Potemkin wrote:If they want to have legal title to their homes, they do.
Then you are no longer talking about people not having a home to sleep in. You are talking about them not owning real estate. Different issue.
Otherwise the authorities can simply bulldoze their homes and forcibly move them off the land they are illegally occupying.
No, that's just absurd and disingenuous garbage with no basis in fact. You don't have to own land to legally and securely occupy it. There are billions of tenants all over the world who do not have legal titles to their homes, and they are in no danger whatever of being forcibly removed and having their homes bulldozed. You know this.
This happens so often in developing countries that it barely needs to be mentioned; it’s common knowledge. It even happens in the UK.
It happens when people are occupying the land illegally. But you don't have to own land -- or participate in the housing market -- to occupy it legally, if you have your natural individual liberty right to use land. Our remote ancestors exercised those natural liberty rights to house themselves for millions of years without ever having a legal title to land or participating in a housing market. You are merely unable to conceive of such a world because as a socialist, you refuse to know what the natural individual right to liberty is.
Yet that is not the world in which we live.
Sure it is.
And without intervention in the “free market” of housing, it never will be.
There is no free market in housing because landowning is forcibly subsidized, as I already explained.
Irrelevant. Demand for housing includes rented housing as well as privately owned housing.
It is extremely relevant, because the market for ownership of land is entirely different from the market for occupancy of housing. Again, because your brain is full of Marxist garbage, you are unable to understand such facts.
Lol. Yes, I am. As you well know.
Well, there's your problem. As long as the preservation of your false and evil socialist beliefs is more important to you than liberty, justice, or truth, you will not be able to find a willingness to know the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality that I identify. We have seen this in my extended, tedious, comprehensive and conclusive, yet entirely fruitless, demolition of ckaihatsu's Marxist tripe.
The “subsidies” are not “forced”,
They are most definitely and indisputably subsidies, and they are most definitely and indisputably forced.
but are a direct consequence of the private ownership of land, which is perfectly legal under capitalism.
Exactly: the legal private ownership of land that is by definition required under capitalism is inherently a forcible subsidy to landowners. That is why "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron.
And even if the land were to be confiscated from its legal owners by the government, the logic of the free market in housing would still exist -
It doesn't exist now, as I already proved. But it could if, at a minimum, there were no forcible subsidization of idle landowning.
the market, in order to function as a free market (i.e., using the price mechanism to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand) must price some people out of the market, so that their need for housing never manifests itself as a demand for housing.
Unless everyone has their natural individual liberty right to use land restored, or just compensation for its abrogation, as in the geoist system. Then EVERY RESIDENT CITIZEN would have enough effective purchasing power in the land market to trade for housing -- indeed, enough to trade for room and board in a low-rent location.