It seems progressives and the loony left will never learn. From the Guardian:
Just think for a moment what the state of play might be if Britain was a place with free state housing for all. Like a free education, it would be based on the idea that every child in Britain has a right to prosper, or even to just get by. People have the right to sleep at night, free from the fear or actuality of cold, abuse, or prostitution.
. . .
Rather than rewarding those who haven’t worked for it, recognising housing as a human right would deal with some of those who are truly rewarded for being lazy. Like inheriting parents’ homes: a surefire way to keep money in the hands of the families who’ve always had it. A world where homes were free wouldn’t unfairly penalise such people, just ensure that others get to start on the same level. And when stubborn evils like unpaid internships continue to exist due to their benefit to the middle and upper classes, with free housing, the poor could at least retain some semblance of a life while doing them. Working-class people could decide, like their middle-class counterparts, to follow a career path that they loved, instead of the one that paid right now – hopefully leading to more fulfilling and stable future careers.
The system would provide a more manageable way of maintaining links within communities; one that doesn’t feel so much like the free-for-all that it is now. New housing inherited by the government from the deceased, or those moving elsewhere, would be allocated to an annually defined number of people from outside communities. They would include those who had secured jobs in the city, so that top jobs were allocated on the basis of merit not wealth; but could also make provisions for those looking for work, or simply desiring a change.
There's more at the link.
Notice the unspoken assumptions. Government will 'manage' the process'; it will 'inherit new housing from the deceased' (in other words, take it over, even if the deceased actually owned it beforehand - they won't be allowed to leave it to their heirs); housing will be 'allocated', with a 'defined' number of outsiders allowed in each year. Big Brother, anyone?
Basically, though, the author falls into the same trap as all progressives. They ignore the reality that a right is not a right if someone else has to be forced to pay for it. No-one has to pay for a 'right to life', or a 'right to freedom of expression', or a 'right to worship' - they come as part of our humanity. However, so-called 'free' health care, or 'free' housing, or 'free' food - those don't. They have to be bought and paid for with somebody's money. The only way a government can do that is to confiscate the money from those who have it, and redistribute it (in the form of 'rights') to those who don't. Goodbye, capitalism. Hello, socialism - or should I just cut to the chase and call it 'communism'? After all, that's what Karl Marx meant when he said, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs".
Whenever anyone argues that this, or that, or the other, should be regarded as a 'right', ask yourself simply: who pays for it? If the answer is "Someone other than the person receiving the right", then it's not a right. It's just another socialist, utopian wet dream. It's as simple as that.