This past Sunday, my blog post: "An Open Letter to All Texans" was reprinted in the Houston Chronicle under the headline: "Looks Like Another Texas Landgrab."
The internet version did illicit a few comments, a few negative, and a few positive.
Interestingly enough a couple of negative comments chastised me for addressing this issue out of ignorance and that I should be ashamed for doing so. Well, perhaps these folks are correct in assessing that I do not know all of the the legalities of such moves by the State and by corporations, although I do have a rudimentary understanding of such things. But to yours truly, it isn't just a matter of the legalities.
For you see, there are a couple of other things that I do know:
1. I do know the city of Houston does not need extra power at this time. They are doing quite well and projections do not show them falling short of their needed electric power for quite some time.
2. This means CenterPoint must come up with some other justification for this project. They WANT these lines. They do not NEED them.
3. Their justification is to save their customers (*cough, cough* and increase their profits *cough, cough*. Sorry, I had something stuck in my virtual throat.) money by condemning the land of other Texans and getting right of way through it and building these power lines.
When a company or entity moves from a need to want, it crosses out of the realm of pure legalities and into the realm of ethics. And I believe I know a thing or two about ethics--at least theoretically. Perhaps after reading you might agree. I'm O.K. if you don't.
Basically, ethics is done by folks in one of two ways.
The first way of doing ethics is to judge something by its impact. Generally, this mode is explained by doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, or utilitarianism. For instance, if the city of Houston was having rolling blackouts every day and the production of goods and services were being stymied, including the production of oil, gas, plastics, etc. and the blackouts would be ended by building a power line through people's land, then there is a good case to argue the ethics of building such a power line through the method of utilitarianism.
But, there is a huge downside to utilitarianism. What protection does it afford for the minority? Let's use a time tested example of a misuse of utilitarianism: slavery. One could easily argue that during the early years of our country, slavery was ethical due to utilitarianism. The greater good; the U.S. and southern economy was able to thrive because of the non-existent cost of labor. Many people's lives were enhanced at the cost of the few. Yet, does anyone really want to defend slavery?
I don't. Because there is another ethical framework to work out of. Basically, in this framework, one appeals to a greater law or principle that governs how we are supposed to live. Such ethics are called deontological.
In the case of slavery, an appeal is made to the statement in the Declaration of Independence that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Slavery's utilitarian justification falls flat on its face in light of this deontological truth. If all men are created equal, then no man should own another man or force him to engage in something forcefully.
Which now brings us to CenterPoint. In the absence of a glaring NEED which allows the ethics of utilitarianism to be put into use, one therefore falls back onto deontological ethics. Property owners have rights regarding the use of their land. If they do not wish to sell it or give it up, they should not be forced to do so by an entity because that entity is larger than they are, represents more people than they do, or has more money and influence than they do. The ethics are absolutely clear on this one.
It is the job of the state, the government, to protect the rights of its people. In this case, the government should side with the people whose land is threatened because of no provable NEED in the case of CenterPoint Energy. While profit margins and cost savings are important, they do not negate the rights of individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment