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.
Peter
5 comments:
Remember Mr. Grant, Khrushchev himself considered the term "progressive" to be synonymous with Communism (in his letter to F. Castro).
Make a point to stop using the word progressive, socialism or socialist; make a commitment to call it communist at every opportunity, and always say it as a disgraceful and disgusting epithet, for that is what it is. The most murderous systematic practice ever devised by man.
Make those who preach this filth own it for what it is. Never surrender the language; by doing so one gives innumerable advantage to the tyrants and their useful idiots.
So I followed the link and read the article. Then I went to the comments section and the first response said it all:
"n principle it's a wonderful idea, but I wonder if the author is ready to grapple with the consequences. There's too little housing stock to implement this 'right' for those already living in the UK, for example, so what would it mean for immigration policy? It would also permit a massive power grab by the state over people's lives, since the state would not want this to be an open-ended commitment and so might want control over family sizes, for example. It probably only works in a Soviet style system where the state houses you, yes, but it also compels you to work and tells you where you may live..."
There are no rights. This 17th century meme has been appropriated by the Deep State.
http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights
The lunacy of this is obvious, but I did have one thing to add. We have learned, or at least some of us have learned, what happens in "free housing".
Nobody has an ownership stake. Nobody respects it. Nobody cares about it. That's one of the big reasons that the large urban housing projects inevitably turned into hell-holes from the mid-20th century on.
I can just imagine the communist who wrote the article celebrating as he walks up 20 flights of urine-soaked stairs because the elevator has been out for a year to get to his tiny cubicle ... oops, forgot to pay the "toll" to the gang that runs his particular hallway and got beaten up. Don't worry, there's plenty of fresh air, since there's no air conditioning and the window is open.
After all, in communist utopias, one is never allowed weapons for self defense (or any other true human right).
I've read about the Communist housing in Romania, the Soviet Union and other Workers' Paradises. No one takes care of the public spaces, maintenance is done on the black market because the waiting lists for repairs and materials are so long... And those were in buildings for the relative elites like college professors and diplomats.
LittleRed1
Post a Comment