A main issue of leaving these things to market is capital accumulates and centralises. We see this today with the ongoing mega merges and in days of old where (in many countries) a handful of people owned all land. Whether or not you care about this is your political ideology but this is the long term history and likely future of unregulated markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation

Land is required for things necessary to human existence and it's not really possible to make more of it so if the market determines that the "best" use of it is for storing money society should probably step in and overrule the market.

Uh huh.

That's all well and good until someone decides to apply that reasoning to something else, like, say....the Internet.

You really think all that wireless spectrum is finding it's best use sharing cat videos? High-bandwidth video emojis?

They aren't making any more RF spectrum either.

One man's "common sense solution" is another man's "free market distortion".

And there is PLENTY of land to go around....so.....bad example. You could give nearly every single person on the planet plenty of room to live in Texas. That's without going vertical into multi-story buildings.

Ultimately the best use of people's labor is whatever they want to do with it. If that's buying houses, great. Beanie babies, faberge eggs, gold ingots, whatever.

Do you really need all that crap you own?

Sure you can "nearly every single person on the planet plenty of room to live in Texas" but they would be devoid of infrastructure and it would be incredibly expensive to service people's homes if they're spread out across the states. It's a cop out to say 'there is plenty of land' when it requires a hell of a lot of work to bring it modern services. If you think your simplistic land argument is a good one you should revisit other beliefs as well.

RF spectrum is highly regulated, by the way.

Less than you might think.

It's treated like real-estate with RF "zoning rules".

But very wide swaths of the RF spectrum are essentially a free -for-all. You could argue that the most valuable parts (UHF) are used for stuff that could only be described as "non-essential" e.g. cat videos.

I am not aware of any ways in which wireless RF spectrum is required for humans to survive.

The rest of your post is non-sequiturs that I'm not going to bother engaging.

Radio announcements of hurricane warnings and other natural disasters for example.

Does the amount of required spectrum for this rise with a higher population or does it remain constant?

Not necessarily. The problem with land is that you can’t make more of it, and owning it allows monopolistic use, and thus rent seeing behavior from landlords and deadweight loss. The LVT if properly implemented will capture the dead weight loss given to landlords.

"free market" is the most efficient land use for capitalism (value). There are precedents that suggests the free market might maximize value while minimizing human life.

Well, we have this whole problem with free-market speculation and its fairly dramatic impact on peoples' ability to buy a home.