sliderider wrote:

Except you're wrong about the rent. If the previous owner paid $500,000 for the building 10 years ago, he is going to base the rents on his mortgage plus expenses with a reasonable profit. If the new owner buys the building today for $1,000,000 and expenses have gone up, he can't continue to charge the same rent.

How is this anyone's problem but his own? In simplified terms, the situation you describe means one of two things - either the new owner overpaid for the property, or the previous owner was significantly undercharging.

sliderider wrote:

The current rents might be profitable for the previous owner, but won't be for the new buyer. The new buyer has every right to profit from his investment, just like the previous owner was. Only a Communist would suggest otherwise.

Right? I think you are mistaken. I know of no judicial / commercial system which claims that someone has the right to profit. He has the right to try to make a profit. But if he fails, because he made a bad deal, he is not entitled to anything, and his rights are not being violated.

I agree with you that renters demand that the landlord would operate at a loss, so they can keep the current rent is ridiculous. They have no such right any more than he has the right to any profit. It's all determined by the market. If they think his price is unreasonable, they should move somewhere else where prices are reasonable, and the new landlord will have to suck it down. If they cannot get a better deal, then it means that his price is fair, and they will have to suck it down.

Of course, you are basically arguing against a straw man here, because you were the one to bring this example in the first place. 😀

The new IP holder of the Duke Nukem stuff can choose to charge whatever they want. People are free to buy it or not. If they ask for a ridiculous amount of money, people simply won't buy, and then their profits will actually go down.