« Goodbye and Good Riddance, Speaker Pelosi | Main | Ninth Circus Condemns San Diego's Mount Soledad Cross »
January 5, 2011
George Monbiot Decries Spacious Housing
Posted by Dave Blount at January 5, 2011 11:28 AM
It could be that even George Monbiot is ready to give up on the thoroughly exposed global warming hoax, because he is searching hungrily for a new crisis to exploit — like Big Government's failure to prevent us from having too much space:
The issue is surplus housing — the remarkable growth of space that people don't need. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures), there was a 45% increase in the number of under-occupied homes in England. The definition of under-occupied varies, but it usually means that households have at least two bedrooms more than they require. This category now accounts for over half the homes in which single people live, and almost a quarter of those used by larger households.
What could have caused such a crisis? Moonbat finds
just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth … is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."
If wealth is the problem, the solution must be socialism.
While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.
Moonbat is enraged that even Britain's bloated progressive government should "let the rich occupy as much space they wish." Like most neocommies, he justifies his hatred of economic success with environmentalist rhetoric:
I suggest a new concept: housing footprints. Your housing footprint is the number of bedrooms divided by the number of people in the household. Like ecological footprints, it reminds us that the resource is finite, and that, if some people take more than they need, others are left with less than they need.
You might argue that housing is not a finite resource, because we can always build more of it — but only if Big Government lets us, which it wouldn't were it up to Moonbat. Housing oppresses the environment.
Like all crises invented by liberals, it boils down to coercion for the sake of coercion.
Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation. If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better.
Even the authoritarian collectivists at The Guardian seem to have realized that they should be more subtle about their power lust unless they want to scare people into putting up resistance. The subheading of the article now reads:
The hidden truth about our housing crisis is that it is driven by under-occupation.
Those who insist on under-occupying their homes should be forced to pay for the privilege, or take in a charity lodger.
Because big houses cost more than small houses, they already have paid for the supposed "privilege" of living in a house of the size they can afford. When Moonbat sputters about making them pay, he's expressing a sadistic urge to punish them for not being sufficiently unsuccessful.
After punitive taxes and government-imposed lodgers fail to achieve total equality, the next step will be the abolition of private housing, which is a short jump from Moonbat's assertion that "the total housing stock is a common resource."
Ever been to a government housing project? If so, congratulations on making it out alive. You've seen everyone's future if progressives have their way.
Hat tip: David Thompson.