You are correct. However, hugoball posits that a totalitarian political system such as China may be safer for investors because they are supposedly not as subject to irrational majorities as are democracies. I disagree entirely; which is harder to move, an irrational majority or an absolute dictator ? I believe the democratic society, altho always ready to give up freedom for so-called governmentally-assured security, will take longer to act to revoke ownership or pass laws restricting the use of an asset than a totalitarian regime, which necessarily is composed of fewer decisionmakers. In that extra time, there is hope and the option of action.
The Framers wrestled with this same question - if you give government any powers, it is likely to take more as best it can.