Every violation of property rights, from zoning to eminent domain, from minimum wage to occupational licensing, ultimately stems from a disagreement regarding the creation, use, or trade of material values. And the solution proposed by the advocates of every violation of property rights is essentially the same: Use government to force those with whom they disagree to act as they think best.
Individuals do not automatically come to the same conclusions on land use, wages, or any other issue. When we disagree, we have two fundamental options. We can try to persuade the other side, or we can force them to act as we think best. The advocates of zoning, eminent domain, minimum wage, occupational licensing, and every other violation of property rights believe that force is the proper option.
But we must ask ourselves why they must resort to force. If their goals are noble and just, why can’t they convince others to voluntarily support those goals? Why must they threaten individuals with fines or prison in order to accomplish their goals? Why must they punish those who disagree with them?
The fact is, they can’t accomplish their goals through voluntary means. They must resort to force, because they cannot convince enough people to support their goals voluntarily.
That they resort to a democratic process doesn’t change the principle. Democracy means majority rule, that the majority may do as it pleases because it is the majority. In a democracy, the majority can and does sacrifice the rights of the minority. And as Ayn Rand noted, the individual is the smallest minority.
In a democracy, the majority forces its values upon individuals. The majority does not use logic and reason to convince individuals to support its cause. It uses its might to impose its view of right upon the minority. But might does not make right. Truth is not determined by a vote.
When force is regarded as the proper way to resolve disagreements, reason and logic are discarded. And in the end, the most brutal practitioners of force will be victorious.