This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] reshp1 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's nice for raisin farmers, but what's the wider implication of the ruling?
[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The US Constitution specifically provides (Amendment V) that private property cannot be taken by the government for public use, without just compensation. The position of the government was that private property (raisin crops) could be taken for public use without any compensation, because it was asserted that the raisin farmers benefitted from it. The Supreme Court has just said that that isn't permitted. The consequence is that a lot of similar agricultural programs also can't proceed on an involuntary basis.
[–] Islington ago
Theoretically speaking, if the raisin farmers, under some new sort of raisin-seizing scheme, are shown to be justly compensated and to actually benefit, will that be allowed?
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I've looked a bit, can't find a breakdown anywhere. But the commission that controlled the raisin "strategic reserve" was allowed to sell the confiscated raisins outside the US market and just keep the money. I would guess that they did that as often as possible, and only donated them when they couldn't make a profit selling them. It's only a guess, though.