[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Good question. The real answer is that it depends on the courts, in the future, so it's silly to guess. Having said that, my guess is that precedent from this case would require voluntary compensation up front, not just theories about compensation.
[–] Islington ago
If "theoretically compensation" has been a valid form of compensating seized property in the past, I'm surprised this hasn't come under fire yet.
[–] Xomthusiast [S] ago
That's the whole point of the scheme, though - it is claimed that seizing raisins to reduce the size of the raisin crop raises prices in turn (almost certainly true) and that this in turn raises total profits for everyone. The latter is dubious, and false at least in part; when the government seizes raisins, sells them overseas, and keeps the money, it is keeping money that the raisin farmers could have gotten by selling the same raisins overseas themselves.