When “Rights” are Wrong, Part 5

In previous posts we have seen how the “right” to choose asserted by housing advocates leads to the destruction of freedom of choice, how the “right” to stay is an assault on voluntary action, and how the “right” to equal treatment is a demand for injustice. In this post, we will examine the fourth “right”: to the right have a say. We will see that this alleged right is nothing more than a tool to promote mob rule and silence those dissent.

Housing advocates state that,

The right to have a say is a demand that government permit low income people of color meaningful democratic participation in the decisions that affect their families and neighborhoods.

In a democracy the majority rules. In a democracy the majority may do as it pleases simply because it is the majority. In a democracy, those in the minority are forced to accept and live by the decisions made by the majority—decisions that will affect their families and neighborhoods.

All of us make decisions that affect others, and often our decisions have a negative impact on others. But the impact on others is not a legitimate concern of government; how that impact occurs is.

If I choose to shop at Lowe’s, my decision has a negative impact on Home Depot—I have deprived the company of my money. If I steal merchandise from Home Depot, I also have a negative impact on the company. While both of these actions have a negative impact on Home Depot, they are fundamentally different. In the former case, I do not deprive Home Depot of anything that was rightfully its; in the latter case I do. Shopping at Lowe’s is not a legitimate concern of government; stealing from Home Depot is.

Housing advocates equate an impact resulting from voluntary actions and an impact resulting from coercive actions. And so, they want to unleash government coercion on those who might impact them negatively.

The right to have a say really means the right to have a say in how others use their property. Housing advocates want to give low-income individuals the power to vote on property use that might affect their family or their neighborhood. For example, they should be allowed to vote on whether a new apartment building can be built and the conditions imposed on the developer, such as the inclusion of affordable housing. Or, they should be allowed to vote on what rent a landlord may charge. Or, they should be allowed to vote on which businesses may open in the community. All of these issues, and many more, may affect families and their neighborhood.

This means that the voices of the developer, the landlord, the entrepreneur, or anyone else who disagrees will be drowned by the shouts of the mob. In a democracy, the individual has no say about the decisions that affect his life. In a democracy, the majority determines what is acceptable and what is not. In a democracy, the individual’s decisions and values are irrelevant.

As with the other “rights” asserted by housing advocates, the “right” to have a say is nothing more than a call for government to use coercion against real estate investors. They want to restrict freedom of choice, limit voluntary interaction with others, institutionalize injustice, and unleash the passions of the mob.