« Put yourself in your neighbor's shoes »

I was having an email exchange with a friend who has bought into the whole "quality growth" argument. When I pointed out that Lorraine Green was bad for business (thinking of my analysis of her vote against a Lawrenceville business owner Timothy Roe in the April), he responded with a comment that I hear often and find so frustrating: "we've got enough business." This is a common refrain of people who oppose something - they position the government to place limits on the free market behavior of whatever they oppose. I find it distressing that, in a country of opportunity, people are so willing to cede their economic freedoms to the government. We are seeing this now as some politicians are suggesting that corporate executives - private employees I would emphasize - receive too much salary. Other politicians tell us that there is a reasonable amount of profit that a business should earn. They also tell us that certain people make enough money and don't need all of their earnings. This line of thinking manifests itself in Gwinnett as we have enough business.

I can - and often do - use high-flying rhethoric on the virtues of economic freedom and the inappropriateness of government limitations on the free market. However, in the America of 2008 where we have seen a marked decline in our love of freedom, these arguments often come across as superfluous and disconnected from daily life. In attempting to make this point to my friend, I thought perhaps this would resonate better if he could see these issues with him at the receiving end of government oppression of his economic freedom.

John has recently started his own business so I used this as a vehicle to drive a hypothetical scenario. What if the government said "John, we are sorry but we cannot issue a business license to you for your accounting firm. Gwinnett simply has enough tax professionals. You are just not going to be able to open your business in Gwinnett." What about the money he may have invested in computers and software, the effort he had invested in learning and honing his accounting skills? What about his entrepreneurial hopes and dreams? How would he like it if the Gwinnett County government told him that and prevented him from doing what he wanted to do when it didn't hurt anyone? This is effectively what happens when Lorraine Green or Mike Beaudreau rule against a permit request or a rezoning citing the nebulous concept of smart growth or the subjectively created land use plan.

I further extended the scenario to include a situation where the county might deny a business a chance to operate out of a home. John's dad runs a computer repair shop from his home. Yes, the business generates a small amount of traffic but nothing that would reasonably impact his neighbors. The nature of the business is not one that would otherwise disturb others if it is conducted from within the home. Again thinking of Commissioner Green's ruling against Tim Roe's business, I asked John to consider if someone had complained about business traffic at his dad's computer repair shop and used the Gwinnett County Commission to tell him he could not operate his business there? Would that be a fair use of government authority? Would he support the government shutting down McNair's Computer Repair?

In general, I wanted John to put himself in Tim Roe's shoes and think about how Mr. Roe felt having Lorraine Green unjustifiably tell him that he had to shutter his truck rental business. In April it was Tim Roe. What if in 2009 it is John and his accounting business? It may seem reasonable to use government to oppress business when you don't like what is being oppressed, but tomorrow the tables may be turned. If you are considering voting for Lorraine Green or Mike Beaudreau, put yourself in Tim Roe's shoes and think about how you would like either of these two telling you could not do something that didn't hurt or bother someone else. If you vote for either, you are only allowing them to continue making their decisions which chip away at our precious freedoms and property rights.

Note: I have changed John and his dad's names as well as their business to protect their privacy.