No, not at all. Other economic views are definitely comprehensible to me, however this particular one is mind boggling because me and OP seem to have genuinely incompatible principals and values. "housing should be free" - according to who? What entity is coercing the 'should' in that sentence? What law of nature says that housing should be free? It implies in a society that you have a right to someone else's time and labor. That's amazing! It makes me wonder why the OP thinks that way and what circumstances led them to think that way.
I mean, in every modern country you have the right to someone elses time and labor. Most places have socialized medicine, literal usage of someones elses time for free and compensated by society as a whole, you use roads you didn't directly pay for, etc.
In a lot of places you can (or used to) get free water. Literally other peoples work for free.
Almost all the structural parts of modern society are built on providing people with services for free that come from the tax pool. You can even, depending on country, get free housing through poverty programs!
But in general, modern states exist in part to forcibly take from some to give to others by the whims of the majority. They all do it. "Public" housing is just another proposition in that spectrum of policies.
But specifically:
> according to who?
Currently them, but if it were according to most in most democracies that would mean it would eventually become law.
> What entity is coercing the 'should' in that sentence?
States, as with all other legal uses of force.
> What law of nature says that housing should be free?
No law of nature says property rights exist (especially intellectual property), but we make those up to establish civilization.
You can definitely be ideologically opposed to those ideas! But their existence shouldn't be a surprise, humans have been establishing radically different rules of society for millennia from one another, and seeing someone on the Internet propose something you find far out should be expected!
> I mean, in every modern country you have the right to someone elses time and labor.
I notice you qualified this with 'every modern country'. Is this a coincidence or do you believe that a 'right' to other people's time and labor is necessary for being a 'modern country'?
> Most places have socialized medicine, literal usage of someones elses time for free and compensated by society as a whole, you use roads you didn't directly pay for, etc.
Usages of socialized medicine, roads and anything else that is compensated by "society" are not rights. They are privileges paid for by taxes.
> In a lot of places you can (or used to) get free water. Literally other peoples work for free.
Getting something for no cost because it's given to you at no cost does not constitute a 'right' to that thing. If I gave you a bottle of water, that does not mean you have a right to my bottled water, or bottled water in general.
> But in general, modern states exist in part to forcibly take from some to give to others by the whims of the majority.
Now this statement is utterly fascinating! What are the other parts that they exist for, in your opinion?
> Currently them, but if it were according to most in most democracies that would mean it would eventually become law.
Let's be clear, your statement about "housing should be free" means "housing should be free because the people that want housing decide it should be free". It's totally fine if you want free housing - 100% fine for you to want it. That's your right. It's not your right however to get free housing.
> States, as with all other legal uses of force.
Not quite, or at least not yet. We're still just talking about "people that think housing should be free". If you want to promote that responsibility to the State you have to make it a law, which means you'd have to draft a law (in the US at least) that did not violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Even if it's a law, it would still not be a right.
> No law of nature says property rights exist (especially intellectual property), but we make those up to establish civilization.
I would argue that nature says I have a right to whatever land I can take and defend. If I can't defend it (by paying taxes, or whatever other modern agreements there are between me and everyone else) it will likely be repossessed. Society tends to support that natural right by acknowledging things (at least in the US) like private property laws, trespass laws and castle doctrines. Of course ultimately the state could just take my land by force - that's nature's law in action!
The root of my objection is that no one has a right to my time and labor (or yours or anyone else's). You can buy my time and labor, or we can barter for my time and labor, or I can choose to give you my time and labor. People can take it by force[1], but not by right.
