You've mentioned lots of stuff, but I'm responding to this bit: > How can you be said to own anything if you are forced, basically 'extorted' by government, in

You've mentioned lots of stuff, but I'm responding to this bit: > How can you be said to own anything if you are forced, basically 'extorted' by government, into occupying your own house or not? I guess it is whether you believe in property rights. This is a tool to soften the impact of speculation on less-wealthy people trying to live in Vancouver. I agree that it limits property rights, in the sense that it imposes a tax on a particular way of using something that you own. But rights aren't an on/off switch in this case. Freedom to do whatever you want gets balanced against the community's judgements for what should be protected. Vancouver (or at least Vancouver's government) decided that they want to protect people from being tossed around by the forces of real estate speculation. That does not mean they've ditched property rights entirely. Thinking of it that way, without nuance, is sloppy.