Citizens have begun to advocate goods that were once luxuries to be unalienable rights. Healthcare is now considered by many to be a necessity for all in America. Supposedly, all governments should establish "free" healthcare or at least healthcare for the impoverished. For centuries, health and medicine has been a privilege afforded by the few. Thanks to emerging world trade and divisions of labor, medicine is more affordable than ever.
This affordability has created a calling for free healthcare. The thought is that society is now rich enough to provide all citizens with healthcare. As a Christian, I believe in helping those in need. I want to give health to everyone on this Earth, but I refuse to do so by first robbing another person through taxation. If I use violence, force, and coercion to achieve my benevolent ends, I cannot consider myself a moral Christian any longer.
Similar arguments are made under the Democratic Party's new push for "living wages." I desire everyone to have a good job. But, once again, I will not institute such a policy with aggression. (I also believe that tampering with market forces does much more harm than good for everyone.) When the government acts to help people, they are at their best thieves such as Robin Hood. At their worst, government is a mafia offering protection.
A new redistributionist threat has arrived with the winds of Katrina, the right to a home. I don't mean home as a literal shelter protecting a person from the elements. I mean a theoretical idea relative to each person in his or her own mind.
The free market is having little part in re-modeling New Orleans. In a free market, those with high interests in returning to the flood stricken area will pay higher prices for life in New Orleans. The willingness of consumers to pay higher prices indicates a great value placed on living in the city or a great financial interest in residing there.
FEMA and the federal government are constantly redoubling their efforts to open projects and bring trailers to New Orleans and the surrounding area. Why must people who are unwilling to get jobs and pay rent be provided with these accommodations? Why must the millions of tax payers in the rest of America be forced to accommodate the "home" preferences of a few?
Those that have large interests in New Orleans have returned to the area. Those that do not or do not provide valuable services for the city have not returned. There is a new dangerous idea floating around that people have a right to a theoretical "home" and the government must meet these demands at the expense of other citizens.
Now, I must tell the readers a secret. Well, it's not really a secret at all. Everyone in New Orleans knows it. There is no housing shortage! Since Hurricane Katrina, I have known dozens of people who were looking for new apartments. I was amazed that everyone found a place! The government and media have been claiming a housing shortage after all. Honestly, one might not be able to find a house at the exact location that you might desire. But one will find a housing in relatively safe neighborhoods.
Yes, some paid a higher price. However, the prices are not insanely inflated. The search process and final decisions took no more than three days on average. It is still affordable to have a job as a waiter with a room mate and afford decent housing in New Orleans. Some have even discovered places with deals that would have been considered great before Katrina.
The political forces of redistribution make claims about the lack of housing. This is all media and government hype. Anyone that wants to come back to the city can. The jobs pay more than ever and housing is available. Most people forget the residents who are never coming back. There are lots of houses for rent from people that do not plan on returning to New Orleans. Even in the non-flooded areas, former residents are renting. The incentive to rent is high. When incentives for profit are large, the market will adjust by more home owners leaving and renting. This has largely created the supply of houses in New Orleans.
If set as a precedent, the right to a home could become a deep problem in the economy. Every time a disaster rolls around, tax payers will have to give money to those that want to live in a specific geographic area no matter how unstable, not for economic reasons but for person feelings toward a location.
This problem has been seen for a long time through subsidized poverty in project buildings throughout the country. Nearly all our ancestors in America are people who crossed oceans for jobs, learned new languages, and left their homes. Sadly, our country has changed to the point where some citizens feel that the government should be responsible for providing jobs and housing in a theoretical "home."
A person does not have a Constitutional right to live in one place. The local government is not responsible for bringing jobs into an area and maintaining public housing just because someone considers the place home. This should not be the role of government. If a person wants to live in a particular area, they should do so by their own means. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize someone's feelings of home and belongingness.
May 26, 2006
