San Diego Plunders a Woman $25 Grand for Using AirBnB to Provide Lodging for Consumers

The city says she needed a permit for using AirBnB—which would have cost her $5,000 to $10,000 and taken up to a year to get.

When Liberals get outraged because the Supreme Court allegedly said that corporations are people, think about their strategy. Liberals rarely (until they reach a later stage) want to admit that they want to plunder people, or punish them. And claiming to be “against” a corporation allows them to manufacture this diversion. Corporations are always these abstractions that one can oppose without being accused of opposing people. So Boston and Santa Monica can work to hurt AirBnB without pointing out that they are plundering people of their livelihoods and damaging their lives.

But it is all a subterfuge. A corporation is nothing more than an organization of people working together so each can make a living. In a (relatively) free market corporations make this living for the members of the corporation by providing needed goods or services. So when the government attacks a company like AirBnB it is attacking all the people who are making a living by cooperating in the business.

So an attack on AirBnB is really an attack on various persons. One such person is Rachel Smith. According to NextShark.com:

Because Rachel Smith, a 70-year-old retired schoolteacher who lives in San Diego’s historic Burlingame neighborhood, failed to obtain a conditional use permit as part of a recently passed statute for homeowners who decide to rent their homes using the website AirBnB, authorities contend she operated an illegal bed-and-breakfast. The permit in question can take up to a year to obtain and can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000, according to Smith’s attorney, Omar Passons.

The fact that we live in a country where leaders don’t blush with shame and embarrassment when they speak of “an illegal bed-and-breakfast,” tells you that we are just a disgusting third world nation blowing through all our inherited prosperity rather than adding to it.

Smith pointed out she never offered breakfast, and thus could not be guilty of running a bed-and-breakfast of any kind. But no, said the judge, it was too a bed-and-breakfast because it was “the type of establishment where breakfast is typically served.”

Obviously, people are allowed to have guests in their homes. If the person invited over met you through an internet site and is paying you for the privilege, why is that anyone else’s business? If Smith had, in some way, infringed on her neighbor’s property in running her bed-and-non-breakfast, it would be right for the courts to hear the complaint and render a verdict. But unless they can show real harm, there is no basis for dictating to property owners what they can do with, or who they can invite to stay on, their own property.

That is pretty much what “property owner” is supposed to mean. If you can’t control the property then you are not the owner. What crime has Smith committed to be a mere tenant for the city that now practically owns her property?

When it comes to government, the crime is merely existing within their jurisdiction. That is all it takes to give them license to own all you have—to own you.