In a recent gubernatorial debate, the two candidates who were selected by the media to take part were asked a particular question. This question, by its very phrasing, asserted a host of insupportable assumptions. But the only ballot-qualified candidate who would challenge those assumptions was the Libertarian candidate, Dean Cook, the one not allowed to attend. The question I refer to asked the candidates what they would do about "affordable housing."
The advocates for supporting the poor at taxpayer expense (who call themselves by the shortened form "advocates for the poor") would tell us that there are certain minimum housing needs not being met. Yet that is true only if measured against a rapidly rising scale. The average housing space per person is far higher than seemed normal a generation or two ago. More people are living in households headed by a single parent, fewer people are living with roommates, rooming houses are practically non-existent, etc.; but why? People can fall back on these traditional methods of keeping housing costs down, if we don't encourage them to have unrealistic expectations. Some ethnic communities, especially immigrant communities, are widely known for packing large families into small living spaces. It's politically incorrect to say it, but the "advocates for the poor" will say we can't force people to live like "them." But "them" are the very groups who save, and who undertake entrepreneurial ventures, and who succeed, at a tremendous rate, well in excess of the people who have been taught to expect housing as a civic right. We surely don't want to discourage the approach of these hard-working ethnic groups to housing and free enterprise. Yet if we accept the assumption that it's up to government to provide "affordable housing," we will penalize that approach of thrift and enterprise in order to subsidize the more modern, and less effective, approach of dependency upon government.
Another side to the "affordable housing" argument is that the free market does not provide for inexpensive housing. But why not? Has the free market so changed, that the forces that provided inexpensive housing a couple of generations ago can no longer make a profit doing so today? Actually, yes, it has, because of government meddling. If government requires every car to have the features of a large sedan, it prevents the market from meeting the needs of those who could only afford a subcompact. If government restricts the number of cars that can be made, the manufacturers will make mostly luxury models, and even some of the sedan buyers will find themselves priced out of the market. If government forces auto manufacturers to pay for legal assistance to purchasers who sue them, even fewer low-priced automobiles could be made. So the assumption that the government should in some activist sense "do something," is totally backwards. If we really want to help the poor, government should repeal the zoning laws that restrict rooming houses and other such multi-family solutions. It should repeal the maze of regulations, notifications, certifications, and price controls that distort the market and prevent the construction of inexpensive housing. Government should get out of the way and let the free market work.