Does the real estate market increasingly force more families to build?

I am also in favor of less government, more personal responsibility

Apart from that, in most countries with a lot of home ownership, families live in smaller houses

Apart from that, in most countries with high home ownership, families live in smaller houses

... and often only with the technical standard of the 1920s... moreover, the tenancy law in these countries is by far not as strongly in favor of tenants as it is here, and for example, in the EU home ownership leader Romania, there is practically no inward migration. On the contrary, every week someone moves away again and sells their hut. Home ownership rates cannot be compared with each other.

chand, we will not agree on this. I want a different state than you. No nanny state, no nanny TV, no GEZ, no energy saving ordinance, etc. I am liberal, you are something else. K.

This reminds me of the survey result that the happiest people live in countries with the highest taxes (Scandinavia). One can certainly argue about what is partially wasted there, but overall, lower taxes do not make people happier – on the contrary. Most countries without taxes sink into chaos, and the law of the strongest prevails.

They should leave us the money, we know for ourselves what is important to us and what isn't

Funny that you say that so openly. True to the motto "If everyone thinks of themselves, everyone is taken care of," or what?

In my experience, 99% of these "liberals" are simply people who have been very lucky never to have been in a situation where they had to actively demand help from their fellow human beings, while at the same time successfully repressing how much they have passively benefited from this on their life path.

Anyone can have their own opinion on individual facets of state action, but to speak disparagingly of the "nanny state" as a lifelong state-funded "civil servant" because it spends money on things that I do not consider sensible is quite something.

...and for your salary, I pay taxes! Unbelievable

while at the same time they were able to successfully suppress how much they had passively nevertheless participated in their previous life path.

I don’t want to accuse Karsten of that, since he rightly criticized the wave of privatization as "stupid" in the housing market. However, I don’t understand how that aligns with an economically liberal worldview. But regarding your quote: It is especially bad with entrepreneurs who demand the withdrawal of the state everywhere. Companies benefit disproportionately: employees commute on state-funded roads to work and have generally been educated at state-funded educational institutions. For academics worth 100k or more. Which company would be competitive if it had to pay for that itself? Which private individual wouldn’t be over-indebted having to pay in advance here? (see USA) Today’s liberal politicians read the world as if the state is to blame for too many regulations, and if it is not regulated, it’s also to blame for failing to implement the right regulations. But the market is always right because market outcomes are simply correct by definition. For liberals like me, who want to give the market anchors and otherwise burden citizens with as few rules as possible, there are no parties. The mainstream economics (NOT -science) has captured the people and now only nonsense is conveyable.

The civil servants pay each other?
I thought it was the middle class that bears 65% of the total tax burden and from which the civil servants are also paid.
Don’t get me wrong, my wife is also a civil servant.
But I still find Nordlys' opinion legitimate.
Personal responsibility and encouraging performance instead of relying on a state move society forward. Civil servants are needed no matter how the state is oriented.
The problem is the mentality of wanting everything but preferably doing nothing for it. When performance pays off again and is not punished, those willing and able to perform can afford more.