more dishonest mises.org writing
scary how often dilberts from LRC and LvMI distort quotes and reshape articles to fit their spin. douglas french writes,
Jonathon and Brandy Miller are suing homebuilder Hovnanian because after buying their home for $360,000 in 2006 it’s now worth $164,500 and “We just feel like we’ve been wronged,” Jonathon Miller, is quoted as saying. [...]
sure he was quoted as saying that, but not as the end part of a sentence constructed by douglas french to make the quoted man look like the biggest asshole possible. the lawsuit cites potentially actionable items far removed from a general implied guarantee of value retention. if, as likely, jonathon miller’s a shortsighted aggressive moron, at least let him demonstrate it with his words, in context. french’s routine is tripe. the rest of his post:
[...] “We were misled when we purchased it and we finally just got fed up and had to take some sort of action to address it.”
It turns out many who bought in the Firenze subdivision were speculators who tried to flip their units for a profit. “Looking back, the Millers say the developer should have worked harder to prevent so-called flippers from buying units. Buyers were supposed to stick around for at least 18 months.”
that choice quote of a mealy-mouthed blog post once-removed from the source article is too far from the tree:
“There are an awful lot of people grasping at straws, trying to avoid financial ruin for poor real estate decisions made during the boom,” McCabe said.
But Attorney Eric Glazer of Glazer & Associates, disagrees, saying the Miller’s might have a case if community-governing contracts were broken.
Glazer agreed the suit is unusual.
“That doesn’t mean it’s not a good cause of action,” he said.
According to the lawsuit, Firenze sales contracts forbid pre-construction buyers to sell homes before closing on the title. It also says the buyer’s intent must be to retain ownership of the home for a period of at least 18 months.
But the Millers say many buyers never intended to keep the homes for 18 months.
part of the suit is apparently pure rothbardian-style contract, however silly, and shouldn’t be pissed on just because it’s a tempting “sign of the times” morsel some “austrian” jackass can turn into a “here we go again” post everyone can guffaw about knowingly. this is the same sort of behavior so often pulled from the closet whenever anyone mentions a potential silver lining to a natural disaster. oh, it’s “broken window fallacy”, they chortle superciliously. of course, it rarely is broken window fallacy, for the fallacy bastiat described included such stringent and absurd criteria that even lamestream media fools hesitate before plunging there (except regarding war).
worst part about this tactic of douglas french: it’s anti-market. a private community, apparently, attempts to restrain speculators using private means (contract), and LvMI pisses on the situation as if it’s anti-market because it was anti-speculator. that’s bullshit, and just the usual trollopy shtick from brainwashed tools with little on the ball. some truths the LRC machine should learn, soon:
- an action is not necessarily good because it was enacted by a business.
- an action is not necessarily bad because it attempted through voluntary agreement what the state via aggression supposedly intends.
same overcompensation the LRC machine’s been swilling for years. red meat! BBQ sauce! coffee! alcohol! “biodegradable” oil spills! drown me in it all!
the focus, always, should be mutual liberty. appears to me that jonathon miller’s suit may be rightly based in part, though naturally it looks like only sour grapes when framed as though he’s suing merely because the price on his house went down.