Eviction moratorium is pure theft; it’s a sign of creeping socialism

By David McElroy · June 29, 2021

Dishonest people have no incentive to pay rent right now. Why? Because landlords in the U.S. are powerless to do anything about freeloaders.

Let me tell you a story. I won’t mention any names, but I know the case very well. I could point you to the case file at the county courthouse in Birmingham, but it’s a story that’s playing out all over the country.

A woman moved into an apartment last fall. She had a good job that generated plenty of income to pay for the home. But after about three months, she stopped paying rent. For six months, she hasn’t paid a nickel.

She still has her job. She won’t respond to collection efforts. She managed to get herself arrested on drug charges during the winter. The only response she ever made to collection attempts was to send a form letter from the CDC claiming she’s been affected by COVID-19 — she doesn’t have to prove it — so she doesn’t have to pay right now.

And today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that property owners can’t do anything about this. The people who thought they owned property have discovered they have no right to their property — all because a bureaucrat issued a piece of worthless paper.

This is theft.

I’ve been on both sides of the relationship between renters and landlords. As a renter, I’ve had good landlords and I’ve had terrible landlords. I appreciated the good ones and quickly moved away from the bad ones.

When I was in college, I quickly realized which were the rental companies to stay away from. Students talked about such things. The good companies were rewarded with good tenants. The lousy companies had to take the poor risks.

For the past four years, I’ve managed rentals for about 20 properties as part of my job with a Birmingham real estate company. I’ve made the rental decisions and I’ve had a phenomenal record of choosing good tenants. Out of all the people I’ve rented to, only one has been a problem.

A lot of other rental companies have had a terrible time for the last year or so. I’ve talked with some owners and managers who have as many as half of their units occupied by people who won’t pay rent and who won’t move.

In most cases, the people have the money to pay rent — but they prefer to spend the money on other things. After all, there’s nothing an owner can do right now if they don’t pay.

If I have to explain to you why this is wrong — why it is theft — I don’t know how to make it clear to you. The entire idea of property was that it belonged to the owner to do with as he pleased. For the last century or so, governments in the U.S. have slowly applied progressive left political principles to property — and they have slowly stripped away owners’ rights.

If you went back a hundred years, you would find American property owners who wouldn’t have believed that politicians could decide what they do do with their property. Zoning pretty much didn’t exist at the time in most places.

Restrictions on what could be done with property was handled in deed covenants, which were mutual agreements — which a buyer voluntarily agreed to when he bought a property — not with orders handed down unilaterally by politicians and bureaucrats.

Over time, more and more rights have been stripped away. An owner has to rent to whoever politicians say he must rent to. Politicians impose new restrictions and new rules on owners whenever they want — and the property owners have no say in the matter.

And to make matters worse, faceless bureaucrats even get to decide how much a property is worth — and how much the owner has to pay in property taxes. (The property taxes went up on our apartments last year by about 25 percent — and there was nothing we could do about it.)

On top of all of the rules and regulations — combined with the constant threat of lawsuits — that have come about in the last 50 years, the government now says, “If somebody doesn’t pay, you can’t make them leave. You have to keep paying your mortgage and your taxes and property upkeep, but you can’t enforce your lease. If you try to do that, we can fine you or even send you to jail.”

And now the U.S. Supreme Court says that’s perfectly fine.

I’ve been saying for years that property ownership is just an illusion in this country today. At best, you are leasing your property from a state. Even if you paid cash to buy a property, you have to keep paying forever — and if you ever quit paying, that property will be taken away from you.

You can’t use your property as you please. Governments can change the rules whenever they like. If a bureaucrat decides all houses in your neighborhood have to be painted pink, you have to get on board. It doesn’t matter that you never agreed to obey whatever somebody dictates.

And now, if you’ve bought a property to generate income for your retirement, for instance, that income can be stolen from you — by dishonest tenants who have been enabled by politicians and bureaucrats.

This country is slowly moving toward socialism. You can make a strong argument that we’re already at the stage of fascism. (Socialism and fascism have a lot more in common with one another than they have in common with a voluntary system based on individual freedom.) In a fascist system, property is privately owned, but it’s used as government dictates. With increasing segments of the U.S. economy, we are dangerously close to that today.

As long as you don’t own property, it’s easy to snicker at the “evil landlords” getting the shaft, but that is stupidly shortsighted.

Without private property owners who make investments in property — to build apartments and homes in order to rent them — these rentals wouldn’t even exist. And when more and more property owners get out of the market — realizing that they are being burned — idiots are going to scream that they should be forced to come back. They’re going to claim it’s a “market failure.”

Anybody who owns rental property is courting disaster right now. Your rights are slowly being stripped away. If you have any sense, you’ll sell your property and put the money somewhere safe — while you’re still allowed to sell.

When socialists take over a country, one of the first things they do is seize private property. There is going to come a day in this county — sooner than you think — which such nightmares will come true. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts