5 ms·

Even from the title, the implication is that "home ownership" is a "policy" from the government rather than just a natural state of people acquiring and improvi

Even from the title, the implication is that "home ownership" is a "policy" from the government rather than just a natural state of people acquiring and improving the land. It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. Property ownership and improvement isn't a privilege "given" to us by a benevolent government with their immaculate "policies" from time immemorial. People are the source of government power. People build houses. The government doesn't own us. We own the government.

verbify 6y ago
In the UK there are lots of government policies/incentives by the Conservative Party to encourage people to buy a home. These policies can be revoked.
- toyg 6y ago
  Let’s be honest, there is a substantial bipartisan agreement on this... possibly because most MPs of all colours are homeowners.
  - verbify 6y ago
    Not only that, but 24% of the ruling Conservative Party members of parliament are also landlords, including the housing minister. Partly that, but also partly that in a constituency based system, there will be a bias towards those who are in the constituency longer. I have to register to vote every time I move constituencies (a fairly regular event for a renter), while those who buy only register once (and can be considered returning customers for the member of parliament). Wealth (which is correlated with property ownership) is also correlated with voting.
- eertami 6y ago
  The "incentives" for home ownership in the UK are mostly just government (taxpayer) subsidies paid to land owners. H2B/LISA schemes artificially raise house prices above what the floor would otherwise be.
Tade0 6y ago
Technically this is a rather new concept, since in feudalism peasants would not own the land they worked and lived in.
yosito 6y ago
> It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. There are countries where this has happened. In Cuba, when it happened, people started fleeing in boats.
em500 6y ago
The natural state is that people and other animals can only "own" land that they physically occupy and defend by force. The kind of property ownership where (you can make) other people stay out of your house without your own presence and without involving arming yourself is largely granted by governments and paid for in taxes. Fortunately most of us are born in a time and place with governments having reasonable attitudes towards property ownership. (That includes myself, but not my parents.) But it's often hard for privileged people to see themselves as such.
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  I'm not a Hobbesian; though I take the point, but I believe that if the government disappeared, people would just start building up a local government to enforce established customs. If people really wanted to steal everything, the government couldn't stop them. The real check on violence is that people don't want to, and are quite happy with peaceful exchange according to their established views. Some places would probably fall into violence, but I think most would simply reorganize and keep going. Strong central governments typically arise from the efforts of a few elite, but decentralized governments themselves exist nearly throughout history because it is a useful construct for the people living in the different places to resolve disputes and live their lives in peace.
  - viklove 6y ago
    I don't think communities would put up with foreign ownership of local land where said owner literally never sets foot in a 1000 mile radius of the land they "own." Even following your argument, this type of land ownership (pure speculation) would likely cease to exist.
neilparikh 6y ago
Policies like the mortgage interest deduction are hardly the "natural state".
simonh 6y ago
The problem is not home ownership itself, it's the system of incentives and tax breaks governments have used to promote it to the point where housing markets have become massively distorted. It's this policy of government interference in markets that the article is arguing against. If you still want to own your home that's fine, I can't imagine the flagship journal of market liberalisation arguing against you, but why should you benefit from massive subsidies and artificial constraints on supply to ratchet up the value of your property?
bo1024 6y ago
Hmm, if your philosophy is "we own the government," then is it "we own the land"? Or is it "I own this bit of land and good luck to the rest of you"? A philosophy that starts from "I" naturally supports private ownership of land (enforced by the government, thank you very much). But a philosophy of "we" suggests collective ownership of land, where my community could indeed grant or revoke my privilege to use a certain part of our land.
jcfrei 6y ago
No, the government doesn't own you. But the system which assigns property rights belongs to the government. If the government (meaning the public institutions) disappears so does your claim to your property and you will likely find yourself defending it by force.

verbify 6y ago

In the UK there are lots of government policies/incentives by the Conservative Party to encourage people to buy a home. These policies can be revoked.

toyg 6y ago
Let’s be honest, there is a substantial bipartisan agreement on this... possibly because most MPs of all colours are homeowners.
- verbify 6y ago
  Not only that, but 24% of the ruling Conservative Party members of parliament are also landlords, including the housing minister. Partly that, but also partly that in a constituency based system, there will be a bias towards those who are in the constituency longer. I have to register to vote every time I move constituencies (a fairly regular event for a renter), while those who buy only register once (and can be considered returning customers for the member of parliament). Wealth (which is correlated with property ownership) is also correlated with voting.
eertami 6y ago
The "incentives" for home ownership in the UK are mostly just government (taxpayer) subsidies paid to land owners. H2B/LISA schemes artificially raise house prices above what the floor would otherwise be.

Tade0 6y ago

Technically this is a rather new concept, since in feudalism peasants would not own the land they worked and lived in.

yosito 6y ago

> It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. There are countries where this has happened. In Cuba, when it happened, people started fleeing in boats.

em500 6y ago

The natural state is that people and other animals can only "own" land that they physically occupy and defend by force. The kind of property ownership where (you can make) other people stay out of your house without your own presence and without involving arming yourself is largely granted by governments and paid for in taxes. Fortunately most of us are born in a time and place with governments having reasonable attitudes towards property ownership. (That includes myself, but not my parents.) But it's often hard for privileged people to see themselves as such.

brobdingnagians 6y ago
I'm not a Hobbesian; though I take the point, but I believe that if the government disappeared, people would just start building up a local government to enforce established customs. If people really wanted to steal everything, the government couldn't stop them. The real check on violence is that people don't want to, and are quite happy with peaceful exchange according to their established views. Some places would probably fall into violence, but I think most would simply reorganize and keep going. Strong central governments typically arise from the efforts of a few elite, but decentralized governments themselves exist nearly throughout history because it is a useful construct for the people living in the different places to resolve disputes and live their lives in peace.
- viklove 6y ago
  I don't think communities would put up with foreign ownership of local land where said owner literally never sets foot in a 1000 mile radius of the land they "own." Even following your argument, this type of land ownership (pure speculation) would likely cease to exist.

neilparikh 6y ago

Policies like the mortgage interest deduction are hardly the "natural state".

simonh 6y ago

The problem is not home ownership itself, it's the system of incentives and tax breaks governments have used to promote it to the point where housing markets have become massively distorted. It's this policy of government interference in markets that the article is arguing against. If you still want to own your home that's fine, I can't imagine the flagship journal of market liberalisation arguing against you, but why should you benefit from massive subsidies and artificial constraints on supply to ratchet up the value of your property?

bo1024 6y ago

Hmm, if your philosophy is "we own the government," then is it "we own the land"? Or is it "I own this bit of land and good luck to the rest of you"? A philosophy that starts from "I" naturally supports private ownership of land (enforced by the government, thank you very much). But a philosophy of "we" suggests collective ownership of land, where my community could indeed grant or revoke my privilege to use a certain part of our land.

jcfrei 6y ago

No, the government doesn't own you. But the system which assigns property rights belongs to the government. If the government (meaning the public institutions) disappears so does your claim to your property and you will likely find yourself defending it by force.