header photo

 Scientific Anarchism 

the systematic elimination of the state


Homes are vital in so many ways. Homes are the key ingredient for prosperous communities and a stable nation state. The issue of homes must then be a central plank in any platform. 

Moderates policy delivers the best product with the least cost because it is grassroots, decentralized and based on local jurisdictions as the delivery vehicle. The best government is the smallest government because the smallest government is the government that interferes with the people’s ability to act in their own interests the least.

Moderate policy on homes reflects a commitment to the private sector but not necessarily capitalism. Moderates do not tie their policy commitments to the globalist financial market.

In 1950 a new house cost $8,450.00 and by 1959 was $12,400.00 in recent time the average price of a house is closer to 500,000 in most locations. 

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00. In Ontario, Canada the minimum wage is to be put up to $15.00 through $12 is the minimum at present though less in other locations.


In 1950 the average cost of new car was $1,510.00 and by 1959 was $2,200.00. Post 2000 12,000 is about the minimum one could pay and 30, to 50,000 a more common price.

Minimum wage U.S.

Jan 25, 1950 = $0.75

Mar 1, 1956 = $1.00

Sep 3, 1961 = $1.15

Sep 3, 1963 = $1.25

​If we keep this simple the cost of a new house in 50/60s was $10,000 and a low-end wage was $1.00 meaning a house was 10,000 times the lowest hourly wage. 

If we take the wage to be $15.00 and the average home to be $500,000 then the ratio increases to 1:33333 However if one could find a house for $150,000 then the 1:10000 ratio would hold good. This will not be a house in an urban area and it would not be much more than the same 1950's house in only a modest state of repair. If the numbers are hard to follow them imagine watching a $500,000 house decay down to a $150,000 one. That is what happened over 50 years to our spending power.

However, it is still true to say that howsoever difficult it was to purchase a house for cash in the 60's it is three times harder now. And we have not factored in the rate of taxation which due to increases and inflation has pushed even the minimum wage worker into a higher income bracket.

In one example a man was paying an effective rate of 2.1% in 1963 but his granddaughter paid 23% for the same wage adjusted for inflation. She lives in one room with no car but has a mobile phone whereas her grandfather owned a house with mortgage, a new car and supported a wife and five kids but had to walk to the corner to make a phone call.

According to 'Trade Unions And The Economy 1964 - 2000' take home pay suffered severely after 1964 when tax and social security contributions began to rise precipitously. In the first part of 1960 government retained just 10% of workers income. In 1970 this rose to 20% and by end of decade to 30%. But the real damage was done by inflation pushing workers into higher tax brackets which for a time required unions to push for even higher wages. Labor did manage to increase its share of the pie for a number of years. However, the golden years were few and short lived, by the 1980s a united front of business and government managed to push the balance of power back to capital.

There are two gross spending options. These are referred to as the public and private spending options. There is a third option which is a mix of the two, but this is usually referred to as the public option, also.

The public path is what is referred to as socialism or sometimes social spending. This path consists of the state imposing taxes on a private sector. This income is used to provide social goods, in this case, assisted housing. Tax breaks can be provided builders, low deposit mortgages, low interest rate mortgages or special mortgage terms to allow those with low incomes to achieve home ownership. This was the avenue explored in the years leading up to the collapse of the Savings and Loans facilities, Fanny and Freddie Mac along with a general collapse of the developed economies of the Western world in 2008.

The mixed path is usually referred to as a private sector solution by liberals because liberalism has no private sector to speak of. The private sector of liberalism consists of a business building homes and selling them, usually with the intervention of a bank which provides a mortgage. However, all of this is mediated by governments through its regulatory agencies. The private/public sector solution of liberalism is obviously not working as well as it ought, or the public sector would not have intervened so many times in so many places. It would take greater powers of discernment than available to me to determine who was at fault in the 2008 housing collapse, the public sector for making housing too affordable to the degree virtually no one was excluded from the market or the private sector for taking advantage of this windfall with such extraordinary zeal that there was no other end possible but economic collapse on a world-wide scale. This was and is liberal or free market economics at its worse. The 2008 economic collapse was a social cost on an historic scale. If there had been a true private sector solution these events would not have been possible.

The problem with the public and mixed sectors is that they are not mutually exclusive. Unravelling the causes and levels of responsibility in the 2008 collapse is impossible because both mixed private and public sectors are intertwined. The public sector denies it owns the housing stock and yet constant intervenes in the housing market. The mixed sector claims ownership and yet remains dependent on the public sector to administrate much of what takes place in the market. Capitalists claim communism fails because of its dictatorial and oppressive control features but if Communism could truly control the economy it would not have failed, neither would capitalism experience periodic collapse. The reality is that dual-ownership whether of the communist or capitalist variety creates uncertainty and inefficiency.

Dual ownership complicates the exercise of responsibility. When two people own the same asset or have competing claims to the same asset the decision-making process is severely impacted.

Responsible government ought not permit fuzzy ownership models. Ecumenics have the only policy that permits for establishing a clear title of ownership because only Ecumenics permit true private ownership, that is ownership without the state. 

Moderate Housing policy puts the people in an ownership position as regards the resources in its jurisdiction. The housing stock owned by a Housing Exchange is owned by the people not the state. This is true private ownership.

Any reasonable person would ask if it is cheaper to have people idle, with no jobs and no accommodation or are there fewer overall costs if governments bring in policies that permit us to house all members of the community and ensure everyone has a job? Working gives everyone the income they need to pay any costs this policy creates. If it makes sense for people to have a reasonable amount of needs met, then why not meet those needs in the most productive and cost-efficient way. Localist policies produce no social costs.

The Construction Exchange is a program in which the Exchange builds homes and receives credits from the Housing Exchange. The Housing Exchange sells the homes to members for credits. These are credits created by the Exchange to track market activity. This permits homes to be purchased on a cash basis. There is no interest payable for any credits advanced or debits outstanding. These assets belong to the Exchange and so any interest paid would be akin to the right hand paying the left.

Because this program is divorced from the globalist financial markets and are 100% self-funded debt is eliminated and housing can be made readily available to those who need housing.