You know, I read this exchange, and I agree with both of you. What I mean by that is that the square footage of one's house is a meaningless metric for determining much about a person's quality of life, but that I also believe having a lot of (rarely used) possessions tends to take something away from the possessor if they truly serve no purpose. A tiny house is an arbitrary constraint which is in no way needed to live an intentional life. On the other hand, as a pretty disorganized person, I could certainly use a dose of intentionality applied to my surroundings. And you know what would help with that, is a reason to throw a lot of stuff out. I don't need a tiny house to do this, I can do it for its own sake. But the act of thinking through and ordering your life is valuable in itself, I think. Also refining and simplifying your life is valuable, because it forces you to think about priorities. But once again, while perhaps a useful tool for some, a tiny house is not necessary for any of this. I think stick with trying GTD for now.
I agree with both of us, too. The crux of the disagreement as far as I'm concerned is the causality implied in having no space, and the morality assigned to that causality. That causality and morality isn't universal amongst the tiny house movement, but I've seen it enough to stereotype first and ask questions later.