4 ms·

Are you suggesting this is not a problem, regardless the labels and frameworks currently available to describe it or address it? But sure, we can declare any k

Are you suggesting this is not a problem, regardless the labels and frameworks currently available to describe it or address it? But sure, we can declare any kind of export control we determine a state interest in. Other people can play even better word games than you just tried to, to articulate both the problem and a response. You didn't show how it's an invalid idea at all.

pjc50 4y ago
As a non-American, I love how America is about individual freedom and the right to earn a living right up until the point where nationalism is invoked and everyone's back to advocating that the government confiscate farms.
- vitiral 4y ago
  Some more coherent theories of ownership (geo libertarian) do not consider resources like land, ore or water to be individually owned - but rather owned "in common." Under such a theory this issue actually is regarding individual freedom.
- foobazgt 4y ago
  As an American, I feel like you're missing the point. Generally the expectation is that you have the freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Of course, there's a lot of nuance buried there, but that's the general principle. I think it's a good framework.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  There are all kinds of potential ways to address this or any other problem besides confiscating a farm, and even confiscating a farm doesn't necessarily have to violate any individual freedom principles, since nothing is pure. There has always been eminent domain.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on an unsustainable source of water, then it doesn't matter if the farm is owned by Americans or foreigners; it isn't sustainable no matter what.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. If these things happen to produce a side effect that it's not profitable to use that piece of land to grow almonds or grass or whatever, so be it. You still didn't confiscate anyone's property that they ever had any valid right to in the first place in the libertarian fearmongering sense. Or you could mark the water resource as public and go ahead and confiscate the property for some reasonable market value (not a value based on selling a valuable public resource). It's not inconsistent with property rights and free markets or anything like that even if you do decide you have to plain take over something.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. Unless by regulate you mean ban, none of that will make a fossil aquifer sustainable. The best you can do is push back the date the water runs out, but the water will run out. You can't call it sustainable just because it lasts longer than your lifetime. By that standard, coal mining was "sustainable". In regions with regular rainfall where shallow wells suffice, sustainable use of groundwater is simply a matter of balancing inflow with outflow. But in regions where aquifers are deep and sealed, or were filled thousands of years ago when North America was covered in a mile of ice, you cannot use the water and balance inflows and outflows because inflows are effectively zero. The only way to balance inflows and outflows of fossil water is to ban the use of fossil water.
        red_trumpet 4y ago
sbarre 4y ago
I was responding to the previous poster's specific claim that they saw this as a national security issue, and simply looking to clarify whether they believed the farm's ownership was a factor in that position, or whether it was about the actual exporting and sale of alfalfa to a foreign power. But sure, ignore that context when over-analyzing my response.. ;-) Also, not sure why you felt the need to take a shot at me in the end there. Apologies if my words offended you somehow?

pjc50 4y ago

As a non-American, I love how America is about individual freedom and the right to earn a living right up until the point where nationalism is invoked and everyone's back to advocating that the government confiscate farms.

vitiral 4y ago
Some more coherent theories of ownership (geo libertarian) do not consider resources like land, ore or water to be individually owned - but rather owned "in common." Under such a theory this issue actually is regarding individual freedom.
foobazgt 4y ago
As an American, I feel like you're missing the point. Generally the expectation is that you have the freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Of course, there's a lot of nuance buried there, but that's the general principle. I think it's a good framework.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
There are all kinds of potential ways to address this or any other problem besides confiscating a farm, and even confiscating a farm doesn't necessarily have to violate any individual freedom principles, since nothing is pure. There has always been eminent domain.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on an unsustainable source of water, then it doesn't matter if the farm is owned by Americans or foreigners; it isn't sustainable no matter what.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. If these things happen to produce a side effect that it's not profitable to use that piece of land to grow almonds or grass or whatever, so be it. You still didn't confiscate anyone's property that they ever had any valid right to in the first place in the libertarian fearmongering sense. Or you could mark the water resource as public and go ahead and confiscate the property for some reasonable market value (not a value based on selling a valuable public resource). It's not inconsistent with property rights and free markets or anything like that even if you do decide you have to plain take over something.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. Unless by regulate you mean ban, none of that will make a fossil aquifer sustainable. The best you can do is push back the date the water runs out, but the water will run out. You can't call it sustainable just because it lasts longer than your lifetime. By that standard, coal mining was "sustainable". In regions with regular rainfall where shallow wells suffice, sustainable use of groundwater is simply a matter of balancing inflow with outflow. But in regions where aquifers are deep and sealed, or were filled thousands of years ago when North America was covered in a mile of ice, you cannot use the water and balance inflows and outflows because inflows are effectively zero. The only way to balance inflows and outflows of fossil water is to ban the use of fossil water.
      - red_trumpet 4y ago

sbarre 4y ago

I was responding to the previous poster's specific claim that they saw this as a national security issue, and simply looking to clarify whether they believed the farm's ownership was a factor in that position, or whether it was about the actual exporting and sale of alfalfa to a foreign power. But sure, ignore that context when over-analyzing my response.. ;-) Also, not sure why you felt the need to take a shot at me in the end there. Apologies if my words offended you somehow?