Rent control has long been presented as a way to keep housing affordable. By forcing landlords to charge below market rates, rental housing is supposedly more affordable. But like any form of price cap, rent control ultimately leads to a lower supply of housing.
However, this fact is irrelevant to many. Indeed, next week voters in National City, California, will consider a ballot measure to impose rent control on the city’s landlords. Supporters of the initiative say that “rent control is crucial to protect residents who struggle to make ends meet.” Therefore, residents are justified in imposing limits on what landlords may charge.
If a tenant confronted his landlord with a gun and demanded a refund of his rent each month, we would recognize that action as theft. The principle does not change when government acts as the middleman and dictates that the refund be built into the rent.
The advocates of rent control (along with a myriad of other controls and regulations) simply seek to replace bullets with ballots. But rent control, like all laws, is ultimately enforced by someone with a gun–i.e., bullets.
Few people would openly and explicitly advocate robbing landlords. Yet, they have few qualms about imposing rent control and forcing property owners to accept less less than they would voluntarily choose. That believe that the “will of the people” as expressed through a democratic vote justifies virtually any action.
This thinking goes far beyond rent control. The same premise underlies minimum wage laws, anti-smoking regulations, zoning, and every other control or regulation imposed by a majority vote. Actions that would be criminal if undertaken by an individual allegedly become noble if they are approved by the majority of voters.
Majority rule is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses. It enables the majority to do as it pleases, simply because it is the majority. But the number of individuals supporting an idea or policy does not determine its truth or morality.
The Constitution of the United States was written to protect the individual from the passions of the majority (see Federalist #10 as one example). When the majority may do as it pleases, the use of ballots today will ultimately lead to the use of bullets tomorrow.