4 ms·
> Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with housi
by panic 7y ago
> Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with housing the most people in the best conditions possible.
100% on board with this. Having a place to live is too important to leave to the whims of the market. It's arguably more important than having our publicly-funded military—there's no point in defending land if people aren't able to live on it.
- coding123 7y agoWouldn't a superpower county invade if there was no US military?
- panic 7y agoTo be clear, I'm not saying the military is unimportant. Just that housing may also deserve the kind of public funding that the military enjoys.
- roenxi 7y agoNot just superpowers; even the minor powers would likely evaluate their options. Humorously, if the US tried to go completely pacifist then it would be very politically contentious and it might get 'invaded' by one of its own States. Something like a Texas-Mexico alliance, perhaps.
- maze-le 7y ago'Pacifist' does not imply no defense spending. Swiss neutrality is arguably a very pacifist foreign policy, while Switzerland has a very well funded military for a country of that size.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kofejnik 7y agoyour intentions are certainly nice, but do you want to get Soviet Union? Because state-controlled housing is how you get Soviet Union