Leftists often argue that home ownership is essentially the same as a rent-controlled apartment. While the details of their argument might vary, they advance this claim in an attempt to make rent control more palatable. They want us to believe that, if home ownership is desirable, rent control should be as well.
Home ownership, they say, provides housing stability. So does rent control. Using this non-essential similarity, activists equate the two. However, there are fundamental differences between home ownership and a rent-controlled apartment.
Ownership means control. It means that one may use and dispose of material values as one deems best, so long as the freedom of others to do the same is respected. When an individual owns a home, he can do with it as he chooses. (Arbitrary government controls, such as building codes and zoning, place limits on what an owner can do.)
In contrast, a renter does not have control over the use and disposal of the housing unit. The owner—the landlord—retains that control. Renters have the freedom to use the rented housing within the confines of the owner’s terms and conditions. Further, renters can’t dispose of—sell, trade, or give away—the housing. The landlord can.
The right to property means the freedom to produce, trade, and use material values. Rent control violates this principle by dictating the terms and conditions by which the rightful owner can trade or use his property.
Home ownership and rent control are fundamentally different. To claim otherwise is to pervert what those concepts represent in reality.