lewrockwell.com — It's wonderful to have visions and dreams, but thoroughly evil and destructive when we seek to have government accomplish them on our behalf. The means, not the dream, is the problem. It ends up taking away liberty and creating unanticipated forms of destruction. This is the great lesson that economics has to teach us,
May 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
yeagoMay 2, 2007
@joybran"He is warning you that, if you use force to get those lower rents closer to the university, you will end up with students not being able to find any housing at any price anywhere near the university."I agree, controlling rents will obviously create a surplus of demand and thus lots of disappointed students, but developing near-campus luxury condos has the same effect. BOTH options frustrate demand, with one exception. Refusing luxury development does not actually decrease the supply of student housing, whereas developing luxury condos does. I am not for price controls, except in extreme cases. I don't think rent control is necessary here--I think development restrictions suffice.Look, you can call me ignorant but I'm operating with the goal of favoring the use of near-campus facilities for students. You obviously don't have that goal. But just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant and you Armchair Economist of the Year.
jeffiekMay 2, 2007
@Yeago" But just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant"Then what does? (sorry - that straight line was just too good to pass up). Seriously though, the answer is in this sentence:"It happened because the resources found new and more economically efficient uses, as a reflection of the decisions made by entrepreneurs over which consumers stand in judgment every day in their buying decisions."In this time and place, the student's needs aren't the most beneficial. Sorry, sometimes life sucks. But in the long run, the most economically efficient use of property leads to a more wealthy society. That's good for everyone.
yeagoMay 2, 2007
Yep, I'll do you the service you refuse to do me and say that's a perfectly valid ideology! I happen to think in practice its not so dreamy, but its certainly a functional philosophy. See ya!And if I didn't love the debate, I never would have dugg this article in the first place!
joybranMay 2, 2007
@ yeago"just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant"What you aren't getting is the concept of voluntary versus coerced. I hope that is due to ignorance rather than you not valuing life, liberty and property. I have no right to tell condo developers or anyone else what to do with their investment money, and neither do you, and getting a bunch of people to gang up to prevent them from doing what they want doesn't make it right. But you are correct that the argument from morality is a value judgment.Even if you don't value life, liberty and property and the rights of people to self-ownership, what you need to understand is that coercion doesn't work in the long run. You might be able to prevent condo development long enough for you personally to get a low rent apartment for the time you need it before the shortage starts, but your goal of low-rent, near-campus housing for students is not going to be realized if the means used to achieve it are coercive. Restricting development by government force is just as coercive as rent control and just as destructive in the long run.You are perfectly free to say "I don't care as long as I get mine," but just understand that any time you try to use government force to get something you want (no matter how noble), THAT is what you are saying.
yeagoMay 3, 2007
That at least I can agree with. =)
stealthcMay 3, 2007
Voluntary market activities are always more legitimate than government force.No man is a superman, but the market represents humans cooperating in ways that each one benefits from every transaction he is involved in. Government-controlled markets are systems in which some people are compelled to make transactions they do not find suitable. If you had to choose between everyone benefiting or only your favorite group benefiting, which would you choose?The market is the best way to redistribute wealth because no government can possibly decide what to do with the people's money better than the people themselves. Will there still be people who are wealthier than others? Will people still make bad choices with their money? Yes. But why resent people for their affluence or save everyone from the consequences of their mistakes?In a free market society, one becomes wealthy by serving others in a bigger, better, or more efficient way. In a free market society the wealthy *are* heroes. Under our current system the wealthy are frequently charlatans and villains because they have government to stand behind them or indemnify them from their crimes. How many men from Enron actually went to prison? Two? That's not a product of being wealthy, it's a product of government connections.The market is infinitely more "democratic" than forced economic controls.