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

[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.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well except given that property, for instance, can certainly end up in the hands of a few, which can leave one with very few alternatives, obviously tyranny is perfectly feasible in a free market.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's feasible, but more difficult to create and to maintain, and generally made easier because of people trying to "improve" on the market.

[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.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

My point was not comparative, it was absolute. There are some commodities for which any number of needy individuals will not generate a market in which prices are acceptable.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Ok. So what?