> I have no interest in those taxes being wasted. Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then. >it is not actually destroying healthcare. I didn't s

> I have no interest in those taxes being wasted. Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then. >it is not actually destroying healthcare. I didn't say it would. "Healthcare" is not the same as "the healthcare industry as it currently exists". >Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions. Ironically: despite the mixed bag that crashing the value of real estate by implementing a housing guarantee (or even simply increasing construction velocity) would bring, it would not actually destroy the concept of "private property", legally or otherwise. >But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution. Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that? EDIT: Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.