4 ms·

That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law chang

That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law changes such that they no longer require the company's services, then no, that is not stealing from you. If the change in the law is that the company is henceforth required to provide service without payment then yes, absolutely, that is stealing from you. The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago
They didn't interfere with voluntary business dealings. They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings.
- setr 5y ago
  >They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings. That's not a service. The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. They didn't take away some notary service you could get done by AAA -- they took away a fundamental means of doing business. It's like claiming that the government took away a service (police) that you were expecting to have around. The police literally exist, and are required to be used, because they've already removed the option of self-policing.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. Exactly. The issue is not merely that the government is no longer carrying out evictions for landlords. Leaving landlords to hire their own security teams and evict squatters at their own expense would be fine. What the government is doing, though, is employing force to actively prevent landlords from evicting squatters, which makes the government an accessory to the crime.
- gameman144 5y ago
  Wait, how was there not interference with voluntary business dealings? A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing. Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord. Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

They didn't interfere with voluntary business dealings. They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings.

setr 5y ago
>They took away a service (evictions) that you were expecting the government to provide to assist your business dealings. That's not a service. The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. They didn't take away some notary service you could get done by AAA -- they took away a fundamental means of doing business. It's like claiming that the government took away a service (police) that you were expecting to have around. The police literally exist, and are required to be used, because they've already removed the option of self-policing.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. Exactly. The issue is not merely that the government is no longer carrying out evictions for landlords. Leaving landlords to hire their own security teams and evict squatters at their own expense would be fine. What the government is doing, though, is employing force to actively prevent landlords from evicting squatters, which makes the government an accessory to the crime.
gameman144 5y ago
Wait, how was there not interference with voluntary business dealings? A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing. Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord. Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.