Firstly, living space in someways can be seen as analogous to, or an extension of, personal space. Something we intuitively respect in regard other people. So that's a good avenue to go along when arguing in favour of it.
Secondly, the 'government' taking land or space and just giving it to people gratis sounds a little bit in the realms of communism. Or land re-distribution. (In fact, I guess you could say I'm trying to marry the ideals of communism with the ideals of property ownership here - an individual rights based communism in a sense xD). However, although it sounds very leftist in tone, the concept of living space rights would actually enshrine property rights further. Your home would be deemed unassailable.
Also, it would in a sense create a distinction between a person's primary residence and their further properties. Though people would be entitled to own land and property just as they do now, their primary residence - where they actually live - would be considered sacrosanct. Of course, in today's world we have things such as compulsory purchase where states can forcibly reclaim property from the individual as it's deemed in the greater public interest. Normally in fair societies a distinction would be made between say an abandoned property and a lived-in property anyway, but theoretically there's no limit. With living space rights someone's primary residence would be completely untouchable.
Another thing worth mentioning is that such a project wouldn't require that much land/space anyway. As the 'basic', freely given (or cheaply sold) homes would be very small. Plus there is also plenty of publicly-owned land available already, so such a scheme would in no way require any sort of land redistribution that would impact the individual directly.
Finally, given I'm arguing for a basic, specified minimum amount of living space an individual has a right to, I wonder if there could also be a maximum size. (I'm beginning to sound very communist here aren't I xD). There perhaps could be some type of calculated ratio that takes into account the overall amount of land and the overall population.
The total amount of land - (the population x the minimum sq metres of space per individual) = the maximum land that could be owned by any one individual
??
Perhaps you could begin by first of all removing an ascribed proportion of the total land for public space, national parks, etc.
Let's say half.
The total amount of land/divided by 2 - (the population x the minimum sq metres of space per individual) = the maximum land owned by any one individual
In reality that maximum amount would be owned by lots of individuals combined of course.
//////////////////
And finally, finally. I may start calling this concept Universal Basic Space. What with it being similar in theme to Universal Basic Income.
No comments:
Post a Comment