3 ms·
>I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics. The problem with this is that these are
by midoridensha 3y ago
>I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics.
The problem with this is that these are all limited resources. That's the whole reason we invented money: to control access to limited resources. If you have free housing for everyone, who decides who gets a luxury penthouse apartment, and who lives on a 20 m^2 apartment on the 1st floor? Not everyone can live in the penthouse, and there's not enough room for everyone to have a 300 m^2 apartment without making the city sprawling. Same with food: some food costs a lot more to make than others. Same with healthcare: while arguably everyone should get basic care and emergency care, should we give free plastic surgery to everyone who wants it? Money lets people decide what's more important to them.
- pcthrowaway 3y agoI suspect you didn't read the rest of what I wrote. Subsistence housing and food is by definition not luxury. No one who receives social housing is getting the penthouse suite. Luxury is still pay to play. The government would just provide modest housing and food. Maybe the food is Soylent. Maybe the housing is a studio apartment or a tiny home. I agree that these are limited resources, but in theory there should be enough housing and food for everyone to survive, and if there isn't, making it a social responsibility can hopefully catalyze action to change that. The government has a lot more sway in getting more housing built (and in fact, are often responsible for policies that prevent enough housing being built) than someone who can't afford market rent for an unglamorous studio.