I guess on paper that's true. But management and opportunity costs are certainly not insignificant in that case.

Property management services typically charge 5-7% off the top plus a new tenant/lease renewal fee that varies by market.

Unless the amount of capital I have invested in my home is small compared to my total assets (it's not) then having that much money tied up in a non-liquid asset is certainly not contributing to my personal flexibility.

Yep, PC86 didn't take in effect the 'risk' factor. Some renters are highly destructive to property and you will never recoup losses from them. A significant policy change by the government can change the metrics that home buying is a better choice for your renters. A significant change in local behavior makes that neighborhood worthless to rent from.

Good point, but it's not just about limiting one's ability to move. Tying up most or all your savings in a down-payment plus taking out a large credit line sometimes means not having the freedom to invest elsewhere, go back to school, start a company, or start a family.

Honestly, the "freedom to move" thing is a red herring in these discussions. There is a whole lot of friction to moving that is not tied up in how you pay for your residence. For most people, loss of social networks, loss of nearby family, and disruption to children are much bigger barriers to moving than owning their residence.

That said, the other features you mention are much better examples of limits that come from buying. It really depends on how stable real estate pricing is and what direction the market is trending.