5 ms·
> There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing". Isn't this true though?
by hellojesus 3y ago
> There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing".
Isn't this true though? You tax away peoples' purchasing power to give away free goods/services to a subset of the population excluding those that paid for it.
Why not instead make a private company that provides free housing conditional on those living there working X hours in a factory producing widgets? So long as both parties agree, that would be a better solution as it is pareto optimal.
- aperrien 3y agoWhat happens when the company lays people off, or shuts down?
- hellojesus 3y agoThen people move out or go elsewhere based on their negotiated grace period after emoloymejt termination.
- harimau777 3y agoWouldn't that more or less be a company town?
- alistairSH 3y agoYes, and they have a very… mixed… history.
- hellojesus 3y agoI'm not saying it's an ideal situation. But it sure as hell beats redistributory theft. Housing cannot be a public good simply because it fails the definition: nonrivalous and nonexcludable. It is by definition rivalous and excludable. Why does Joe get the free house on the beach but my free house is in the desert? Not at all fair! But what is fair? Voluntary transactions with private property.