you're welcome to your opinion, and can support & promote this position, but you had better be prepared for me to make arbitrary limits around things you covet as well: no one needs more than one child / car / computer, $XXX retirement savings, n years of education, etc.

For the most part free societies don't dictate directly but shape with the carrot and the stick.

If a lack of cars, computers etc became a problem then I would be against people hoarding it aswell

The real issue is not homes but rather wealth, and some people (and some countries) have more of it than others. Unless you have a solution to reshape the Gini coefficient, setting arbitrary limits on the number of things one can own is not going to solve anything. Much the same way as rent controls don't solve anything.

Don't know where you live. But a big problem with rent controll here in Sweden is that it's just not enough appartments to go around. Sweden at least would need a new million programme or something similar

What if a surplus of those things is causing problems?

I don't get this argument.

Homelessness is not a problem home owners should solve. It's absurd to think the solution is simply moving homeless people into unoccupied homes. We should address the root societal, economic and often personal causes of homelessness to begin with: lack of jobs, low income / unaffordable housing, mental health, etc.

What you're proposing is limiting prosperity for successful people, while allowing scammers like squatters to prosper instead. Why should I work to own a home if I can just take over someone else's?

Wealth inequality is a problem, but this is not the way to fix it.

It wouldn't help scammers because there wouldn't be a second home to squat.

Not allowing people to own two homes would mean that all rich people can't buy and drive up the cost of property.

And no it's not a fix to wealth inequality. It's a way to help try and solve a common problem

It is naive to think that thieves and scammers will go away so easily if other people just become poorer.

"inequality shouldn't be allowed"

Well yes, in a perfect world, unfortunately trying to eradicate inequality with laws alone historically has had disastrous outcomes.

I don't think inequality would be solved by this. I simply think it's something thst could help solve a specific problem

What if a couple gets divorced?

One moves, the other one stays. Both move and then they would have to sell