Your argument falls flat on it's face. Your neighbour could be a waste of space good for nothing shithead who chooses to not work and live off the dole.
In fact, it could turn out that if you DON'T provide him free electricity water and phone service, that he would then choose to work on his own, but since these services are provided, he chooses not to work.
In either of these cases the baseline of well-being for the country is worse under these freeloading policies.
Some people make good decisions, some people make bad decisions. You probably want to avoid subsidizing bad decisions if you're going with the utilitarian argument.
But hold on... Who cares about the utilitarian argument? If I can show that it's morally wrong for the government to bring a gun into the negotiation between every other party in the country (price fixing) then who cares about the utilitarian argument?
If I can show you that by killing homeless people, we're all better off in total, does that make it right? Of course not. Utilitarian arguments are pointless.
Price fixing is immoral. You can show this with just two principles:
- Private property
- Initiation of force is immoral
It doesn't even take very complex thinking. If you want to see if something the government is doing is immoral, just imagine a neighbor you don't like is taking the same action. If you think it's wrong for your bad neighbor to force prices between other people to a certain level at the barrel of a gun, then it's wrong for the government to do it.
Utilitarian arguments don't help. 'But it's democracy and elected officials' doesn't make it right either.
If your elected officials said 'we're going to start our homeless extermination program for the good of the country' it's still immoral.
If you hold a direct ballot and a majority of the population votes to exterminate the homeless, it's still immoral.