Ambrose, c. 350
With money, all actions take on a dimension of moral hazard. You pay for a thing, but you do not do the work, so you don't know how it is done and what effect the work has on the worker or on the world at large.
If the altruistic angle doesn't appeal, consider the selfish angle: money divorces you from the reality of an act, making you less able to do for yourself.
Like the Amish, I suggest that you carefully consider what you pay for and why, rather than just decide based on whether you can pay for it.
The implication being that the only rent seeker will be the state i assume
- Houses are way bigger than they need to be
- Their footprints are enlarged further by useless setbacks and lawns
- A single household monopolizes this footprint for the entire vertical dimension
Unfortunately, people have somehow been convinced that house price inflation is good because their house has more and more value, like a wheelbarrow of inflated currency and that the only fix is for everyone to buy their own house/land, which only worsens the problem.
This theory is called communism and it is one of the deadliest ideas known to man.
That said, there's an element of truth to the statement. There would be no such thing as rich and poor, there would only be poor.