[Turing_Machine]

What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else?

Maybe you should look at your house as a place to live rather than an investment vehicle.

Or maybe you should just accept that investments come with risks.

[RHSeeger]

> What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else?

The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want, because I want it and you're not using it. The rules set forth by the society we live in, as decided by the people living in that society. Sure, not all the rules are great; many of them are awful. But the solution to that is to fix the rules, not to say there shouldn't be _any_.

[Turing_Machine]

> The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want

No, it doesn't work that way. My house is not your house. My land is not your land.

If you're going to restrict my use of my property to increase your property value, you should pay me for that privilege.

[chongli]

No, that's not the way it works. When you move into a neighbourhood, a city, a state/province, and a country, you implicitly agree to abide by the rules. If the rules say you're not allowed to build your own house without approval of the design from an architect and an engineer and then you ignore them at your legal peril.

[Turing_Machine]

You're talking about "rules" as if they were some immutable dictate sent down from the gods.

The rules in many areas used to forbid selling houses to black people.

Those rules were changed. By force.

[chongli]

If you don’t like the rules then go ahead and change them where you live!

[chongli]

No one's entitled to returns on any investment, of course. But would you expect investors to stand idly by while their investments lose ground? Or would you expect them to take whatever opportunities are available to them to protect their investments?