🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.environment pacser@ix.netcom.com (Daniel Brockman) said: 
 
 
 
>Property arises when a person is willing to fight to keep it. 
civilization  
>involves customs, procedures, and vesting the coercion in a legal
jurisdiction,  
>such as a county. If I am paying property taxes on it, then it's mine and
the  
>county will defend that. 
 
 
 
>While govt need not guarantee me a profit, if govt decides my
income-producing  
>cornfield must henceforth become agriculturally idle wetland, then they
are  
>depriving me of the income I had previously enjoyed from the property, and
 
>hence they deprive me of the value of that property.  That the property
may now  
>be suitable for some productive though less pecuniary use does not
compensate  
>me for the loss I have endured so that govt can achieve its objectives.   
> 
>It may be that fish and ducks need wetlands, and that it's better for all
of us  
>if my cornfield converts to wetlands. But it's not fair for all of us to
enjoy  
>this benefit at my expense.  There should be instead an equitable sharing
of  
>the costs.  That is why govt should compensate me for my loss of a
cornfield.   
>Govt can pay me fairly for use of my land. 
> 
 
 
I don't think that the government should take or give value to its citizens
without just compensation. This means both ways however. It makes no sense
to me that the government gave value to huge corporate farmers in the
central valley by giving them water at very reduced prices and now that we
need it back that the price is fair market value. This is the major problem
we have in the system. The system can work if corporate subsidies and the
environment is given it appropriate fair market value.