How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the c

How very strange, in that you think that water should not be a resource appropriately managed/subsidised by a government, but you're totally on-board with the concept of private ownership of land - a concept wholly enabled by government. It's only the government's "threat of violence" that allows private ownership of land in the first place. You don't want the government to manage water for the benefit of the population? Why do you want government to manage land, then? Isn't it funny how libertarianism is always so lopsided? "Freedom for everyone, as long as the elites get to keep their status quo!". There's always some flowery rhetoric protecting the power of the elite...