The benefits of living together are so profound that elites need to deny them to others. It is the communal nature of elites that makes them elites: the gated communities, where security and road maintenance are shared; the tennis, golf, and "country" club format, where facilities are shared. Every aspect of western-style "independent conservativism" is, actually, an exclusive form of socialism, indistinguishable except by rhetoric from crony capitalism, which is to say, neither socialist nor capitalist ("Neither living, nor dead").
Handouts ~ An Aside
All the pillars of free trade, rough-and-ready marketplaces, and individualism are, in truth, bastions of collectivism--but collectivism of an exclusive sort. Western political offices, military commissions (even American), and upper-tier large corporation work come with: housing; food; medical care; recreational facilities; paid vacation time; job security; old-age pensions, and more.
There is often a seemingly-strange confluence of government work and free-marketism. Congresspeople, for example, who enjoy excellent, prepaid, lifelong healthcare after serving a four-year term sending their state-funded aides to vote in D.C., but who simultaneously decry the theoretically deleterious effects of public healthcare...small-time crypto-conservatives who consistently fail in employment responsibilities in the open market, resort to government work, and continue to complain about government spending more vociferously than anyone else. At some level, so many of those on the dole understand that, in a world of peaceful decency, their skill-sets--beating people with sticks; giving keynote presentations; making really cool, extraordinarily wasteful death-kill toys for global militaries--would result in them needing to admit their uselessness to society, like so many divorce lawyers begging the government to come up with new ways to formalize lovemaking and un-lovemaking.
So, how do we keep the proletariat from enjoying the efficiency of living together? For each popular method below, we'll discuss: (I) The Means, or how living together is actually stopped; (II) The Rationale, or how The Means is justified; and, (III) A Bit Of Truth, or how The Rationale is a ploy. We'll use America as our example state; however, this model will generally apply across the board, except for those few East Asian and Western European countries still maintaining citizen medical care.
Putting A Stop To Living Together
Proportional Residency Requirements. I. The Means: Laws providing for police raids, assets seizure, and prison time in the event proles attempt to occupy a residence in more efficient numbers, often based around land-developer designations of "bedrooms" relative to headcount. II. The Rationale: Public health is endangered by too many
To middle-classers, this seems like a joke. Who would want to sleep too-many to a bedroom? Or, to a house? This is a very real issue, though, for oodles and oodles of people, "even" in the western world. If you're in-between jobs, orphaned, homeless, or just fiscally-minded, sharing a residence gives all of the benefits discussed in Part 1, as well as the benefit of not being outside at night. For people walking the line between Option A, Homelessness, Option B, Prison, and Option C, a Chance to normalize things with a mailing address, consistent refrigerator and bathroom access, and the society of some friends, the government's imposition of residency requirements forces Option A and Option B onto many. Many, many, many. No joke.
So why shouldn't seven people be able to crash together in a two bedroom apartment in a comparatively expensive urban area? Enlisted military housing, particularly during deployment, is often worse in terms of proportions, as well as health results. The shelters, jails, and prisons that millions of people end up in after avoiding or violating these regulations are worse. Living outdoors is much worse.
If two 150 lb. men share half a bedroom, is it less healthy than if one 315 lb. man does?
If your friend Aisha mops up the kitchen floor every night, then unrolls a sleeping bag and uses it for eight hours, is it less healthy than if your seven cats urinate, defecate, mate, eat, and shed on that kitchen floor?
...no. However, none of the alternative situations threaten to upset the rent, property taxes, and/or prison funding that would be generated by forcing the extra taxpayer out.
An Aside On Pre-Criminalization And The Rightless
Slumlords just love versions of public health coding and bedroom maximums, because they can be, and regularly are, disregarded on a case-by-case basis, making end-users reliant on regulators who "look the other way" as long as the price is right. Like all forms of prohibition--from marijuana to immigration to prostitution to the kinds of cars black people are allowed to drive c. 1990 Compton--municipal coding is utilized to control the market for preferred distributors (in this case, land developers) who help write prohibitive regulations in the name of public safety, then apply them selectively in order to terrorize vulnerable groups.
Examples? Well, if you ignore building code violations--those related to actual safety, like exposed electrical wiring or lack of fire exits--then you're allowed to sleep one extra to a bedroom. If you so much as squeak about the rats breeding in the basement, you are out on your ass. Also, Slumlord is keeping the security deposit.
Non-citizen workers who dare complain about an OSHA violation are just as easy to dispose of, because they've been pre-defined by the government as a rightless group. Rightless groups are not only untrustworthy, and thus their testimony is not worth basing prosecution on; they're also pre-criminals, so any attempt to offer testimony results in police-based consequences. Cops pull over and search disobedient black people, extort cash and assets from drug users, and rape prostitutes, because those whose behavior has already been criminalized can't offer any effective resistance.
We've all sort of adopted the longstanding modern perspective of how ungodly it is when people try to decrease per-person government rents, though, which is why...
...Social Shaming. I. The Means: corporate media providing that it is laughable, disgusting, and abusive when proles attempt to occupy a residence in more efficient numbers, often based around temporally-popular bigotries, e.g. race, culture, age-discrimination, sex, or sexuality. II. The Rationale: (varies depending on era) [Group] who live in large quantities should be mocked to remind us how good we have it and to encourage them to better themselves. III. A Bit Of Truth: [Group] may be choosing to deliberately maintain a certain lifestyle despite movies and magazine ads.
The dirty Irish, of course, have too many kids and clog up the inner cities with papist babies who will spawn a Catholic revolt and overthrow the government. Decades forward, it's the blacks, and then the "Mexicans," having too many kids and wallowing in filth. Those stories have largely transitioned to white trash, where it's still really, really funny and socially acceptable to conclude the same things always concluded about large groups of people living together:
1) People live together because of incest and sexual slavery;
2) People live together because they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to make it on their own.
On Native American communities (America/Canada: "reservations," and don't forget the Inuit), in inner-city ghettos, and in poor, rural, blended "white" and "minority" communities, more insulated from postmodern culture, some westerners have preserved from destruction more efficient group lifestyles.
The American Indian schools movement is among the earlier postmodern attempts to condescendingly subject populations to federal power by breaking up social networks and subjecting the isolated individual to the power of the federal government. The white man's burden, and the burden of Christian missionaries to the New World, has been continued by the most politically-correct, avowedly-non-racist, non-sexist, non-supremacist thinkers of the day, who continually find new rationales to use police power, social scorn, and legislation to invade communities and break people apart from one another for their own good.
In the 21st century, Native American tribal leaders may refuse to let their elders be shuffled away into state healthcare facilities, or their youth stolen by Indian businessmen who work with outside interests to "modernize" a tribe by shipping its young people off to external employment (and individualized apartments, cars, healthcare, et cetera). Primarily Scots-Irish American rural communities sin by allowing grandma to stay in the home, rather than pushing her out the door to make it somehow. Many Americans also do vulgar stuff like letting their kids stay at home after 18, without an expectation that they leave and make it "on their own," and without being embarrassed that a kid had to "move back in" during a temporary job-related setback.
The response from the neo-liberal west is disgusting, and scathing: when Anthony, the young man, has a drink, crashes his pickup truck, then isn't sure yet about college, the problem is not Anthony or the economy, but instead the poor, ignorant, benighted Indian tribe, which has been discriminated against previously, ergo doesn't understand the kind of opportunities it should be pushing Anthony into. God knows, white kids never have drinking problems or issues with education and employment. Clearly, that tribe needs intervention. It's just so heart-rending that Anthony has no opportunities. A responsible government clearly can't stand by and allow this to continue.
When Grandpa, who has Alzheimer's, urinates in his pants, the culprit is not Alzheimer's disease or Grandpa's crankiness, but his stupid white trash family, for not getting Grandpa proper care--i.e., making Grandpa leave so he can go on state assistance and spend the rest of his days trapped in a somber building filled with shuffling, abandoned, violent elders, who are urinating constantly in their own pants, and who are properly cleaned up not by their children, but by rotating shifts of nursing students who laugh at inmate anecdotes over break.
The "non-ironic irony" (because it is, like everything in this section, arranged on purpose) of postmodern elder care is that regulated, profitable industry "nursing homes" are so disproportionately riddled with bedsores, deadly falls, resident-on-resident violence, staff-on-resident violence, and unattended fecal matter that elders tend to be better off at home. Similarly, regulated, profitable industry "schools" regularly endure hygienic conditions, violence, and emotional abuse rates far higher than that of some sisters and brothers who work and learn at home.
More genuinely ironic is all the good stuff enjoyed by many of those who live together. The communal support on Indian reservations, for example, leaves children and elders in the care of those who know and love them. A constant support network of babysitters, group nursing for infants, older children supervising younger, young men available for pickup basketball without paying a yearly city recreational fee--all right there. The constant criticism, and the massive pressure to conform, from government and society at large, does have an effect on these kinds of groups, and governments have spent the past century breaking them up, resulting in unavoidable schisms in those that still remain. Even so, the work is not done, so governments continue shattering alternative societies.
Political, academic, media, and pop-culture figures casually insult and patronize those who live together, their bigoted rhetoric polished so as to specifically appear different from all preceding history, even as they pursue identical ends (for their own good). Consider:
If a lot of Indians live together, they've been forced to stay on the reservation because of the racist attitudes of outsiders.
If a lot of men live together, it's a homosexual bathhouse. Call the police. (c. 1970s)
If a lot of women live together, it's a sex trafficking front. Those poor women need to be rescued from the abusive international superpimps who forced them to stay in place for nigh-constant rapine. (c. 2000s)
If a lot of white people live together, HAHA, white trash is funny! (c. 1970s onward)
If a lot of black people live together, it's a shameful failure of the black community to encourage its young people to pursue the education they deserve. Or, it's a meth lab. (c. 1990s onward)
Remember, Citizen: if people don't pursue the goals of life, liberty, and happiness in the way they should, they are (1) criminals, or (2) being taken advantage of. Report them to your local public health advisory committee.
The Biggest And The Worst
...and when a lot of people start living together, and try to develop any kind of off-the-grid system, the hammer comes down.
Here's a small one, about Turtle Island. Short, and worth reading.
But that's playing nice, with just one guy trying to live a touch more naturally, and surrendering the instant they send the first nerdy state agent out with a "violations" paper. Remember the above "if a lot of..."? Well, what happens when a lot of people get together, avoid the problems we'll cover in Part 5, and appear sustainable? Clearly, if a lot of people do that, it's a racist, incestuous sex-trafficking/weapons-trafficking front. Enter the American "cult" scare. Disney can build its own uber-racist city, but if anyone else does it, government troops move in: assault rounds shatter bodies, buildings crumble, and children burn. Remember: if you're not with us, you're Fallujah.