Some people advocate for free housing for those who cannot afford it, given the fact that it is a basic human requirement. My opinion, however, is not aligned with this despite acknowledging the reasons behind such a proposal.
Admittedly, the proposal of allowing disadvantaged people to own houses free of charge stems from a seemingly sound train of thought. The advocates argue that this aid lifts a huge burden off people with low income or those with underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds. Free housing enables them to have a more stable life, where they can spend their time focusing on other aspects instead of thinking constantly about buying an increasingly-expensive property. This help also reduces many societal problems, such as homelessness and crimes, contributing to a more harmonious society.
The argument, despite showing people a glamorous picture of the future, has glossed over some important factors. Chief among these is the financial toll put on governmental bodies. Giving away free houses means the authorities need to use a portion of their already-exhausted treasuries. This negatively influences the ability to address other issues that also demand attention and require immediate resolutions. Worse still, were housing to be granted based on the proposal, the very cited argument could extend to other life domains: we would require free water, free education, free access to infrastructure, and the like because they are all “basic human needs”, representing a common slippery slope argument. A model of society where everything needed is given freely is yet to be achieved, given all the limitations we are facing contemporarily.
However, the argument from the advocates raises a valid point: too many people are struggling to access a basic need to sustain life. Instead of free housing, I believe it is more viable for governments to subsidise houses and apartments. A nationwide analysis needs to take place, where economic experts and policymakers measure, evaluate, and decide on a reasonable price for housing based on the median income level, which allows people to own one more easily without putting a strong strain on the national economy.
To summarise, the given proposal has a strong premise but is not feasible for most nations and the current state of the world. A more prudent option, thus, is to reduce the price of housing in general based on citizens’ average income level. Not only does this enable people to have their own properties more easily, but it also does not put much strain on the government to begin with.