Pretty consistent with Anglo-American Law, isn’t it? Property is a relative, not an absolute right. It can be taken for cause or for the public good. Nothing like the maxim of Proudhon that “ Property is theft.”
And in the US Constitution, no property may be taken for public use without just compensation. That’s the rub.
Once we start down this road of “some of your property must serve the ‘greater good’, the road to hell becomes paved with very good intentions.
Real property owners in the west see this better than most right now. The Kelo Supreme Court case is another example of outright theft of property for public use. Both examples run contra the US Constitution and originalist intent of the Fifth Amendment.
But for all of that, those thefts of property aren’t cloaked in moral preening, and that’s where I get crossthreaded with the religious left in a fast hurry - telling me that I have a moral or ethical obligation (which they invented from whole cloth) to make some portion (which they determine) of my property accessible for the ‘greater good of man’ or whatever phrasing they wish to use.