3 ms·
So eminent domain these rights, and pay the owner back for the two sacks of turnips that their great-great-great-grandfather paid for them back in the 19th cent
by vkou 4y ago
So eminent domain these rights, and pay the owner back for the two sacks of turnips that their great-great-great-grandfather paid for them back in the 19th century, with whatever interest that would have accrued.
A century and a half of free water use, plus interest on whatever the original payment was seems like a fair deal to me.
There is no reason that we should be paying 'fair market price', when that price is artificially inflated by non-market participants hoarding all the water that they don't have to pay for... For themselves.
- s1artibartfast 4y agogood thing that you aren't the arbiter of property rights in the US, stealing whatever you want and paying what you feel.
- vkou 4y agoIn what manner is what I am proposing unfair compensation? The Fifth Amendment very clearly allows the seizure of private property in exchange for just compensation - which does not have to be market value.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoJust compensation is legally considered to be market value in the US. In some places it may just compensation may be sparing your life, or other creative definitions, but that isn't how it works here.
- vkou 4y agoIt is often market value, but it doesn't have to be. And how are you going to determine the market value of a limited resource undergoing shortages that are caused by non-market participants taking the lion's share of it?
- s1artibartfast 4y agoWhy do you think agriculture is not a market participant?