If it's morally incorrect to get to the license server early and snatch a roaming license you might not use to its fullest, is it not also wrong to access the property market early and snatch a bunch of land you might not use to its fullest?

The difference is that market mechanisms are meant to allocate items to those that value them the most (assumed to be the same as their willingness to pay). Claiming a licence by contrast has little cost.

In reality it's not the person that values it the most, but the person willing to pay the most money. That's not the same even if we ignore the ability to afford something, because the marginal value of money isn't constant: To a millionaire $80 is much less than for someone earning minimum wage.

The value placed on a good is measured by what a person is willing to give up in exchange. Naturally only those things one actually has available to give up count—not what one thinks one might be willing to pay in a hypothetical world where affordability is not a concern.

The millionaire just has a longer history of already having given things up to amass that much money which they can draw on in exchange for goods later. (Or, in the case of gifts/inheritance, others gave things up on their behalf and for their benefit—which amounts to the same thing.) That's exactly what money represents: more value provided to others than the owners have claimed for themselves.

I agree on the cost of claiming of the license on this specific case enables depletion of ressources for those who need it. But market mechanisms allow speculation. If you can mobilize capital quicker than others for a resource when you know it's going up, you are just pocketing the difference. Seems hard to justify as a mechanism that is beneficial to society as a whole.

The profit in speculation comes from correctly recognizing that a good will be worth more if consumed in the future than it would be if consumed in the present. It can be annoying to those who would have preferred to use the good in the present and are unable to afford the anticipated future prices, but in the end society benefits by having the good still available in the future for the more valuable use.

I think a homeless person values an empty house way more than a real estate owner.

not by the way they seem to treat any property I've seen and I have experience of homelessness personally and the prejudices have rational foundation

Living every single day being treated as a literal piece of disposable garbage by everyone around you, all while not having a quiet place to sleep or a little piece of the world to call your own can damage one's mental health to the point where they can no longer function as productive members of society.

You've experienced homelessness, so you shouldn't need me to tell you the consequences of living that way long term.

Prejuduces often have some foundations, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept them before acknowledging them on a case-by-case basis.

We should not let so many people “get lost” without a sane social net.

It is unhealthy group behaviour. Your actions reduces the groups access. By sharing you increase group access and group success.

When you buy a property for speculation you take a risk on your ability to increase market value (or outside reasons). You could lose money.

Hoarding group resources makes you a net negative in your group. Hoarding property alone means you had to create or borrow enough value to obtain the property and finance upkeep. Someone has the money to build a new home. That transaction is a net positive.