A Stitch in Haste

"They say the price is ... not too high ... on Broadway ..."

A trade association representing Broadway theaters and producers is doing an about-face and now wants state officials to dismantle the laws that limit the resale of tickets to musicals, plays, concerts and other events.
...
In comments submitted to the New York State Consumer Protection Board, Gerald Schoenfeld, chairman of the League of American Theaters and Producers, said that ticket prices "would probably not skyrocket" if the limits were lifted and that Internet sales had helped make it almost impossible to enforce the current law.
...
Under a law that expires in June, licensed ticket resellers may charge up to 45 percent above the face value of tickets for events at large arenas. But for places with fewer than 6,000 seats, including most Broadway theaters, those brokers are limited to no more than 20 percent, or $5 over face value, whichever is greater.

Scalping laws are a great "gateway issue" with which to introduce basic libertarian thinking.

It's quite simple really: I have something. Something I obtained legally. You want it. We negotiate a price. You take possession.

Why should the original price I paid for the something matter one bit relative to the price we negotiate for its resale?

And, more importantly, by what moral authority does the government, or any third party, claim the prerogative to block that transaction? What objective, quantifiable negative externality is generated by reselling a show ticket from a competent adult seller to a competent adult buyer to their mutual benefit?

This, incidentally is not an acceptable answer:

Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester assemblyman who sits on the committee that regulates tourism, said that allowing prices to skyrocket could put tickets out of reach of Broadway visitors. "If you're not on an expense account or a millionaire, it will be much harder to get tickets for hot shows," he said.

So?

There is no such thing as a "right to an affordable Broadway show ticket." In fact, it's a metaphysical impossibility. Tickets are a scarce resource, and like any scarce resource, they must be rationed. They can either be rationed by an unfettered market, or by some other mechanism such as scalping laws. But they will be rationed.

So why is a market-disrupting rationing system somehow "morally superior" to an auction or other market-based system? Not everyone who wants to see a certain show at a certain time for a certain price will be able to do so, no matter what. Scalping laws don't change that.

And even from a consequentialist perspective, scalping is still suboptimal. If theaters could price discriminate (i.e., hold ticket auctions the way brokers do, such as on eBay), then their revenue would increase, which would enable them to offer more shows, keep shows open longer, have bigger and better sets and orchestras, or even build bigger theaters. How can preventing all that -- by banning premium pricing, scalping or ticket auctions -- possibly make the theater industry -- or theatergoers -- better off? It makes no sense whatsoever.

One person stopping another from buying a good or service, for no other reason than because he himself can't afford to pay what the buyer is paying, is not "egalitarianism" or "social justice." It's schadenfreude -- "If I can't see Wicked, then neither can you!"

That is utterly discredited, Twentieth-Century thinking. New York prides itself on its history of "progressive" public policy. Let it remain progressive, by abolishing archaic laws interfering with private contracts and private property, including the scalping laws.