The opponents of rent control rarely take a moral stand on the issue. They fail to identify rent control as a violation of the right to property—the freedom to produce and trade. Instead, they focus on economic arguments. Rent control, they say, discourages the production of housing and makes maintenance more difficult. While these arguments are true and important to make, they can be easily dismissed by the advocates of rent control. Opponents of rent control should frame the issue in moral terms.
As an example, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu recently unveiled a rent control proposal. The real estate industry quickly responded with an ad campaign to sway public opinion. The CEO of the organization running the campaign, said,
Rent control, also known as rent stabilization, has been shown to decrease housing production of future units, as well as discourage upkeep and maintenance of controlled units.
The city’s “housing chief” responded, saying,
People who are suggesting that growth will stop are misleading.
Certainly, voters could do the research to determine which of these claims is true. But few will actually do so.
However, if opponents of rent control framed the issue in moral terms, advocates would be put on the defensive. Instead of arguing over statistics, they would have to explain why it is moral to violate the right to property.
Unfortunately, most opponents of rent control embrace the same premises as the advocates. They believe that the “public interest” should supersede self-interest. They believe that economic intervention is justified when it serves “the public.” Consequently, they are morally disarmed. As Ayn Rand noted,
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
In the case of rent control, the advocates are more consistent. This explains why they are increasingly winning rent control debates.
To defeat rent control, opponents must reject the premise that they should sacrifice their interests to the “public interest.” They must proclaim their right to produce and trade on terms that are voluntarily accepted by all parties involved. They should frame the issue in moral terms. Until they do so, they will continue to lose the debate.