It’s one thing to make a profit or a loss, it’s another thing when a government forces you to take a loss to subsidize someone else. If there was a risk that yo

It’s one thing to make a profit or a loss, it’s another thing when a government forces you to take a loss to subsidize someone else. If there was a risk that you’d be forced by the government to take huge losses then that risk should be priced into the rent — which means future rents will have to be much higher to accommodate the increased risk. Imagine if a grocery store were required to give free food to everyone at the command of the government. Who covers that expense? The shopkeeper? Any shops that managed to survive would have to jack up future prices to recover their loss. The risk of the government taking away your inventory and giving it away uncompensated is unprecedented. You can’t evict and you can’t collect rent because of a government decree — that’s effectively a seizure of property which is illegal without due process. Even eminent domain requires fair compensation to the property owner. If you accept this as acceptable, then what’s to stop the government from taking all of your income and giving it away? Why is your income supposed to be safe from seizure but someone else’s isn’t?