Keep your government hands in our business

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

This weekend is Memorial Day weekend in the States, where we honor the men and women who died in military service. You'll see all kinds of patriotic fervor during this time, hell even PBS gets involved, but I'm not by any means complaining. Then we get stuff like this:

A property management company is under hot water for telling a tenant that after Memorial Day he has to take down an American Flag that he has on display in his window.

Here's what gets me:

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no "condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association" may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

First I'm amazed we even have such a law to begin with, and I'm even more amazed that they want it even more intrusive. I thought conservatives didn't want government telling business what to do? Did these tenants not read their contract before signing it? Shouldn't we let the market decide if this is a good business practice?

It just seems like an example of glaring hypocrisy. Freedom is a double-edged sword, and sometimes it means having to tolerate things you don't agree with.

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Because the market regulates everything by aggregating the choices of millions/billions and so if enough people demand the ability to display flags in their windows for themselves and their neighbors property owners will have regulations that allow that out of their own self interest.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Do you really think flag-flying is enough of a determining factor to exert such an idealistic market solution?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

If it is not then why should the government impose it?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

because the market isn't the solution for everything

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

And government is the proper entity to decide where you can and where you cannot fly a flag?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

govt is the proper entity to tell landlords that they cannot infringe upon the rights of people in that manner

[magdalene74.livejournal.com]

this

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

But the person has not right to fly a flag and the landlord has no obligation to give his tenants a forum for making political speech by doing so.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The person does have the right to fly a flag.

Renting an apt to someone so that they can live in it, does not give you power over their speech. Unconnected and unconstitutional I call it.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Given that the government already decides when and how you are allowed to fly the flag...

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Because we live in a nation of sovereign citizens who have the power to make these sorts of decisions for themselves.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

That is the best argument as to why the government should stay out of this.

The landlord is just as sovereign as the tenant and neither has any greater power over the other because both need the other. Without tenants the landlord would have his property foreclosed on. Without landlords willing to rent tenants would usually not have anyplace to live.

Both are sovreign and both are equally able to decide what terms they are willing to agree to in a rental contract, the government interfering in that negotiation inevitably removes sovreignty from one, the other, or both.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, the sovereignty of the People is expressed in government, not contracts.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

So the government is sovereign and not the people.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, all contracts (not people) are subject to the sovereign oversight of the people, expressed in government. Contracts are inferior to the sovereign will of the government.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The sovereignty of the particular person is secondary to the sovereignty of all persons collectively via government? Kinda suggests that you'd be okay with the ordinance if it wasn't subsequent to a contract, but rather a law. Six one way, half a dozen the other, from this standpoint.

I posit that the sovereignty of the people is enshrined in their exercising their capacity to engage in liberty, including the ability to contract.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'd say that you can't legislate your own rules, and that all contracts are subject to supreme law.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

aggregating the choices of millions/billions and so if enough people demand the ability to display flags in their windows for themselves and their neighbors property owners will have regulations that allow that out of their own self interest.

You've just described democracy. The only difference is that instead of one man, one vote, you've got one dollar, one vote. That's not a justification for the market over democracy, though.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Incorrect because the market has no power to force things on you Democracy does.

In a Democracy if 51% of the population votes to enslave the other 49% then it sucks to be in the 49% but they outnumber you so suck it up and get to work. In the market 51% can offer to buy exclusive right to your services but they have no power to compel you to accept the offer.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

That's pure democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere, for the reason you stated. In realistic democracy, if "millions. . . demand the ability to display flags in their windows for themselves and their neighbors" then laws get passed to that effect. Property owners "have regulations that allow that out of their own self interest" (IE not going to jail/getting fined).

BTW the market is closer to a pure democracy, at least with regard to issues of unfair choices. If 49% of the world wants a wildly expensive, but very necessary commodity or service (*cough*health care*cough*), tough cookies, have fun with the TB.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Not true. If the market for a product is that large, it will happen. The market doesn't need a majority in order to have someone want to fill the need.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

And similarly with respect to control of commodities and other products. Which is far worse both in outcome and extend than direct democracy in that respect.

It doesn't take anything remotely like a majority for the market to control and thus regulate the use, distribution and cost of a product with impunity.

Those who claim that a free market can resolve any issues relating to the regulation of property are implying that they are happy if the market decides, you can't have anywhere to live unless you choose not to exercise your rights to liberty, free speech or any other right enshrined in the Constitution, because it is the interests of the market for you not to.

So they're happy to delegate the same powers, which they won't let a 'tyranny' of 50% of all citizens possess, to a tyranny of a much smaller fraction.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, we claim the free market can resolve issues relating to scarcity of resources and that there can be no tyranny because there's too many alternatives.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Unless the cost to produce the product is too high to make it profitable, even if 99% of the people want/need it. Provided we ever reach the point they're talking about in green_man's post, I wager there won't be terribly many affordable interplanetary shuttles offered by the private sector to get off of the overcrowded planet.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And government won't make it any cheaper just because they're doing it instead.