3 ms·

So the descendents of someone who secured a deal based on a completely different socioeconomic context and then died over 100 years ago should be given priority

• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  That's kind of how property rights work. So if you're not going to go full "property is theft", then you need to show why water rights are different from the right to, say, the land (or the minerals on the land, or the timber on the land, or...) And if you are going to go "property is theft", well, you're going to have to justify that with more than just the slogan itself, because it's a huge change, and the bigger the change the more justification you need for it. And you're going to have a hard sell, because people like owning stuff.
  • gameoverhumans 3y ago
    Well you got me, I'm one of those "property is theft" / "ACAB" nutjobs. But also, federal/state/municipal authorities do eminent seizure on private property all the time, when it is necessary for a larger public need. Forcing title holders to sell back their "water rights" and then putting them on level footing isn't that much different, is it?
    • AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      No, but there's that whole "just compensation" bit. That's a perfectly valid route to go, but it might be pricey.