[qeternity]

> we choose to operate as natural monopolies

No, not at all. We don’t choose natural monopolies. We recognize them. The whole point is they are naturally occurring whether we want them or not. Housing shares nothing in common with the other services you mention which are anything but commodities!

The natural monopoly of the electrical company isn’t electricity, it’s distribution. Power is a commodity, and delivery is anything but.

Your argument that housing is the same is not well informed.

[southerntofu]

There is no reason we have to pay for anything. Money is not a natural construct and is a leaky abstraction. Our ancestors built housing long before currency was even invented.

Public services are not a "natural monopoly". They are a deliberate political choice (that was paid in blood by the lower classes, see also Haymarket Affair for example). We could very easily make housing free for all, or just affordable (see also HLM program in France).

[qeternity]

> There is no reason we have to pay for anything. Money is not a natural construct and is a leaky abstraction. Our ancestors built housing long before currency was even invented.

As you note, there are other ways to pay for things than money. Whether it's "paid in blood" or other barter system, there is always a cost to pay.

> We could very easily make housing free for all, or just affordable (see also HLM program in France).

Would love to hear your very easy solutions. Affordability is relative. If you have more demand than supply (as we do with housing) the only way to increase affordability in real terms is to shift the supply curve. This shift is not free, and somebody has to pay for it. This is where the "omg it's so easy" arguments typically fall apart.

[southerntofu]

> Whether it's "paid in blood" or other barter system, there is always a cost to pay.

I meant the social rights/protections had to be paid in blood. But nothing in itself requires payment. We just happen to live in a society which commoditizes everything. If everyone worked some field they're passionate about (and people are passionate about many things) and we evenly shared the work for undesirable jobs (eg. cleaning) we could have everything for free.

> If you have more demand than supply (as we do with housing)

This is highly uninformed. In many countries around the planet, empty dwellings easily outnumber homeless people so we don't need to build anything at all to house everyone. Moreover, if we just stopped tearing down housing and started renovating them, that's also much less work/resources. Finally, if you really want/need more housing, a government run program (such as the HLM i mentioned before) shows you can build affordable housing for 10-30k€/appartment and rent them for a final user cost (after government help for housing) of under 100€/month.

It's a shame like all public services across France the HLM system is being corrupted and coopted into money-making machine. The buildings in popular neighborhoods go unmaintained while administrators pocket all the money, and the little that's left goes into developing higher-classes "HLM" housing which we popular classes can't afford.

[qeternity]

> If everyone worked ... we could have everything for free.

Nothing is free. As you say yourself, everything requires work. This is just physics.

> This is highly uninformed.

Ok sure, I'll bite. Your understanding of supply and demand is extremely naive. An empty dwelling does not mean excess supply. If I own two houses, it's because I want two houses. It's not because we have too many houses. In fact, hoarding is a classic sign that we don't have enough of something.

I think you ought to step back and understand why the things you mention exist. You will find out more by doing that than you will shouting into the void on HN. If it were as easy as you proclaim, we would be doing it. The world is not stupid.