Good Housing for Good People
We have the resources to provide good housing to the people of our society, yet much of our housing is in poor repair and not conducive to good health. Much of our housing is also expensive, requiring a substantial portion of one’s life in service to these payments, while allowing those who are rich, whether deservedly so or not, to have priority access to our best housing.
We can do better than this. We can create good neighborhoods with strong communities, schools, facilities, and opportunities, and with good, healthy, comfortable places to live (and that do not require us to spend all our lives in service to them). Further, we can change how we allocate our housing, some based on need, some based on some measure of the person’s contribution to society, and some based off desire and whim. We do not need to accept that money is the sole determinant of the quality of housing one receives, but instead can create a system that attempts to provide good housing for all, and in the allocation of housing, takes into account factors beyond how many dollars one has been able to wring from the system.
If we had housing for free, say we were given a place that would be ours for the rest of our lives when we turned a certain age or after performing some period of community service, one that was ours henceforth without undue harassment (but that could be traded for another if there was the desire), would we all end up wallowing, living listless lives in our cells, and that without the driver of having to work to keep a roof over our heads, would we simply become lazier, sitting around in our homes doing nothing and despairing our lack of activity? I do believe that it is human nature to be lazy, some of which is to the good, and some of which is to the bad. And I do think this type of housing arrangement could make some people, perhaps most people, more prone to doing little with their lives. This to me is a valid concern, and a risk to the change of our society (it also removes a key tool of controlling members of our society, that is, the implicit or explicit threat of evicting someone from their home). But I think that people will generally make use of their time, that there is enough desire for improvement that there will still be motivation, and that importantly, this motivation will be more meaningful to people since it will be based on motivations that they themselves are part of.
The ideal of creating a new community that improves upon the past, that allows us to be free to live the life we believe is best for us is a central part of our story. The Pilgrims came to practice their religion without harassment. The Quakers, the Amish, the Mormons, the list of people who have set out to create a new society for themselves goes on and on. Then there were the “utopian” movements and societies of the 1800’s, camp meeting communities, the artists societies and communes of the 1900’s, and “intentional communities” of today. The idea of creating a new community and a new place to live and to exist with the freedom to pursue your way of life without undue oppression is perhaps part of who we are. I think that it is fair to say that while many of these communities may not persist in the way they originally intended, the attempt often goes on to inform and influence the broader society.
There is still land that can be purchased for not too much. The basics of housing are still relatively inexpensive. If one could find a local community that would be okay with people setting up new housing and a new community, the limitation of cost might not be so great. The limitations I think with this idea of a remote community are at least a few: jobs, proximity to family and friends, boredom, disillusionment, and comfort and convenience, to name a few. Perhaps the largest is “jobs”, the ability for the community to bring in goods that are useful to the community, and providing people to have a role, position, and activity. While a community could rely on good will from others to bring in goods, the more transparent method of bringing in goods would be through trade, in which case the community would need to produce something of value (not necessarily tangible, education or entertainment might be non-tangible or less tangible options). If a community could create something akin “jobs” of conventional society, I think that would handle many potential issues. I think other major issues are disillusionment and disagreement; it would be common for there to be excitement at the initial start of a new community, but sustaining this, quickly achieving all that was envisioned seems far more difficult, and when people realize the difficulty, there will be a tendency to go back to what worked before (and back to their previous society). There will also inevitably be disagreements which will split the cohesiveness of the group. Keeping realistic expectations while still keeping motivated (and not becoming resigned to the current status quo), maintaining order, focus, and cohesion while still allowing for the freedom that people sought in moving to the community, these would seemingly be inherent challenges to the enterprise. Perhaps another major issue would be wanting have “good people” in your community, and wanting to be able to have interaction with a variety of people such that our interactions did not become stifling.
Still, despite all the changes of trying something new, to resign ourselves to the status quo, where we are renters our entire lives, or spend 30 to 40 years (the majority of our adult lives) paying a mortgage, where only those with large bank accounts get good housing, to accept all these seems unnecessary. I think we have the tools, means, and capabilities to do so, but need a way to find others who share this idea and commitment and who are willing to try out some new ways of living. How do we find each other?
