My original point was that it is easy for people to advocate for the government to take people's property away, when they have no property of their own or no sk

My original point was that it is easy for people to advocate for the government to take people's property away, when they have no property of their own or no skin in the game. My other point was just a wider one on moral hazard, and if it applies to coastal property (in that people bear their own costs) should it apply to EG obesity (where people should bear the cost of healthcare issues). If not, why is property a separate case?