The Houston Objectivism Society is an organization dedicated to spreading the ideas of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism in the Houston area.

In her essay "What Can One Do?" Ayn Rand writes:

Speak on any scale open to you, large or small--to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time.

HOS member Joe Reed recently demonstrated this in a simple, but effective way. League City, where Joe lives, has zoning. Home owners in his neighborhood were protesting a variance request by a nearby property owner. Joe wrote the following letter to a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission:

I am a homeowner in the Oak Creek subdivision. It has come to my attention that the owner of a piece of commercial property adjacent to my neighborhood, Mr. Tim Wood, is requesting a zoning variance (case number BP09-01R).

The purpose of the city government and its various departments should be the protection of property rights. Based on the information I have received on the matter, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission is failing to perform this function. I believe that the property rights of Mr. Wood are being violated. Here's why:

 (1) Although I was not in attendance at the first hearing, I was told that the planning board received over 30 emails from homeowners in my subdivision, and that between 10-15 homeowners spoke to the commissioners at the meeting. According to the map I've seen, the property in question backs up to only two or three houses at the front of the Oak Creek subdivision. Assuming their argument was that they did not want to look over their back fence and see a warehouse (which I've been told is what Mr. Wood is building), I think it is wrong to allow homeowners who would not be directly affected to have a voice in the matter. For example, I received a flyer on my door requesting support against Mr. Wood's plans (in addition to several emails), even though I live several blocks away from the property. Why should I (and the other 150 or so homeowners in the neighborhood) be able to keep Mr. Wood from building on his own land, when I wouldn't even be able to see what he's built? The opinions of those who are not even directly impacted by the variance request should be thrown out as irrelevant- no matter how many there are. The basic principle in question is property rights, and these should not be up for a vote.

 (2) As for the two or three homeowners whose property is directly adjacent to the property in question, they should not be able to dictate what Mr. Wood can and cannot build on his own land, either. There is no inalienable right to an unobstructed view from one's back door. They built houses at the edge of the neighborhood, next door to (at the time) undeveloped land. They cannot demand that the land remain untouched forever more. If they want to control what happens on the adjacent property, then they could/should purchase it. The true meaning of property rights is the right to use your own property as you see fit, and not to dictate to others how they should be allowed to use theirs.

 (3) I learned (independently of the flyer and emails I received) that there is a potential issue with sewage service for the property in question. Apparently the property does not currently have access to a sewage system. As I understand the situation, this means that Mr. Wood would need to either build an on-site septic system, or tie into a nearby sewage system (i.e., Oak Creek's). I've been told that these options are unacceptable to the various parties.

 I have heard that some types of septic systems cause odors to the surrounding area that some find offensive. However, at this time, that is merely a potential problem, since no such system has yet been built on the property. Assuming that Mr. Wood builds such a system, and that it turns out to be unacceptable to the nearby neighbors, then there are existing nuisance laws on the books that can be used to deal with the situation if/when it actually exists. The point is that there must exist an actual- not a potential- nuisance before action can/should be taken. To block Mr. Wood's plans at this time, based only on the potential for some future problem is just morally wrong. He should be perfectly free to build whatever type of septic system he wants to (and can afford). If he chooses now to build a system that will create a nuisance later, then he should be prepared to deal with nuisance law violations later- when they actually occur. If the costs of dealing with the problem later turn out to be unacceptable at that time, then too bad for him- let the fines begin! In any case, he should have the freedom to make those choices, and deal with the consequences. He should not have to beg for permission from the Commission, or the nearby homeowners, ahead of time.

 As for the other option (tying into Oak Creek's sewage line), that should be dealt with by direct negotiations between the property owner and Oak Creek (or whatever the name of the party that represents the actual owner of the land), independently of any zoning commission. Oak Creek owns the land through which the other property owner wants access (to tie into the sewage system). If Oak Creek determines that it does not want to provide access, then the other property owner is out of luck. If the other property owner cannot convince Oak Creek to allow access, then he must find another solution. If he cannot find another alternative solution, then again, too bad for him. He has no right to demand access, just as Oak Creek has no right to keep him from trying. If no agreement between the parties can be reached, so be it. One party or the other may walk away empty-handed, but no property rights have been violated in doing so.

 Note that I am not in any way associated with Mr. Wood, and have in fact never met or had any contact with him. My arguments are based strictly on the moral premise that property rights are to be protected, not violated, by the government, and that they should never be determined by popular vote. The property owner has the moral right to use his property as he sees fit.

 The Commission should fulfill its obligation to uphold the rights of property owners, and should therefore grant the request to Mr. Wood.

I am happy to report that Mr. Wood's variance was granted. I suspect that Joe's letter had more impact than we will ever know. As he told me prior to sending the letter, he was greatly outnumbered by his neighbors. Yet, despite the mass of people opposed to the variance, one rational, principled voice carried the day. Congratulations Joe.

Thirteen members of HOS attended the April 15 Tea Party. We handed out 150 copies of Atlas, 150 pamphlets, and collected about 150 email addresses. I have sent an email to those who got a copy of Atlas. I encouraged them to read it, to visit the HOS web site, as well as the sites for ARI and ARC. I also solicited donations for purchasing copies of Atlas to distribute at the July 4 Tea Party. My goal is to hand out 500 copies at that party.

The organizers say that 8,500+ people signed in, and they know many who attended didn't do so (I didn't). They estimate the crowd at 10,000. That is remarkable, as it demonstrates that many in our culture are unhappy with current trends. But as the signs and speakers at the event made clear, rational ideas are largely missing from the tea parties. And unless rational principles are embraced by the tea party movement, it will wither and die.

Once again, thanks to all who attended the Tea Party, contributed to purchasing copies of Atlas Shrugged, or both. I hope you consider assisting at the July 4 Tea Party. If you would like to donate to purchasing copies of Atlas, click below.

December 30, 2008

by the HOS President

I was deeply disturbed by the actions of the Mayor and City Council as reported in “Tiny bit of land triggers big fight over city powers.” The proper role of the government is the protection of individual rights, especially property rights. To have property rights means that a property owner should be allowed to use his property as he sees fit as long as he is not violating the rights of others. Instead, our mayor and city council try to justify taking private property away from James and Jock Collins by appealing to eminent domain. Even though eminent domain has been used in the past to justify the taking of private property, our city leaders and citizens need to recognize that this law is at the root of the problem. Government officials at the city, state, or federal levels should not have the power to take private property for “the good of the community.” What’s good for our community and any community is the recognition and protection of property rights.

August 15, 2008

by the HOS President

One editorial and another article by Paul Krugman appeared in Friday’s paper lamenting the fact that the federal and state government don’t provide health care to everyone who needs it.  Both of these pieces assume that if citizens need something, in this case health insurance, that the government must provide it by way of taking money (i.e. taxes) from responsible, hardworking people and giving it to others who are less well off or irresponsible or just plain lazy.  Just because someone needs something, even if that something is as important as medical care, other people (i.e. taxpayers) shouldn’t be forced to provide for those needs.  People also need clothing and shoes, so does that mean the government should set up a national shoe and clothing program and take a significant portion of everyone’s paycheck in order to fund it?  Obviously not.  In our constitutional republic, one that should recognize and respect individual rights, individuals—doctors and patients—should be left free to make their own medical decisions and to agree upon a price to be paid by that individual patient.  To have a right to something (such as a right to life or property) means that a person should be given the freedom to seek out his or her values without interference from other people or the government.  For example, when our Founding Fathers wrote that Americans have a right to life, they did not mean that others had to provide them with the means to sustain that life.

People who are promoting socialized medicine keep whining that the current system is broke.  Did they ever stop to ask why?  The government “broke” the system in the first place.  It started back in the 1930s with special deals to some insurance companies; then the problems began escalating after the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s.  Now some people want the government to finish the job and make our entire health care system one big Medicaid program.  We’ve recently seen how well the government has managed half the mortgage market.  How could anyone want them to do the same thing to health care?  Krugman also points out that every other “advanced nation” provides national health care and disparages the United States because we don’t.  Just because these other nations choose to violate the rights of their citizens doesn’t mean the U.S. should follow suit.  Americans should be proud of the fact that we have the most advanced medical facilities, medicines, and medical technology available in the world today because we still have the remnants of a free market system.  But we won’t for long if concerned citizens don’t speak out against a government takeover of health care.

Besides myself, three other members showed up to the healthcare meeting on Friday, July 18th (which actually was a Congressional Hearing).  I had planned my son’s feedings around the meeting, which was to be from 1:30-3:30.  Those @#$% politicians didn't show up until 3:00!  Up to that point, I had been amusing my son, but the minute John Conyers started speaking, he started crying.  I was tempted to just stay there and annoy all those bleeding heart liberals (their own description) on stage, but I decided to step outside.  But I was there to hear the first words out of Conyers’ mouth: "This issue isn't about ideas, or theories, or philosophy, or idealism.  It's about providing healthcare."  No wonder my son started crying.  When I stepped back inside, I heard two doctors on stage telling sob stories about patients not receiving the care they need.  The last speaker was a former pres. of the AFL-CIO, who is now on the hospital district's board.  It’s probably not hard to imagine what he had to say.  It was getting close to 4:00, and I thought that they would finally take questions from the audience.  But, no.  They then introduced a second group of people to go up on stage to talk about the virtues of socialized medicine, no doubt.  By that time I had to leave because my son needed to be fed.  According to the members who stayed, the meeting continued for another hour with more of the same.  Then, around 5:00, Sheila Jackson Lee looked at her watch and said it was time to wrap things up and that they wouldn't have time to take questions or comments from the audience.  This after at the beginning of the meeting saying that she was eager to hear what members of the audience had to say.  Just one woman had a chance to run up to the microphone and ask a question about the pay for nursing teachers.

That was it.  The other three HOS members left in total disgust.  I'm glad I didn't waste another hour there.  Two of us did write letters to the editor, which unfortunately weren’t published (see below).  I also sent mine to both Lee and Conyers, as well as my rep. and senators.  The good news: I recently had a meeting with another HOS member, who is also an officer in the Rice Objectivism Club.  She mentioned the possibility of having a speaker from ARI, or perhaps a panel of speakers, come to Rice this fall to give a talk on the healthcare crisis.  With financial support from HOS members and ARI, I think we could make this happen.  I’ll keep you posted.

July 20, 2008

by a HOS Member

The Health Museum on Herman drive was the scene Friday afternoon of a contemptible sham “hearing” of John Conyers’ Judiciary committee.  It was run as a well staged play by that consummate director Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.  All of the actors (witnesses) began with fawning adoration for Ms. Lee and Mr. Conyers.  Most were groveling for more loot from the taxpayers’ pockets.  All of the actors (witnesses) simpered with praise for the proposed legislation HR 676 “The United States National Health Care Act.”  Not one single word was said in opposition by any of the actors.  Nor did the script allow time for questions from the audience.  The two hour performance once begun became a three hour play in two acts including scene changes (name cards) to get through the soliloquies of a second round of actors.

Now the substance:  There was a litany of suffering and pain stories to elicit sympathy followed by assertions of the right of the victims to not suffer it.  Many actors highlighted their personal sacrifices to upstage each other and elicit guilt.  None addressed the fundamental that National Health Care will take away my doctors’ and my absolute right to agree on a course of treatment and its price.  As Mr. Conyers said “This is not about ideas.  This is not about philosophy.”  Well you are right Mr. Conyers it is about the brute, thuggish force of government.  Doctors and individuals who honestly provide for their own health care are the intended victims.

July 20, 2008

by the HOS President

In Houston on Friday, July 18th, a congressional hearing took place on a bill that would dramatically change health care as we know it in the United States for every single citizen, yet Saturday’s edition of the Houston Chronicle didn’t even mention the fact that this hearing took place.  Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, along with Congressman John Conyers, Jr., conducted a congressional hearing at The Health Museum on H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Insurance Act.”  This bill would “expand the already existing Medicare program to all U.S. residents. . .” (quoting from handout provided at the hearing).  This bill would require every citizen to apply for and receive a United States National Health Insurance Card.  It sets up a “program [that] would cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs. . .mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.”  Private insurers would not be allowed to “duplicate the benefits” of this program.  They would only be allowed to “provide coverage for cosmetic surgery and other non-medically necessary treatments.”  All for-profit hospitals and medical facilities would have to convert to private, non-profit institutions within fifteen years.  Basically, H.R. 676 is a bill that would nationalize all healthcare in the United States.

At first glance, some may think that providing health insurance for all Americans would improve the health of all concerned.  Instead, this plan would destroy the very health care system on which we all rely.  Our health care system is the best and most innovative in the world because doctors, hospitals, and other health related industries still have the freedom to operate their businesses for a profit.  This motivates them to provide the best care, best services, and best innovations.  Not only do they receive the rewards of their hard work in terms of gaining a profit, but the patient is also the beneficiary.

Why should every American be concerned for their very lives under H.R. 676?  This bill is a blatant violation of the individual rights of all citizens.  It violates the rights of doctors to determine the price of their services, to create “for profit” practices, to decide what insurance plans they will accept or what patients they will see and what treatments to offer.  It violates the rights of all health insurance company owners and workers because this bill will essentially put that entire industry out of business.  It also violates the rights of every citizen where it counts most:  their health.  U.S. citizens will no longer be able to choose their insurance providers or coverage plans.  We will no longer be able to consult with our doctors and choose the best treatments for us because the government will control what services will be provided.  We will no longer have a choice as to how much we want to pay for health insurance because all productive citizens and businesses will be forced to pay a new tax, which will no doubt increase over time.

What this bill will do is effectively ruin the healthcare system for everybody.  Would doctors be motivated to provide the best care possible if they aren’t allowed to own their own practices, to decide the insurance or patients they will accept, or to determine the cost of their services?  Will hospitals be motivated to provide the best care if they aren’t allowed to make a profit or to decide the cost of their services?  Would other medical technology companies and pharmaceutical companies be motivated to invest in research and development if they know that the use of their products will depend upon pleasing some government bureaucrat?  Think of healthcare as run like the post office, public schools, or the DMV office:  incompetent and ineffective service, long lines, unhappy workers, and little choice.  That’s exactly what politicians like Sheila Jackson Lee and John Conyers, Jr. want to do to our healthcare system.  These bad effects can already be seen with the ever expanding Medicare and Medicaid programs.  Just last week, the Houston Chronicle ran a story pointing out that a large number of doctors in Texas are refusing to take on more Medicaid or Medicare patients because of the red tape and low pay they have to endure.  What happens when our entire system becomes one big Medicare program?

At the hearing, time and again the politicians bemoaned the fact that our current healthcare system is “broken.”  Did they ever stop to ask why the system is broken?  Since the 1960s with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the government has been slowly encroaching upon the rights of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients.  They have continued to pass laws and regulations over the past four decades to try to “fix” the mess that they’ve created.  Now some politicians want to finish the job and make the takeover complete.

At the very least, the Houston Chronicle should have informed its readership that a congressional hearing took place over extremely controversial legislation that our very own Congresswoman is supporting.  This would give people a chance to consider this very important issue and decide for themselves the ramifications of “Medicare for All.”

• "Health Care is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff
• "Ted Kennedy vs. Universal Healthcare: A Double Irony" by Richard Parker, MD (ER doctor from Texas)
• "The Right Vision of Health Care" by Yaron Brook
• "FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance" by Paul Hsieh, MD
• "Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'" by Lin Zinser, JD and Hsieh, MD

May 4, 2008

J. Brian Phillips

Principles and Planning

Recent events, such as the release of Stephen Klineberg’s newest survey and the controversy over the Ashby High Rise, have provoked a renewed discussion over land use restrictions in Houston. While such discussions are important, they are meaningless unless they address fundamental principles.

Klineberg’s survey found that majority of Houstonians favor increased government control of land use. Politicians and pundits alike are citing this as justification for expanding City Hall’s powers. (See the May 4 Chronicle article, “Zoning’s not the issue for Houston” for the latest example.)

The premise underlying this position is that if the majority agrees to a particular policy, it must be right and proper. And therefore, the dictates of the majority may rightfully be imposed upon the rest of the city.

Some may argue that this is the democratic way. However, America was not founded as a democracy, but a constitutional republic. James Madison wrote, “There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”. 

Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment:  “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”  Our Founders understood that democracy was nothing more than a tyranny of the masses.

The Founders sought to protect the rights of the minority from the passions and whims of the majority. They understood that the individual is the smallest minority, and thus they sought to protect the rights of individuals.

The right to property—the right to own, use, and dispose of material values—is one of the most fundamental rights. The right to property means the right to use your property as you choose, free from the dictates of others. (You may not use your property to violate the mutual rights of others.)

Land use restrictions—not matter what they are called, how they are justified, or the number of supporters—are a violation of property rights. They force the property owner to abide by the dictates of government in the use of his property. He may act, not by right, but by permission.

The current discussion of land use controls has focused on the need for greater planning in Houston’s development. The implication of such calls is that Houston’s growth has been unplanned. Apparently, the demagogues pushing this idea have not heard of New Territory, Cinco Ranch, and many other planned communities around Houston.

In the early 1990s zoning advocates pointed to such communities as evidence that Houstonians want planning. They ignored the fact that there is a fundamental difference between planned communities and zoning. Today’s current advocates of land use restrictions ignore the same fact.

Planned communities involve the voluntary consent of the property owners. Such communities use deed restrictions—i.e., contractual agreements. Zoning and similar land use controls use government power—i.e., coercion. There is a fundamental difference between the voluntary and the coerced.

Advocates of land use controls object to the planning conducted by individuals, and seek to replace it with central planning. They object to the choices make by some individuals (such as the Ashby High Rise), and seek to usurp individual choice with group choice.

The debate over land use restrictions involves much more than dirt and steel. It is about the rights of individuals. It is about the proper role of government.

Houston has traditionally respected property rights. Houston has grown and prospered because it has protected the right its citizens to use their property as they choose. Houston has protected the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Houstonians have an opportunity to retain that proud heritage. Houstonians again have an opportunity to assert their freedom. The debate over land use controls will be prolonged and heated. It is a debate that must focus on fundamental principles. Houstonians deserve nothing less.

Report on the Baker Institute Panel Discussion

April 17, 2008

J. Brian Phillips

On April 14 I appeared on a panel to discuss the proposed Ashby High Rise. The event was hosted by the Baker Institute Student Forum at Rice.  (a recording is available)

The other members of the panel were:

• Jim Reeder, the President of the Southampton Civic Club (the neighborhood nearest the proposed project)
• Mike Snyder, a reporter for the Chronicle
• John Mixon, a law professor and zoning advocate

The moderator was a student from Rice.

Currently, the property at 1717 Bissonnet is an apartment complex. A developer purchased the property, and after doing marketing studies, concluded that a multi-use high rise would be the best use of the property.

They applied for the 7 required permits and had received approval on 5. The civic clubs for 2 neighborhoods near the property began fighting the project, and enlisted help from Mayor White and City Council. At one point the City was drafting a new ordinance aimed specifically at this property. However, other Council Members began “tweaking” the ordinance so that it could apply to projects in their districts. As a result, it got watered down and the ordinance no longer would have stopped the Ashby High Rise. In response, the City found a law from the 1930’s that they are now trying to apply.

The moderator directed a question to one panel member, and other members could then respond. In total the moderator asked 5 questions, and then questions were taken from the audience.

The audience consisted primarily of home owners from the 2 nearby neighborhoods. There were a few students and a number of HOS members present.

The questions from the moderator were very weak. They avoided any essential issues. For example, the first question pertained to Houston’s “unique approach to zoning” and the second addressed how the Southampton Civic Club became involved in the “debate”.

I had received the questions several days prior to the event. I had prepared responses to each question, and my message was integrated. I knew that my time would be limited in response to each individual question, and intended to develop my message as the questions proceeded.

Despite my planning, several things occurred that made complete implementation difficult:

1. The time available to me was cut short by the last minute addition of Mixon to the panel
2. Reeder made statements that demanded that I address them
3. Interruptions from the crowd

I had anticipated a hostile crowd. I knew that they would not like what I was going to say. However, their hostility exceeded my expectations and reached the point of being mildly amusing.

For example, at one point a member of the audience asked for my removal from the panel. During the Q & A another person launched an ad hominem attack by asking about my credentials (it turned out to be a good opening to inform them that they were not dealing with some intellectual hack).

Reeder ultimately cut the discussion short, quietly telling the moderator that he needed to leave. He disappeared within moments of the end. He was visibly and verbally shaken during the event.

Afterward, several homeowners approached me to discuss the issue. They seemed to be on the fence, so perhaps I had some impact on them.

I was also approached by 2 members of Houstonians for Responsible Growth. I had not heard of this group. In briefly looking at their web site, they seem to be pro-free market and they indicated as much that night. They appear to be focused on the economic argument against land use restrictions.

Overall, I was pleased with my performance. It was by far the most hostile audience I’ve ever faced. I believe I held my own quite well, and I certainly undermined the moral certainty of the opposition. The audience heard a principled argument, and I exposed the essence of their position. From a personal standpoint, I had a lot of fun.

I had met with the developers the week before the event. They were appreciative of my willingness to defend them. They are currently in “negotiations” with the City, and want to keep a low profile. Hence, they did not participate in the event. I hand delivered an audio recording to them the morning after the event. At this time, I have not heard their response.

Mike Snyder thinks that land use controls will be a big part of next year’s mayoral election. Peter Brown—a current Councilman and anti-billboard/ pro-zoning slug—plans to run.

The Ashby High Rise is a small battle in a much larger war. In 1993 I delivered a talk titled “Winning the Battle and Losing the War”. In that talk I predicted that even if we won the upcoming referendum on zoning, the issue would not go away. Collectivists would continue to work to implement land use restrictions. We won that particular battle, and the collectivists have won many since.

Houston is arguably the freest city in the nation. I love this city. I fought for it in the early 1990’s, and I will do so again. I desperately want to see the Ashby High Rise built. To me it will be more than just another tall building. At the risk of being melodramatic, it will be a monument to freedom, and the first victory in winning the upcoming war.