While we’re using anecdotes, corporate owned housing can have issues too. They discriminate against renters with low income, unstable jobs, mixed-race families, etc etc - examples from “first world” Netherlands, where companies like MVGM own majorities of rental housing.

> While we’re using anecdotes...

Shallow dismissal. Singapore discriminates against LGBTQ couples as a matter of policy. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's an anecdote.

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Publ...

It's still an anecdote. Corporate housing discriminates against poor people and people of colour as a matter of incentive, which is no different in practice.

In any case, it doesn't change anything, if Singapore is oppressing LGBT people they will do so government owned housing or not.

Sorry but it’s just not an anecdote. It’s government policy, as you can easily determine by googling. It’s not like we have to take one person’s word for it that this is happening.

The argument is not about Singapore. You're making the argument that it's not a good idea to have government-run public housing (presumably in Berlin/US/UK) because one government somewhere they did something bad through that they could have done even with private housing.

It's an anecdote for your argument. If the argument was "did Singapore discriminate against people through housing" it wouldn't be. If the argument is "should we have public housing [here]" then it's an anecdote. You'd have to show that this would happen in the place in question. If you want to make a general statement, you'd have to make that clear and make the case that in such countries landlords wouldn't discriminate against you for being LGBT (which they absolutely do).

I’m not making any argument about whether it’s a good idea to have government run public housing. I think you have me confused with another poster.

Your definition of ‘anecdote’ seems way off to me. We’re talking about an objectively verifiable data point. Just because it doesn’t fully confirm some argument that someone’s making doesn’t make it an anecdote. Check the dictionary definition.

Anecdotes are objectively verifiable data points. The key is that they are a single data point and can't be used to make a general argument because of that. It's a single interesting story about an event. That is a valid definition of "anecdote".

Housing discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore isn't a single story, it's government policy.

The definition of 'anecdote' has nothing to do with arguments. 'Anecdote' isn't a back formation from 'anecdotal argument'.

It's completely legal for private landlords to discriminate against LGBT people in housing federally in the US, as well as many states, counties and cities. And it happens quite often.

There's also the Fair Housing Act exemptions, where small private landlords with fewer than about 4 units, or landlords that share buildings with their tenants, can ignore the discrimination limits imposed by the FHA.

I think Singapore discriminating against LGBTQ is the bigger deal than Singapore owning the housing.

It's all part of the same deal for people living in Singapore. They don't get to pick and choose which aspects of the government they want (democracy in Singapore is a farce.)

Sure, but that goes to show that "state ownership" simply means very different things in a democratic state vs a non-democratic state. Democratic state ownership is a kind of public ownership - the voters have some amount of control over the state, and through the state, over the owned resource. Non-democratic state ownership is a kind of private ownership - the dictator(s) have direct control of the resource, and the voters have no more rights to control state-owned property than corporate-owned property.

Indeed! As I acknowledge in the last sentence of my comment. Because of these things, I think the healthiest housing markets are those with a good mix of suppliers (both govt and private). Supplier competition comes with many benefits.

My point about MVGM and the rental corporations mentioned in the post, is that they’re massive and bordering on mono/duopolies. That reduces the “mix of suppliers” you’re talking about. Moreover, most corporations act similarly when driven by profit, so it’s a false choice.

The vast majority of public housing in Singapore is owned, not rented. However, government policy is that subsidized flats are only available to married couples, and thanks to colonial-era British laws still in force, in Singapore that means only a man and woman.

>and thanks to colonial-era British laws still in force

These laws could easily be repealed. The root cause of the problem is that Singapore is still a pretty homophobic society. (Also, did Singapore have same sex marriage before British Colonial rule?)

The quasi-fascist PAP has ruled Singapore with authoritarian force since the 1950s. They have the uncontested power to change any old British law they wish. If they haven't, it's because they've chosen not to. If you want to point fingers, all fingers in modern Singapore should be pointed directly at the PAP.

A non-democratic state like Singapore is very different in discussions of state-provided services compared to mostly democratic states.

A democratic state is, ideally, controlled by the people who live under its rule. As such, services provided by the state are, to some extent, under the control of these people, who can use their political power to influence those services directly in various ways. In contrast, people don't generally have any right to change the way a private entity chooses to do business, as part of the basic definitions of property rights. Basically, people often want public ownership, and use the idea of state ownership as the mechanism to achieve that.

This difference though changes completely when discussing an authoritarian state like Singapore (and even more so in dictatorial states). The benefit of democratic control that is expected from state ownership in democratic states doesn't exist if there is no democratic control of the state in the first place (this is one of the reasons it is absurd to talk about the USSR as "socialist", when all economic activity was in fact controlled by a state that was in turn controlled by a ruthless dictator). In a non-democratic state, state ownership is just as much private ownership as corporate ownership.

Of course, the problems get even more complex when you have a quasi-democratic state that is nevertheless actively discriminating against certain groups of people.