If you want a closer analogy, we don’t require grocery stores to tolerate shoplifters; we have food stamps and soup kitchens.

Do you think immediate eviction as a remedy for late rent is comparable to fines for shoplifting?

If we had adequate state-provided housing available at short notice for any household, as a social safety net, then laws about eviction could be considerably stricter without violating renter’s basic human rights. I doubt you’ll find much support for that policy change from landlords though; the competition would likely reduce prevailing rents quite a bit.

Clearly tenant rights aren’t (and shouldn’t be) unlimited, but the protections for tenants currently in place were established to counter bad abuses by landlords.

Various measures to preventing shoplifting (whether food or cameras) are not really comparable in my opinion.

It destroys a landlord's life if their primary asset is turned unfairly into a liability.

That's what's usually known as risk. They invested in an asset to provide their livelihood, that form of income has a set of risks associated with it, just like having a job carries a risk of losing it or how investing in securities carries its own risk.

How much are we willing to protect the investor from risk, in this particular case, at the potential expense of a tenant's ability to have shelter? Obviously we need some form of balance but the finer details of it are wildly arguable.

So you're suggesting that because they have the ability to buy additional housing and charge people to use it, someone else should bear the risk?

What?

All investments carry risk.