: 1. No Houstonian will be deprived of these services during our transition phase; 2. We will take all reasonable measures to insure multiple service providers for each service.
We will make certain requirements of service providers that must be honored for a period of two years. During that time they will be required to offer service to all households and businesses currently served by the facilities being purchased. This will be a contractual agreement between the city and the service provider, and a condition of sale for the assets they will be purchasing. Our purpose for these requirements is to insure uninterrupted service for all Houstonians during a period of transition from reliance on government to the private sector for the provision of these services.
As we privatize the water and sanitation systems we will develop and codify property rights to the assets that deliver these services, particularly those that are located underground. Repair, maintenance, and upgrades to those assets will require periodic excavation on both public and private property. The rights of all parties–the service providers and the property owners–must be addressed.
During the first year of my administration, we will freeze the budget for Health and Human Services at its current level. In each subsequent year, we will reduce that budget by 10%. This will provide all Houstonians with ample time to prepare to take responsibility for their own health care.
Health care is not a right. Rights pertain to freedom of action, not the results of action. You have a right to seek a doctor’s services. You do not have a right to demand that he treat you for free, or that others pay for your service. To demand such is to declare that your needs and desires are a claim on the property and lives of others. You have no such claim. If you cannot afford health care, you will be dependent upon the voluntary charity of others, not the compulsory “charity” of government programs.
My goal is not to provide for those in need, but to provide freedom. There is in fact, no greater human need than freedom. Freedom allows individuals to pursue their own values. Freedom provides opportunities. Freedom allows individuals to be charitable–when they choose. But this is a decision for individuals to make, not their government.
Quality of Life
My opponents promise that they will improve the city’s “quality of life”, but they do not define the term. They assume that we all know and agree to the same definition of “quality of life”. As used by my opponents, “quality of life” is a meaningless phrase.
The truth is, “quality of life” is a matter of personal values. We each define “quality of life” differently. Some individuals prefer a spacious back yard, while some prefer no yard at all. Some prefer proximity to parks, while others prefer to live close to shopping. Some prefer a short commute, while others prefer suburban life. All of these preferences and many, many more contribute to how each individual conceives “quality of life”.
For politicians to claim that they will improve the city’s “quality of life”, they must necessarily embrace one particular conception of the term. They must accept and implement one view of “quality of life”, to the exclusion of all others. And the “quality of life” that they embrace will be imposed upon all individuals, no matter their own personal views on the subject. All Houstonians will be forced to accept and live by the “quality of life” advocated by public officials.
There is only one context in which any public official can legitimately speak of “quality of life”. There is only one context in which all Houstonians can embrace the same conception of “quality of life”. And that context is individual freedom—the right to pursue your individual values and goals without interference from others, as long as you respect their mutual rights. Indeed, freedom is the ultimate in “quality of life”.
In this context, my administration will improve your “quality of life”—my administration will increase your personal freedom. My administration will reduce the arbitrary restrictions and controls imposed by city government. My administration will allow you to choose and pursue your definition of “quality of life”.
We will accomplish this by repealing ordinances that violate the rights of individuals. We will repeal permitting and licensing, which are nothing more than a mandate by city government that you secure permission for pursuing your “quality of life”. We will reduce taxes, which will allow you to keep more of your money and thereby pursue your “quality of life”. We will repeal ordinances that control how businesses operate, which will allow entrepreneurs to pursue their “quality of life”.
We will not tell you how to build or remodel your home. We will not tell you which contractors you can legally hire. We will not tell you what kinds of trees you can plant, or what kind of signs you can erect. We will allow you to act by right, not by permission.
Government regulations and controls drive up the cost of the goods and services you purchase, stifle competition, and reduce options for consumers. Government regulations and controls decrease jobs, make it more difficult and expensive for businesses to operate, and reduce economic opportunities. Government regulations and controls decrease your “quality of life”. And therefore, any meaningful discussion of improving a city’s “quality of life” must necessarily include reducing the size and scope of government.
Interestingly, my opponents argue that improving the city’s “quality of life” can only occur by expanding government. They argue that more government programs, services, and control over your life and business are the only way we can improve our “quality of life”. If this were true, then totalitarian dictatorships would be the epitome of “quality of life”. If this were true, citizens would voluntarily give all of their money to government.
“Quality of life” is a deeply personal issue for each individual. We each have a moral right to choose our “quality of life” without government restrictions. My administration will not stand in your way—we will allow you to pursue your own happiness and your own “quality of life”.
City Assets
The city currently provides many services that are improper government functions. To provide these services, the city owns millions of dollars in assets. These assets can, and should be sold as a part of our privatization efforts. In addition, the city owns or is involved with other assets–such as sports facilities–that are used for functions that are improper for government involvement.
I hasten to add that such sales will occur in an orderly manner. We will not liquidate all city assets in a matter of months—it will be a gradual process, in which continuity of service will be a primary objective. Further, we will take all reasonable actions to insure that no Houstonian experiences a sudden and unexpected change. We will announce schedules and educate Houstonians during this process.
Our initial efforts will target neighborhood parks—parks that are one city block or smaller in size. While the details may vary slightly because of context, our general plan is to offer these parks for sale to the residents of the neighborhood in which the park is located. The residents can make the purchase through their home owner’s association, through a newly formed entity for the purpose of operating the park, or as individual shareholders.
We recognize that many individuals purchase a home specifically because of its proximity to a park. Therefore, we will attach deed restrictions to the land, which will require that the land remain a park for a period of approximately fifteen years. (These restrictions are voluntary and contractual–they are not an application of government mandated regulations.) This will insure that no home owner will be subjected to a sudden change in land use. At the time the deed restrictions lapse, the owners of the park will have the option to renew the deed restrictions according to whatever terms they choose. This will provide home owners protection against unwanted and unexpected development, but also allow the owners to change the land use at a future time.
We will take a similar approach with larger parks, though the method of sale will be modified. Larger parks, such as Bayland, attract visitors from a wider area, and are not situated within a specific neighborhood. At this time, we have not determined a precise method for selling larger parks.
We will not be selling icons such as Memorial Park or Herman Park as a part of our initial plan. The size and value of these parks will require careful consideration as to the most appropriate methods for privatization. Our immediate goal is to privatize those parks that can be done so easily, which will give citizens more control of their lives and allow us to reduce taxes.
We will develop similar plans for the city’s libraries, particularly the neighborhood libraries. We will sell health clinics, community centers, and similar assets as the city gets out of those businesses. In short, we will develop plans to sell all city assets that are not required for legitimate and proper government functions.
Some may argue that privatizing the city’s libraries could result in an absence of such facilities. This may occur, but it does not change the fact that the provision of libraries is not a proper function of government. If citizens desire libraries (or community centers, health clinics, etc.), and are willing to pay for their use, entrepreneurs will seek to satisfy that demand, just as they provide other desired services. If the demand is insufficient to support libraries or other services, then the citizens will have demonstrated that they do not desire such services. In either case, the city will not force some individuals to pay for services used by others.
The sale of these assets will significantly reduce the city’s budget. This will be reflected in a reduction in taxes. The sale of these assets will generate millions of dollars in revenue for the city, which will be used for further tax reductions and/ or rebates to the taxpayers. In the process, we will give you more control over your money and your life.
Taxes
Most people complain that taxes are too high. I would agree. The reason that taxes are too high is because government attempts to do too many things, most are which are outside of its proper and legitimate sphere.
I also believe that taxes are too high because taxation is immoral–any level of taxation would be too high in my opinion. Taxation takes money from individuals and businesses without their consent. If a private citizen did this, he would be arrested for theft. The principle does not change merely because government is doing the taking—government takes from those who have earned and gives it to those who have not. This is not a proper function of government and it is immoral.
I would be naïve to suggest that we can end taxation in the near future. There is too much government to dismantle. But we can significantly reduce taxation in Houston. We can take steps to allow Houstonians to keep more of the money they earn.
Our plan for reducing taxes includes selling city assets, privatizing city services, eliminating code enforcement (because the codes will be repealed), and cutting spending in other areas. Each of these steps alone could result in significant tax reduction; together they will have a tremendous impact on your ability to retain the money you earn.
As a few examples of where savings can occur:
- More than $60 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating building inspections and similar functions. Building codes, regulations controlling occupancy of residential and commercial buildings, and similar ordinances violate the rights of individuals to use their property as they choose. Such functions are not proper for government and they should be eliminated.
- Providing parks and other recreational facilities is not a proper function of government. Such assets should be sold to the private sector. Selling some of the city’s parks would allow us to reduce this expense. Our goal is to reduce the parks and recreation budget by at least 15% per year.
- Nearly $5 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating sign administration. Ordinances regulating and controlling billboards and signs violate the rights of individuals to use their property as they choose. Such functions are not proper for government and they should be eliminated.
- Nearly $10 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating the Mobility Response Team. Clearing roadways is not a proper function of government. This particular program takes money from some Houstonians to use for the benefit of other Houstonians. This program should be eliminated.
- Nearly $9 million can be cut from the city budget by eliminating the Planning and Development Department. Planning and development are not government functions and should be left to the discretion of private individuals.
- As we privatize solid waste collection the budget for that department will be reduced. Our goal is a reduction of 25% per year. The budget for FY2009 is $76.41 million. This will translate to a savings of more than $19 million in the first year.
The above measures will reduce the city budget by more than $104 million. The city’s current budget is approximately $2 billion per year. Of this, less than half is for legitimate government functions–the police and courts. And both the police and the courts are over burdened with laws that are improper and immoral. The city’s budget should be a fraction of what it is today.
We will reduce property taxes by 10% in the first month after taking office. This will save Houstonians $88 million per year. Our goal will be to reduce property taxes by at least 50% in 6 years. Eliminating permitting and licensing fees will translate to other savings not reflected in the city’s budget, that is, lower regulatory impact costs to businesses and consumers. Cutting taxes will allow Houstonians to keep more of the money they earn. Morally, this is only proper. Such measures will also spur investment into new businesses and expansion of existing businesses.
One of my opponents claims that her years of service on City Council and as Controller means that she can spend taxpayer money more wisely than any other candidate. This is a very presumptuous attitude, and I reject it. I do not purport to know how to spend your money more wisely than you, and I intend to take whatever steps necessary to allow you to keep an increasing amount of your money. It’s your money. I don’t intend to try to find ways to spend it more wisely. I intend to find ways to let you keep more of it so you spend it as you choose. I won’t make empty promises about not raising taxes, because I will cut taxes significantly.
The Economy
At a time when Houston and the nation are experiencing a recession and seemingly endless job losses, city government has taken actions to further decrease jobs in Houston by enacting arbitrary restrictions on businesses and individuals.
For example, in 2008 City Council imposed new standards on mobile food vendors that will undoubtedly drive many out of business. City Council also outlawed “attention-getting devices”, a move that will decrease jobs in the signage industry. City Council has, for all intents and purposes, declared its intention to eliminate the billboard industry in Houston, and with it thousands of jobs. These are just a few examples of government intervention in the marketplace that costs the city jobs, interventions which my opponents have supported.
All of these actions ultimately increase costs to consumers, decrease the options and choices available, and violate the rights of Houstonians. These interventions cost Houstonians hundreds of millions of dollars each year, through taxes, permitting and licensing fees, and decreased economic opportunities.
While Houston has historically shown a greater respect for individual rights than other cities, in recent decades the city has increasingly sought to place controls on individuals and businesses. The relative freedom Houstonians have enjoyed has resulted in many economic benefits—a lower cost of living than other major cities, more affordable housing, and consistent job growth. But increased controls will reverse these benefits. Increased controls will increase the cost of housing and destroy jobs.
More significantly, increased controls represent a violation of the rights of individuals. Each individual has a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy his life, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Each individual has a moral right to choose his values and the actions necessary to achieve them. Each individual has a moral right to act without intervention from others.
The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights—the freedom to act without intervention. Government has no moral authority to intervene in the marketplace, to impose regulations on businesses, or to prohibit voluntary interactions between adults.
A vibrant economy cannot exist without the recognition and defense of individual rights, including property rights. If Houston is to have a growing economy, we must vigorously defend the right of property owners to act in the pursuit of their values according to their own judgment. My administration will recognize and defend the rights of all individuals. We will repeal regulations that violate individual rights—any ordinance that involves the initiation of force. This will reduce the costs to businesses, and in turn save Houstonians millions of dollars. We will eliminate arbitrary barriers to starting and operating a business. We will reduce taxes.
We will ask government to do less—much less. And this provides opportunities for private citizens to do more with their lives—much more. We will privatize improper government services. We will sell government assets that are not required for legitimate government functions. We will reduce the size and scope of government, and in doing so, increase individual freedom. When government takes less from its citizens, they have more of their own money to pursue the values that they need and desire. And in the end, that creates a vibrant economy.
These are not vague promises. These are concrete steps that we will take. They will have practical consequences that will benefit all Houstonians, and more importantly, they will recognize the moral right of each individual to his own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
Protecting Neighborhoods
Several of my opponents have spoken of the need to protect neighborhoods. But they haven’t told us what this means. They assume that we all know, and agree, to the meaning of the term.
A neighborhood is comprised of the individuals who own property and reside within a particular geographic area. But those individuals do not speak with one voice. They have different dreams, aspirations, and values. They seek different things in their life and in the neighborhood in which they live.
The proper function of government is the protection of individual rights, not neighborhoods. To “protect” neighborhoods, government must necessarily restrict the actions of some individuals for the benefit of other individuals. Government must use force to compel or prohibit certain behavior–it must use force to benefit some individuals are the expense of other individuals. This is what my opponents mean by “protecting” neighborhoods.
Consider the positions of my opponents, who advocate controls and regulations on the types of development that can occur. This, they would have us believe, will “protect” neighborhoods from actions that the residents find distasteful. And in the process, the rights of some property owners are violated. “Protections” that require a violation of property rights are a gross contradiction.
Civilized individuals do not resort to force to prohibit actions they find distasteful. They use reason and persuasion. They resort to contract and voluntary agreement, not the heavy hand of government.
The call for neighborhood “protection” is, at root, a demand that the property rights of some individuals be violated for the benefit of others. While it may be politically popular to appease such demands, the principles of individual freedom require that the rights of individuals be protected from the passions of a mob. The rights of individuals are sacrosanct, and may not be violated no matter the number demanding otherwise.
Each individual has a moral right to use his property as he chooses, so long as he does not violate the mutual rights of others. The only manner in which rights can objectively be violated is through the use of force–by compelling an individual to act contrary to his own rational judgment. Finding an action distasteful is not a violation of your rights. If it were, every Houstonian could make claims about countless others, and the result would be the destruction of all rights.
Those who are truly concerned about maintaining a certain character, charm, or quality in their neighborhood should use voluntary, contractual means for doing so. They can purchase objectionable properties, or use deed restrictions to place voluntary restrictions on the use of property.
But most of all, they must take responsibility for their own decisions. I realize that it is not politically popular to make such a suggestion–voters prefer to absolve themselves of responsibility and politicians are quick to cooperate. This does not change the fact that actions have consequences, and those who take the action must be held accountable for their actions. If they do not like the consequences, it is not the responsibility of government to bail them out. It is not the responsibility of government to make the pain go away. It is the responsibility of government to insure your freedom to make decisions and act accordingly.