We can have cheap prices for a scarce commodity and its sudden disappearance as everyone uses it up, or we can have higher prices that make it available to those willing to pay for it. There is nothing in between.
As I posted recently, “fairness” still cannot equalize people in circumstances of time and place. When government forces lower prices, finding something scarce becomes about luck rather than others willing to pay more than others. Then we must remember that government-imposed caps are the threat that if someone won’t sell at a lower price demanded by everyone else, then agents of the state have the authority to come beat, arrest and imprison the seller. It is the denial that someone’s property is his own until he voluntarily sells it or gives it away.
“I like your car. Think you might sell it?”
“Most anything’s for sale if the price is right.”
“I’ll offer $____.”
“No thanks, the car’s got more than that in sentimental value to me.”
“Too bad, you have to sell it to me now.”
“Not when I have the government behind me.”
“How is the government behind you?”
“The law says you can’t charge more than __% of bluebook.”
“I don’t care. It’s my car, and I won’t give it up for a lot more.”
“Too bad, the government was democratically elected. You have to sell.”
By the same principle that someone shouldn’t be forced to sell a car for less than what he wants, the ideas of eminent domain and government-imposed price caps are anathema to freedom. The rights to life, liberty and property MUST be absolute. If they can be abrogated by government that others create, then they aren’t rights, but merely the permission of others.