Under my law you can’t do that…. Your old rent would follow you around (minus 2%) to your next rental.
I'm not sure how you're going to make a law like that work. Never mind whether it's desirable or justifiable; I don't think it's even possible.
But thank you for proving my point.
I'm not sure why you think I've proved your point. (To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is.)
Intellectually people have no issue with rent controls….when the movement being controlled is upwards….why not downward?
I think, because we don't see the landlord-tenant relationship as being a level playing field.
This isn't unusual. We don't see the employer-worker relationship as being a level playing field, for example, so we have unfair dismissal laws under which an employee can quit for any reason, but an employer can only terminate on limited, legally permissible grounds. Parents can withdraw their child from a school for any reason, but schools can only expel children for limited reasons, and/or after following certain processes. Etc, etc.
What these situations have in common is that, on one side, we have someone who relies on the relationship to access some fundamental need — a home, a job, an education — and on the other side we have someone whose interest in the relationship is primarily commercial (he wants to maximise his profit) and who generally has the greater economic muscle.
In circumstances like these, we tend not to leave the free market to operate. The stakes are too high for one party, and their bargaining position too vulnerable, for us to be comfortable with that. So we intervene through the law to put a finger on the scales, so to speak, to prevent them tilting more than a certain distance against that party.
You can argue about whether we ought to do this or whether, in a particular instance, we're doing it well or wisely. But if you ask why we do it at all, well, that's why.