>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, snitsnat wrote:
>
>>When I was doing the research years ago, there was a lot of government
>>reports on the importance of home ownership to creating a stable (read:
>>politically stable {read: docile]} citizenry. With something to invest
>>in, something to want to protect, defend, whatever, people are less
>>likely, they reasoned, to be politically rebellious.
>
>Well, that cuts both ways: homeowners tend to be quite enthusiastic
>about government infrastructure and services that protect their property
>rights and values.
That's not rebellious, though.
The thrust of the reports was that they assumed that rootless renters were far more likely to rebel. To stave off that sort of rebellion, they reasoned that property ownership was the way to go. The thinking was in far more abstract, philosophical, Founding-Father-Federalist-Paper terms. And, remember, this was when Keynesian economics wasn't vilified as much as it is now:the point was that spurring home ownership would also fuel the economy which would keep job aplenty and, in turn, keep people from rebelling.
The kind of thing you're talking about is exactly what they wanted at the time. People have a stake in the system, not just capitalism but the government that ensures that the capitalist juggernaut churns down its path every more efficiently as people hurl themselves in front of it.
But, regardless as to my further elaboration, above, I'm not quite sure why my comments led you, inelectably, to conclude that I couldn't possibly see it as working both ways. Since I've rarely demonstrated that kind of binary thinking, and often object to it, I'm even more puzzled.
I was describing the sentiments in these reports, not my own analysis in its entirety. They _did_ want a docile population. They got it, not solely because of the policies created with the intention of expanding home ownership, but they sure helped. There is nothing rebellious at all about what you describe. It's using the state to advance your own interests and the interests of those like you. Big deal. Happy that home owners feel that way, but don't ask me to see them as rebels hoping to undermine the system and replace it with one where the public services you describe exist and are for everyone simply because that's the right thing to do, not because you're a home owner and want to distribute the costs of sewage systems and water treatments plants and public roads across the entire population.