A new “pro-choice” movement is being promoted by Leftists. As is often the case, the stated goals of this movement are a masquerade. While the policies advocated by the movement are presented as promoting freedom of choice, those policies are an attack on that freedom.
As one example, housing advocates and their political supporters are introducing legislation that prohibits landlords from refusing to accept housing vouchers. Those defending these laws explicitly state that the goal is to protect renters’ freedom of choice. Forcing landlords to accept housing vouchers, the advocates claim, will give renters more choices in regard to housing.
Another example can be found in Baltimore, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. These cities now require landlords to offer alternatives to a lump sum payment for a security deposit. A landlord must accept installment payments for the security deposit or allow the tenant to purchase “rental security insurance.” This insurance would pay the landlord if the tenant damages the property. An editorial in the Baltimore Sun defends that city’s ordinance, stating that it will give tenants more choices when searching for new housing.
Both of these examples do give tenants more choices, but both also limit the freedom of landlords to act on their choices. And without the freedom to act on one’s choices, freedom of choice is meaningless. While these laws will certainly give tenants more choices, they prevent landlords from acting on their judgment. If a landlord doesn’t want to accept housing vouchers or installment payments for a security deposit, his choice is irrelevant.
Housing advocates claim that they are protecting freedom of choice, but they tolerate only those choices with which they agree. Those who make contrary choices are to be denied their freedom of choice.
If one is truly pro-choice, then one respects the freedom of others to make choices with which we disagree. If one is truly pro-choice, one respects the freedom of others to act on their choices, even when we disagree.
Despite their rhetoric, housing advocates are not promoting freedom of choice. They are promoting the use of government coercion to impose the choices of tenants and their supporters upon others. And that is the polar opposite of freedom of choice.