this is not just happening in Galveston, TX, but all of Houston.
The government is stealthly mixing project housing in with private apartment complexes.
Why ruin and corrupt just 1 neighborhood, when you can destroy and corrupt an entire city with government project housing.
“Gone will be 1940s-style barracks housing that locals often referred to as “The Projects.” In their place will be apartment-style units, along with privately owned mixed housing.”
“This time, it really will work!”
I can’t watch youtube here, but yeah…it depends by what they want to work.
If they want to destroy and corrupt neighborhoods, then yes. I believe it will work. Yes We Can!
Another example of government idiocy. If they (meaning the government) were really interested in providing housing for low-income folks, they would be better off instituting some kind of voucher program, instead of constructing Soviet-style, socialistic buildings where they can plan how their minions live their lives. (Note: I am not supporting an apartment voucher program, I am just saying that this is praxeologically the superior option for the given end.)
Exactly. I think this is a great argument to expose the fraud of “socialist” initiatives… the most generalized form of this argument is the Guaranteed Minimum Income. If you believe governments really care for the welfare of their people and you understand Econ 101, then it immediately follows that all forms of interventionist socialism should be abolished in favor of simply mailing a fixed, monthly check - of the same amount - to every man, woman and child (the children’s check is in the parents’ name, obviously). From there, the market can produce every good and service at higher qualtiy and lower cost than the government can.
But, then, governments don’t really care about their subjects best interests, do they?
Clayton -
If you believe governments really care for the welfare of their people and you understand Econ 101, then it immediately follows that all forms of interventionist socialism should be abolished in favor of simply mailing a fixed, monthly check - of the same amount - to every man, woman and child (the children’s check is in the parents’ name, obviously). From there, the market can produce every good and service at higher qualtiy and lower cost than the government can.
I think this is one of the best and simplest arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Since the government can only pay Paul by robbing Peter, it spends every dollar in a less efficient manner than Peter would have spent it originally. That is, less efficient in terms of Peter’s subjective scale of values. Of course, as soon as the government gets its hands on some loot, it spends it in its own best interests at the expense of everyone else.
In other words, the market supposedly “fails” when it produces a different set of goods and services than would exist if the government were allowed to rob Peter and spend the money in its own interests.
I believe it was Walter Block who pointed out that you can destroy a city faster than aerial bombardment by instituting socialized housing and rent-control.