4 ms·

> The only reason they've done this is to use our water instead of theirs. I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water th

> The only reason they've done this is to use our water instead of theirs. I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use. I also take issue with the term “our water” like you have some “manifest destiny” to seize someone else’s property rights because you feel you are more entitled to it than the current legal owner. They thought ahead, bought property/water rights and are using them in a way you disagree with. Fair enough, pay them more than the utility they currently derive from their usage and everyone walks away happy campers.

thfuran 4y ago
I always regret that I didn't plan ahead enough to be king of the world so that no one would have any moral right to disagree with my legal right to do whatever I want.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Seriously? You think someone acting within all legal bounds is immoral because they are using a resource in a manner you disagree with?
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    Illegal and immoral are entirely two different words. So if you are accused of doing something immoral and your only replay is "but it within legal bounds" my only take away is that you agree that it is immoral as hell, but would rather not talk about it.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      Literally no one has given an argument on the morality of using water to grow food, they just assume that their opinion is the correct one and anyone who doesn’t agree is, I don’t know, worthy of ad hominem attacks. I expect a lot more from HN honestly. I really don’t care about the morality of water usage in California because that’s someone else’s problem, what I do care about is all the talk of using the government to seize private property because they think they both have the right and they can use it better than the rightful owners — this is the kind of moral issue I worry about.
      - diffeomorphism 4y ago
        > Literally no one has given an argument on the morality of using water to grow food Correct, that is a complete straw man. The argument was about wasteful use of water, which is legal but arguably immoral. > I really don’t care about the morality of water usage in California because that’s someone else’s problem, Are you sure you wanted to say that part out loud? > seize private property because they think they both have the right and they can use it better than the rightful owners — this is the kind of moral issue I worry about. You are aware of "eminent domain", no? That is not a new thing. Also it is not about "private property" but about entitlements bought from the government.
        UncleEntity 4y ago
        > Are you sure you wanted to say that part out loud? Sure, why not. I’m currently in the Central Valley and every other farm has a sign about water something or other, they don’t need me advocating for them. > You are aware of "eminent domain", no? Of course but that’s not what was being proposed. The suggestion was to kick out the Saudis because they are growing crops in California and that’s not okay because reasons. The basic proposal is to nationalize foreign owned assets like they do in places like Venezuela and I’m not fine with that. We have the rule of law for a reason and violating the property rights of a group of people so they can be used as a scapegoat is not something I want to be done in my homeland or in my name. If people really want extremist viewpoints on water rights then I propose that if you aren’t a native born Californian then you are the problem. California water for Californians is my new slogan…
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        I don't think anyone proposed nationalizing foreign owned assets. I introduced this topic and I certainly didn't propose that. I offered the Saudi situation as an example of commercial exploitation of resources for the benefit of non-Californians, not as a target to focus on. California has already been changing water rights over the past few decades, requiring meters on wells and so on. This will continue out of necessity as it is the only meaningful way to curtail water consumption. These programs do not single out any particular groups. I'm a third generation Californian, fwiw, and before that my family operated farms elsewhere in the PNW. Contemporary agribusiness in California is a big problem and it's not just the water. Labor is a huge issue as well. California farms don't have much standing to be righteous about their current position.
throwaway09223 4y ago
"I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use." Interestingly, I have as well. They're having to desalinate water for growth just like we are planning to do. "Fair enough, pay them more than the utility they currently derive from their usage and everyone walks away happy campers. " Purchasing the farms with water rights is a very reasonable path forward, actually. It would be cheaper to buy farms and shut them down than to build the water conservation initiatives California's currently engaged in. The problem is political. CA leaders don't actually want to solve the water crisis - they want to grandstand. "I also take issue with the term “our water” like you have some “manifest destiny” to seize someone else’s property rights because you feel you are more entitled to it than the current legal owner. " The state does have this power, as a matter of fact. So there you go, the perspective is reality based.

thfuran 4y ago

I always regret that I didn't plan ahead enough to be king of the world so that no one would have any moral right to disagree with my legal right to do whatever I want.

UncleEntity 4y ago
Seriously? You think someone acting within all legal bounds is immoral because they are using a resource in a manner you disagree with?
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  Illegal and immoral are entirely two different words. So if you are accused of doing something immoral and your only replay is "but it within legal bounds" my only take away is that you agree that it is immoral as hell, but would rather not talk about it.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    Literally no one has given an argument on the morality of using water to grow food, they just assume that their opinion is the correct one and anyone who doesn’t agree is, I don’t know, worthy of ad hominem attacks. I expect a lot more from HN honestly. I really don’t care about the morality of water usage in California because that’s someone else’s problem, what I do care about is all the talk of using the government to seize private property because they think they both have the right and they can use it better than the rightful owners — this is the kind of moral issue I worry about.
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      > Literally no one has given an argument on the morality of using water to grow food Correct, that is a complete straw man. The argument was about wasteful use of water, which is legal but arguably immoral. > I really don’t care about the morality of water usage in California because that’s someone else’s problem, Are you sure you wanted to say that part out loud? > seize private property because they think they both have the right and they can use it better than the rightful owners — this is the kind of moral issue I worry about. You are aware of "eminent domain", no? That is not a new thing. Also it is not about "private property" but about entitlements bought from the government.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        > Are you sure you wanted to say that part out loud? Sure, why not. I’m currently in the Central Valley and every other farm has a sign about water something or other, they don’t need me advocating for them. > You are aware of "eminent domain", no? Of course but that’s not what was being proposed. The suggestion was to kick out the Saudis because they are growing crops in California and that’s not okay because reasons. The basic proposal is to nationalize foreign owned assets like they do in places like Venezuela and I’m not fine with that. We have the rule of law for a reason and violating the property rights of a group of people so they can be used as a scapegoat is not something I want to be done in my homeland or in my name. If people really want extremist viewpoints on water rights then I propose that if you aren’t a native born Californian then you are the problem. California water for Californians is my new slogan…
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        I don't think anyone proposed nationalizing foreign owned assets. I introduced this topic and I certainly didn't propose that. I offered the Saudi situation as an example of commercial exploitation of resources for the benefit of non-Californians, not as a target to focus on. California has already been changing water rights over the past few decades, requiring meters on wells and so on. This will continue out of necessity as it is the only meaningful way to curtail water consumption. These programs do not single out any particular groups. I'm a third generation Californian, fwiw, and before that my family operated farms elsewhere in the PNW. Contemporary agribusiness in California is a big problem and it's not just the water. Labor is a huge issue as well. California farms don't have much standing to be righteous about their current position.

throwaway09223 4y ago

"I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use." Interestingly, I have as well. They're having to desalinate water for growth just like we are planning to do. "Fair enough, pay them more than the utility they currently derive from their usage and everyone walks away happy campers. " Purchasing the farms with water rights is a very reasonable path forward, actually. It would be cheaper to buy farms and shut them down than to build the water conservation initiatives California's currently engaged in. The problem is political. CA leaders don't actually want to solve the water crisis - they want to grandstand. "I also take issue with the term “our water” like you have some “manifest destiny” to seize someone else’s property rights because you feel you are more entitled to it than the current legal owner. " The state does have this power, as a matter of fact. So there you go, the perspective is reality based.