Well there's no way of changing things that's going to be popular with everyone.
Would you prefer to pay for a place to live, or have one for free?
Guessing that you'd prefer to have one for free, maybe most people are much the same.
So who'd lose? The banks, building societies, and landlords who rent-out properties, but not owner-occupiers and tenants. So I reckon you could find a majority of people would like the idea. And if they like the idea, then maybe under the right circumstances they could be willing to vote for it.
Banks and building societies can't vote, so they're kind of irrelevant to whether the idea could be popular.
But the banks and building societies that depend for their liquidity on mortgage repayments, well they'd go bust. Shit. So loads of people would lose their savings. Can we have that?
Well, if you agree with that argument, then in a way you're with all the capitalists who'll repeat for ever that there is no alternative to the system we've got, plus minor tinkering. Personally, I think that it's a fact that radical change would involve radical change, and that's unavoidable. Do you disagree?
Alternatively, if you don't want people to lose their savings, you could bail out the banks, by printing shedloads of money, which would probably cause a still larger devaluation of the pound.
But there's something to be said for big devaluations, as we'd be able to compete better in the global market. And of course if housing was free, then people's overheads would be a great deal lower.
But, yes it is utopian, -- Pie in the sky if you like, -- these days utterly unrealistic. How could I deny that? All the same I think it's no more pie in the sky than your politics, - and tastier as well.
The idea came out of discussions with capitalists about the problems of capitalism.
Their line is always. So what's your alternative to a free market.
Or alternatively, but socialism doesn't work, look at Russia etc etc.
So I was trying to think of something that wasn't vulnerable to these standard criticisms, something that wasn't tainted by the general negative perception people have of "socialism"
The problem with old-style socialism seems to have generally been that the attempt to run a planned economy from the top down, results in a large inefficient and unpleasant bureaucracy. So best avoid that, - stick with the free market. How can you make sure people have enough time and optimism that you can reasonably hope that they'll get together and really participate in a local democracy and decide how to run things best for themselves, -e.g. decide, who should run that farm, what sort of bus service do they want, - shall we keep this factory going? My idea was that the most pressing problem with the current system is the total lack of freedom, as people are enslaved to their rent or their mortgage with the fear of homelessness to keep them at it, and no time to stop and consider whether there are other options, and a general bad mood, besides.
There are plenty of people begging on the streets who once had a family, and kept at it and kept at it, until they cracked under the strain, lost their job, then lost their house, and then lost their family.
As far as I can see there's two things that keep the system going, one is the expectation that people have for a return on their money. And the other is the need people have to keep working to create that return for the owners or lose their house.
Cut those two out, and you'd find that capitalism would be over, and that free markets without capitalism would turn out to be pretty good.
Maybe I'll look again in the morning to see where I can disagree with it 
Another lie. 
