>>>Lets hear them then. 1-100, a numbered list please.
Nope, that list would absolutely take the thread in the direction of a politicized flamewar, against site guidelines.

>>>You should be reinvesting all of the profits into the factory or the workers with some _very_ minimal amount kept for yourself as profit.

Define "minimal amount". If it is MY property, who are you to determine the limits of how I compensate myself for the risks that I assume with my capital allocation?

>>>And ultimately, if you're not using it personally, you should sell it to someone that would. That's the most benefit to society.

Am I not a member of society? Am I not allowed to benefit from my property? Why are you mandating that the material abundance accrue to total strangers? What makes any other individual member of American society more deserving of the utilization of my family's assets?

>>>Again, I have no problem with you using your property as you wish as long as you don't exploit other people.

If people are voluntarily entering into a business relationship with me, who are you to interject that they are being "exploited"? Do they not have their own agency as rational adults?

>>>The need for housing overrides your desires for profit, and ultimately if that means you lose your additional properties, that's fine by me as long as society in general benefits. Your feelings on this are 100% irrelevant.

This is fundamentally anathema to the basic concept of private property rights in America.

>>>So you made a risky investment that will possibly not pay off in your lifetime?

Made a risky investment? I am inheriting the house I grew up in, which is paid off, and has been for years. I'm not that concerned about a guaranteed return during my life, as I'm more interested in snowballing asset ownership for my children, and my children's children. The only risk is opportunity cost compared to ownership of other assets.

>>> You state this as though there's some necessity in the world to guarantee your income/profit.

I'm not guaranteed anything (beyond what is elucidated in the Bill of Rights)....and neither is anyone else. I'm exercising my rational self-interest, as is whoever decides to become my tenant. Are you not familiar with the concept?

>>>If you're going to lose money on buying a house, then don't buy the house. I ain't twisting your arm.

I merely articulated a response to YOUR suggestion that I purchase local property, explaining why that wasn't the best course of action.

>>>And here's the other thing, as long as the wishes are of the society at large, then it doesn't really matter how mercurial they are. You can either follow them, or be ostracized.

Yes, you should follow the society at large's wishes regarding the value of private property rights. [1][2]

>>>But the suggestion isn't to seize private property.

The post I responded to stated: "federal moratorium on new land-lording ...all current landlords ...setup an estate plan to transition ownership to heirs for use as a primary residence ...and the excess could be sold at auction". There is nothing in there about "taxing private property". It is about forcing land owners to auction their assets. A forced auction is essentially a seizure and redistribution with a few extra steps.

>>>as long as you commensurately compensate society for said property

We already have a vehicle for that. It's called "property taxes". And you keep using the word "society" as if it is some amorphous blob that can be directly engaged with as a unit. Civilizations are composed of individuals, and when you get down to the nitty-gritty details of everyday resource utilization and AUTHORITY, there is always A PERSON who wields that authority. In our current system, the authority is typically tied to the person who OWNS the resource. "Society" cannot sign a document. "Society" cannot make a decision. Individuals vested with authority do (until we adopt DAOs at large, but hey HN hates blockchain tech, so let's not go there either....). If you want "society" to exert influence, it will be via essentially governmental bureaucrats. We've seen the performance of systems where government middle management controls resource allocation.....somehow the bureaucrats manage to all have nice Dachas on the Black Sea Coast while the populace at large still goes hungry, and lives in shitty apartments. Good luck pulling this off in the US, where trust in government is terribly fragile [3].

>>>But even if the suggestion was to actually seize private property and redistribute it, in certain contexts that would be perfectly acceptable.

Well, it's been tried before at scale and the consequences are typically disastrous (Soviet Collectivization, Mao's Great Leap Forward).

[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/12/21/ilya-somin/more-empi...

[2] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/12/27/ilya-somin/what-surv...

[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-di...