Well now we can have a more productive debate. The "essence of property" as you state it of having absolute authority of what an individual can do with their p

Well now we can have a more productive debate. The "essence of property" as you state it of having absolute authority of what an individual can do with their property doesn't exist legally -- zoning laws are the first example I can think of that refutes the claim or ideal. So there's already a legal basis for us as a society having say in what people do with their property. Quite frankly I think a lot of these laws are overstepping their bounds and encroaching on personal freedom. BUT I think there's a perfectly legitimate line to draw when it comes to using your property to provide housing for other people. When you decide to use your property to make money by renting it out to other people, you are essentially taking on a huge amount of power over their livelihood, and this cannot be stated lightly. So to me this is where we as individuals and as a society need to decide how to govern this territory in a way that's fair for both parties involved, as it is certainly not fair to widely restrict the amount of money someone can make from their property, and it is certainly detrimental to people and communities to upheave members from their homes and established roots. This is where striking a balance makes the most sense for the strength of the community, and the individual stakeholders, and will produce a strong society as a whole. To me, making the claim of absolute property rights is simply weak. I don't want to deride the most important point, as stated above, but absolute property rights don't really make logical sense to me either, as property is often a hugely restricting resource, and one completely established by precedence rather than contribution per se.