The New Oregon Century
An examination of the headlines and articles accompanying The Oregonian’s request for input from the public on the "New Oregon Century" is instructive. The articles referred to growth planning, "Oregon’s" children, and "communal" wealth. In each case The Oregonian views these problems and their solutions from a group rather than an individual perspective. The solution to growth "problems" is government planning. The children belong to Oregon not to parents. Wealth is "communal".
The first thing that must be done to address these issues is to change the viewpoint from which they are observed. The debate must be expanded to the validity of the basic premises of the proposed solutions before the details of how the solutions can be "fixed" can be addressed. We should use 2000AD, the last year of the twentieth century to discuss these premises and implement fixes in 2001AD, the first year of the next century.
The results of the Urban Growth Boundary and growth planning are evident. Housing is developed on smaller lots and less suitable land. Larger homes are developed on smaller lots with less open space. Overall housing costs increase making housing less available to lower income families. Groups with an artificial economic interest to prevent further growth are created. Political friction between groups is exacerbated, as the full effects of growth limitation become evident. (Urban Growth Boundaries and Housing Affordability, Staley and Milder, Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Brief 11, October 1999). It is time to open the debate to market solutions that enhance rather than restrict freedom and promote civility rather than divisiveness.
Children do not belong to Oregon. They belong, if we can use that word, to parents. It is the right and responsibility of parents to "nurture the young." The idea that "society" is responsible for children doesn’t make everyone responsible. It makes no one responsible. It is this idea that has fostered most if not all of the problems that we see with young people today. It is time that we placed responsibility where it truly lies, with the parents and, most of all, with the children. Young people must be taught early in their lives that they are responsible for their actions and must take the consequences. Parents and family and not the state must teach them. It is the constant interference by the state in this critical relationship that has led to many of our present difficulties. The job of the state and society is to enable the parents to do their job by staying out of the way.
I am amazed that the idea that wealth is "communal" is still presented as rational by a responsible journal. It is as if the lessons of the last century with the various ideologies based on this assumption have not been learned. Wealth is not "communal". The idea that it is has led to more destruction and heartache than can be contemplated. Here, again, we must develop and expand on the only proven idea that works, individual wealth and the free market. Again, the job of the state is to get out of the way. We must open the discussion of welfare, health services, education, retirement, and all the other social issues to market solutions based on individual freedom and responsibility. This is the lesson of the last century that we must take into the next.