David Post reflects on the state of economic liberty:
In a recent post, Eric Posner asks a very interesting question:
No one who believes that the government exploited fears after 9/11 to strengthen its security powers is now saying that the government is exploiting financial crisis fears in order to justify taking control of credit markets. No one who thinks that government would use fear to curtail civil liberties seems to think that government would use fear to curtail economic liberties. Why not?
Putting aside the question of whether it’s strictly correct to say “no one” . . . , I think Eric is on to something important, and I think I have the “answer” (sort of). The answer is: the vast majority of people place economic liberties on a decidedly lower plane than they place “civil” liberties.
Examples of this are everywhere. It’s one of the reasons why people who believe strongly in economic liberties get so angry in law school — it’s not just the way the Supreme Court has basically stripped away any constitutional protection for economic liberties while waxing poetic about civil liberties, it’s the way pretty much all of the professors and students seem to think this is perfectly sensible.
While musing about that, consider this item from the Tartan (CMU’s student paper):
The independence of Carnegie Mellon students living on Beeler Street is under the public eye and may soon be tested. In the past month, a grievance has been filed with the city citing a Pittsburgh ordinance that makes it illegal for landlords to rent out houses to a group of more than three unrelated residents.
This information was initially communicated to David Chickering, the Mudge housefellow and a resident of Beeler, at the beginning of this school year.
“I was going down the street, and I noticed that people from the city were looking at houses, and they let me know that there was a possible violation,” Chickering said. “Afterwards, I spoke to Councilman [William] Peduto’s office and he let me know that they were checking if there were possible code violations and that the Bureau of Building Inspections would investigate.”
This is a perfect case in point. Economic liberty matters. Who chooses to live together is none of the government’s business. Unfortunately, once money changes hands it becomes an “economic matter” and our protection against government intrusion disappears.
Naturally, students are upset at the prospect of being forced from their homes:
Carnegie Mellon students are concerned with the unfair nature of the law.
“Beeler has turned into a college student’s opportunity to find alternative housing, so if there is a house with rooms that could fit more than three residents then it seems unfair to students and landlords to restrict residence by an outdated law. Students are looking for economical housing,” said Yarden Harari, a senior architecture student and resident of Beeler Street.
This sentiment was echoed by other Beeler residents.
“It’s an unfair law because it’s mostly students living on Beeler. If we could have more people live in a house and pay less, why not? Technically, the house I am living in is $2400 a month, and if we split it between only three people, that would be $800 a month, which is ridiculous — if we are legally allowed to have up to four people on the lease, it makes more sense to split the rent among them,” said In-Kyoung Kim, a sophomore architecture major. . .
“It definitely seems like an outdated law, and honestly I can’t really see the purpose of the law in the first place. I would argue that it should not affect me or my peers at all, seeing as it should be the landlord’s responsibility, not ours, to make sure that they are being consistent with Pittsburgh ordinances,” Kumar said.
All of this misses the point. Of course people have good reasons to share a house, but what those reasons are should matter not a whit. No one should have to justify their choices to the government just because money changes hands. It’s a free country, after all.
Isn’t it?
Internet Scofflaw 