I the Radical; E. Zarbin

What had I said that drew such strong reaction? I had gone before the city council to argue against the inclusion of health and safety standards in existing buildings (commonly known as a "housing code") as part of a revised Con struction and Residential Safety Code ordinance. I oppose a housing code for two reasons: 1) because it is an inva sion of the use of private prop erty; 2) because the acknowledged reason city officials and community "leaders" want it is to qualify the city for a variety of Federal aid programs, such as urban renewal Mr. Zarbin is a newspaperman in Arizona. and model cities, which I oppose. I told the city council: "How a ma.n lives inside his house, what sort of house he has, is not the legitimate business of the city council or its agents .... This city council has no charter to invade my home or to regulate my personal habits so long as what I do is not destructive to other hu man beings. If I want to live in a room without windows, that's my business. If I want to read by candlelight, that's my business. If I don't want to put a furnace in my house, that's my business and it can be nothing but arro gance and know-it-allness for any one else to presume to tell me how I sho uld Iivee . . .

"The fact that the proposed or dinance would (temporarily) lack enforcement provisions does not lessen the provocative nature, nor does it reduce the insidious impli cations, of the ordinance. More over, to suggest or to hint, as it has been done, that the city would not attempt to enforce its provi488 484 THE FREEMAN August sions to the fullest, is to expose the deceitfulness of those 'who so desperately want this council to enact a housing code. What pur pose is there in passing an ordi nance unless the city intends to use the police power to enforce it? The passing of laws is no game it is a serious business, and this city council should realize that when it passes an ordinance it is throwing the weight of the organ ized police force against the indi vidual citizen. This realization should lead the council to act with extreme care .... "I do not want the fruits of my labor spent on restructuring this city - when there is economic j us tification for spending money for tearing down buildings, that will be done by the people voluntarily.

For example, the First National Bank has torn down old buildings to replace them with a new build ing. The Valley National Bank is doing the same thing. Where there is economic justification, these things will be done, and they will be done without the mayor or any one else holding a gun at our heads. But the people who want the housing code and Federal urban renewal programs are not satisfied with the pace for change made by free human beings work ing in voluntary cooperation. The people who want the housing code and the resulting Federal programs are social engineers, they are do-gooders who aren't, satis fied with the rate of change brought by free people. Because the do-gooders have failed to sell in the market place their ideas on where our money should be spent, they have turned to the city gov ernment and to the Federal gov ernment to do it for them." If, at first, You Don't Succeed . ..

I knew beforehand that my re marks would receive a chilly recep tion. The community "leaders" and city officials had been attempt ing to-enact a housing code and to usher Federal aid programs into Phoenix for more than a decade. Twice, in 1963 and in 1966, when housing code proposals (and the anticipated Federal urban renewal projects) had been put to votes, the people had rejected them. But the agitation for a housing code and Federal aid programs as the only solution· for Phoenix prob lems never ceased among city offi cials and community "leaders." I have maintained that every thing that has to be done in the community can be accomplished through voluntary cooperation, that it is immoral to use the police power to require individuals to contribute to projects they would not voluntarily support, that char ity not given voluntarily is not charity.

1970 I, THE RADICAL 485 Nothing that I had said sounded radical to me, but a young friend disagreed. Virtually everything that I had said, he had assured me, had been radical. I replied I couldn't understand why, since I considered what I had said to be in keeping with the precepts of the U. S. Constitution and the philosophy of freedom. But I began thmking about it. Perhaps what I had said was radical. Webster's Third New In ternational Dictiona,ry includes these definitions of radical: As a noun, "one that advocates a decided and often extreme change from existing, usual, or traditional views, habits, condi tions, or methods." As an adjec tive, "marked by considerable de parture from the usual or tradi tional. Tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or insti tutions." Back to First Principles By these definitions, what I had said was radical, but only if gov ernment intervention had become the usual, or traditional, view. In arguing for voluntary cooperation in resolving problems, I indeed was suggesting "extreme changes in existing views," but only if· col lecti vism was accepted as being dominant in our social and politi cal habits. Sadly, the evidence around us is that collectivism to day is considered the social and political panacea.