Property Rights vs. USDA Crop Seizures

FDR: the gift that keeps on giving.


http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/22/today-at-scotus-property-rights-vs-usda

 

And what sort of subsidies do they receive?

 

I doubt they receive any on grapes. Grains and soybeans get the majority of subsidies

 

.

EDIT:

Ah. If they get zero subsidies, then that is complete bullshit. But I don't understand anything about farming, to be honest, so I don't know what all is going on.

 

I find it hard to believe they are getting nothing. how could they even make a profit giving away 30% of their crop?

 

There's just no way they get nothing.

 

why?

Are you suddenly espousing fiscal conservatism? or only when it suits you?

 

This comment makes no sense. I'm not espousing "fiscal conservatism" at all in this thread. That being said, I've always supported spending reform.

 

sounds like you're ardently against farmer subsidies.

 

This is from an article. I am not sure what "justly compensated" is. Getting paid much less than what they sell on the market or not getting paid at all. Its not very clear.

"The lawyer of the farmer has argued that the law is unconstitutional because the government will not justly compensate Horne for his raisins." The government “can save the raisins, sell them to foreigners, throw them away, or even feed them to animals–so long as they are off the domestic market.” In one recent year, the raisin program generated over $65 million dollars for the federal government, and all of it was spent on overhead and administrative staff. "

 

he doesn't seem to realize this is keeping the price up too. I'm not a favor of farm regulation, but I doubt this farmer has been overly screwed because of it.

 

Too bad poor and starving people can't eat raisins

 

It might be increasing the price if they weren't still entering the market, but they're still selling them into the market at reduced levels. This seems like it would artificially keep the market low.

 

Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the farmer. The government must pay just compensation for personal goods taken away as it does when it takes land away. Good to see them stick it to the govt.

 

Just saw this. They've gotten out of control. We have an interest in maintaining security of certain staple crops. That's a smart thing to do. It has become crazy when we're subsidizing fuel that would otherwise not be a viable product, or encouraging people to grow goods for which there isn't yet a market.

 

That one was really crazy. Basically saying the government can take whatever the hell it wants of your property if you're going to market it.

 

There should be none, but farmers are some of the biggest socialist around. Then they try to sell the opposite image of hard working and self-reliance.

 

Yup

 

Looks like a perfect opportunity to overrule Wickard v. Filburn.

 

Will have to check this out.