In Part 2, we examined how the alleged right to choose advocated by housing advocates actually destroys the freedom to choose. In this post, we will look at the second “right” asserted by advocates: the “right” to stay. We will see how, if put into practice, this guarantee against involuntary displacement will reduce voluntary action.
According to housing advocates,
The right to stay guarantees against the involuntary displacement of low income people of color through gentrification that diminishes their access to improved neighborhoods and that frustrates economic and racial integration.
Involuntary displacement through gentrification commonly occurs in three different ways. The first is when a property owner chooses to undertake extensive remodeling and updating. For both safety and convenience, he evicts the tenants, even though they may want to remain where they are. The second occurs when rents begin to increase as property values rise. Tenants who cannot afford the higher rents move, even though their preference is to remain where they are. The third cause of involuntary displacement is the substantial increase in property taxes that often follows gentrification. Property owners often cannot afford the higher taxes and reluctantly sell their property. In all of these situations, the individual’s displacement is involuntary—it is not his preferred course of action.
Involuntary means that one is not choosing to act a particular manner. Coerced means that one is forced to act in a particular manner or face penalties or harm. The coerced is involuntary, but the involuntary is not necessarily coerced. One can do something involuntarily without being coerced. Yet, housing advocates want to combat involuntary displacement with actual coercion.
In furtherance of the right to stay, carefully monitor for signs of gentrification and help public officials understand the tools they can employ to stabilize historic, lower-income minority populations who choose to remain in neighborhoods at risk of gentrification.
Government is an agency of force. The only tool it has is coercion—the threat of fines, jail, or worse if one does not obey the law. The purpose of coercion is to compel individuals to act differently than they would voluntarily choose. Housing advocates want us to believe that the solution to involuntary displacement is to compel real estate investors to act involuntarily. Housing advocates want low-income people of color to be free to act on their choices, but want to deny that freedom to others.
Government’s proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. Rights pertain to freedom of action—the freedom to act on one’s own judgment, so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. Advocates do not respect the freedom of others. Instead, they want to use government to force others to act as they—the housing advocates—judge best. This is the inevitable result of promoting a right that does not exist—the destruction of legitimate rights.