The short answer is: no. There are more people that want homes than available homes and thus by taking more than you need—i.e. multiple homes—you are taking from someone else. It’s really that simple.

Healthy debate

However, there are arguments in favor of owning multiple homes that are worth reviewing because of their popularity. The most familiar are:

• Greed is good (utilitarian): the supply of housing is not fixed so higher prices will incentivize the building of more houses
• I do what I want (freedom): people should be able to do whatever they want
• Live off the land (virtue): there is plenty of cheap land on the countryside

And my rebuttal is:

• Greed is good
  • Greed / self interest / the free market is an economic system with considerable merits, primarily:
    • Resources are generally allocated to those who value them the most*
    • Transactions usually provide mutual benefit*
    • Little-to-no oversight is required to make the system function
  • However, it is also a system with significant drawbacks:
    • Those willing to pay the most for a resource are not necessarily those who value it the most
    • Transactions can occur without mutual benefit in some cases
    • Limited oversight can result in tragedy of the commons and fraud
  • A true utilitarian believes ‘greed is good’ because it maximizes utility (i.e. well-being) of society
    • A true utilitarian will also admit that utility is notoriously difficult to measure and current measures/analysis are highly imperfect
  • In some markets unfettered capitalism may maximize total well-being
  • In markets such as housing where the resource is a necessity and there is a scare supply, the free market unequivocally does not maximize total well-being
    • For many this is self-evident
    • If you are not sure, the veil of ignorance is an illuminating exercise

• I do what I want
  • Maximizing individual freedom seems like a great idea
  • However, does this include the freedom to harm others?
    • If yes, this argument effectively becomes ‘might is right’ (which is generally acknowledged as a bad idea)
    • If no, this argument effectively becomes a utilitarian exercise in measuring harm and well-being
  • This school of thought tries to avoid this conundrum by suggesting a middle way where ‘harm’ is defined purely in physical terms (e.g., violence, theft)
  • Such a narrow definition ultimately results in a variant of ‘might is right’, where instead of physical force, resources are concentrated among those most selfish, ruthless, and manipulative people in society
    • Again, I hope it is self-evident that this is a bad world to live in
    • Why is America, the land of the free, a worse place to live than many less free countries?

• Live off the land
  • This argument is tantamount to asking people to change their preferences
  • This can be okay and even necessary in some cases, but in the context of housing it is a big change
  • Even if this change would ultimately improve quality of life, it’s not clear that we have enough infrastructure and land to make this happen today, we definitely won’t have enough land forever…
  • Instead of compromising preferences on a mass scale and kicking the can down the road, would it not be better to agree on a more equitable distribution of land and housing today?

Back to basics   

Some may protest that my amateur philosophical rebuttal is devoid of hard facts, enjoys leaps of logic, and is pitted against hapless straw men.

That may be true, but I am not interested in writing the 50-page essay that is required to satisfy those naysayers. And I encourage you to not overthink this question either. There is no consensus on utilitarian measurements and ranking of virtues.

If you truly want to change your mind (or someone else’s), the most effective arguments are those that are simple, true, and emotionally-compelling. That leads us to the ancient frameworks of intent and intuition:

What is the motive of owning more than one home?

In most cases, the intent of owning multiple homes is to engage rent-seeking behavior, which is an economics term that means ‘growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.’ Biologists would label such behavior as ‘parasitic’. Laymen would recognize it as ‘freeloading’.

Our intuition tells us that such intent is wrong and unethical.

Conclusion

I do not deny the world is more complex than I have made it here. Philosophers have debated morality for centuries and it is true that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, but in the absence of theoretical agreement, an honest examination of intent and our intuition are the best guides we have.