Accommodation is a fundamental need for all people. So, there is a view that housing should be provided by the authorities free of charge to those who cannot afford it. While I acknowledge potential upsides of this perspective, I believe this argument is overstated.
One major benefit of this phenomenon is that it ensures social stability and equality. Everyone deserves a place to live regardless of their income. This states that everyone has equal rights and should live in similar conditions. This view is further fueled by a reduced crime rate. If people have shelter, there is no need for them to engage in illegal activities, such as robbery or mugging. However, this limited understanding of free housing overlooks the fact that it enhances the financial pressure on governments, resulting in increased taxation and prices. Moreover, free accommodation means that there will be individuals who bypass the system by corruption or deception, even though they are wealthy enough to purchase it themselves.
Another most commonly cited positive of free residence is that it allows the government to maintain public health. If governments take care of the public, people will focus on working, education and other important spheres to further contribute to the economy and growth of the country. On the other hand, this point of view can reduce self-reliance and motivation among the public, relying only on the government. This discourages individuals from devoting their time and effort towards achieving success by themselves.
In conclusion, the major benefits associated with free housing – social stability, public health and reduction in crime rate – are not as significant in contrast to the drawbacks it entails. Therefore, I believe providing free living space would not be a good decision for the country’s officials.