New York state legislature effectively bans airbnb. It does so by imposing a $7500 fine on anyone who so much as advertises a short-term rental.
“The bill says: You can’t advertise an illegal activity,’” Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, a Manhattan Democrat who supported the bill, told the Wall Street Journal in June. “I don’t know what the big confusion is.”
Actually, those of us who favor free speech probably should argue that you should be able to advertise to sell heroin or any other illegal good or service. Prosecution should take place for the sale, not for the advertisement.
My larger point is that people who favor socialism here seem to think that it will somehow turn out to be pristine and un-corrupt. Instead, as Milton Friedman pointed out, the attempt to regulate markets eventually undermines every other form of freedom.
The other big thing happening with Airbnb is that people don’t want to rent their places out to blacks because they trash them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/how-airbnb-can-fight-racial-discrimination.html?_r=0
This has of course led to an outcry and legislation. You might think Airbnb would be against such things, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Complying with whatever “non-discrimination” law gets enforced will of course be an expensive affair, one that the existing incumbent flush with capital is more likely to be able to manage. Airbnb doesn’t have a unique product or advantage, but complying with regulators might become its unique advantage and barrier to entry.
I think this is one reason “entrepreneurs” support regulation. By the time you read about an entrepreneur, they are already successful enough to get written up, and are basically an incumbent looking to defend the turf of their first mover advantage.
I have a similar feeling about the Ayn Rand quoting head of Uber coming out way way in favor of Obamacare. Could it be that most of the people driving for Uber get massively government subsided healthcare from the exchanges? Rand would be proud.
Number of libertarians going to bat to stop this. Zero. We aren’t racists!
As a libertarian, I’m not sure what — in your mind — I’m supposed to go to bat to stop, but my take is twofold. First, given the ratings system, legislation is probably not necessary. If AirBnB hosts start getting 1-star reviews claiming ‘even though it showed as available, this racist jerk refused to rent to me because I’m black’, they’ll lose business (both because their ratings will suffer and because a lot of people won’t want to do business with racists).
But, that said, the proposed legal remedies (which seem unnecessary and which I don’t favor) don’t strike me as expensive to implement (requiring a host to accept anonymous bookings, for example).
You’re offering your home to people. Why should it be illegal to know things about who your letting into your home?
The expense is in all of the people who, lacking the ability to effectively screen, simply decide not to enter the market. Kind of like how when you make criminal records checks illegal, employers tighten their criteria in other ways.
I also doubt that people getting one star reviews because someone decided they are racist jerks is really going to police the system. For one the person leaving the review might just have a chip on their shoulder. For another race might be a relevant variable in determining likely renter behavior.
It seems to me this is an extension of the entire freedom of association principle that libertarians have totally abandoned, even though in theory its core to their entire philosophy. This has profound costs on our society, most of all in real estate.
Milton Friedman’s _Capitalism and Freedom_ is still worth reading. God willing, it may still be read 100 years from now. It may be the most timeless of his works.
To make it even more depressing, part of the justification for banning AirBNB is that it will somehow help the residential housing supply problem (by not “using up” residential units for AirBNB). No consideration is given to the second-order effect of pushing up demand for hotel rooms, which will of course make hotel development more likely than residential development on the margin.
If you’re going to make a case for something, at least do it honestly (wishful thinking).
The politicians are still mad because, as Tennessee learned, you can’t tax an illegal activity.
As for this post, seems like a stretch to go from the Airbnb law to the “Socialism is bad” larger point.
Legislators often over-reach, and perhaps they did in this case – kind of interesting free speech question – are we cool with ads for “murder for hire” killers?
But I’m not sure how this relates to socialism generally, its dangers and pitfalls. Unless the point is that legislatures in general are socialist? Not sure that’s true.
The anti-AirBNB push in NY comes from the hotel industry, its unions, and allied homeless “advocacy” SJW groups.
Certainly you may be right about airbnb and this particular law may be a bad law. But you should be aware that there is such a thing as criminal solicitation. You might argue that it ought to be legal to solicit the services of a prostitute, but how about solicitation to commit murder? Should I be able to advertise for the services of a hit man?