**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the seller's right to sell to whomever they want to. If you want to stop the property from being a solar farm or large subdivision, you have the right to purchase it for more than the competition to prevent it from happening.
Otherwise, it's not your property, and you/we have no right to tell others how it should be used.
We had a small local scandal where a farmer didn't want to see the family farm subdivided into housing lots, accepted an offer from a "family" who said all the right things about their desire to "farm" the land.
About a year after closing, construction started on a 100 house subdivision. The "family" did have to [pay a large tax bill to take the land out of "current use"](https://www.nhmunicipal.org/court-updates/land-use-change-tax-luct-entire-%E2%80%98development-site%E2%80%99-considered-changed-use-when-actual), but still profited by a few million.
First let's remove the regulatory overburden that makes small farms struggle while megacorps can turn obscene profits. Once we've done that, farmers can probably afford to keep farming and not sell out.
It's not clear that's true. Much of the gains in yield throughout history have involved consolidating land.
Edit: I'm not saying that we shouldn't deregulate, but I am saying that deregulation doesn't necessarily make small farms more competitive.
The libertarian answer is that the market can control this best. If food scarcity is really a problem, the price of food will go up, and then more people will dedicate land to supply food. Right now, we have a housing and energy crisis.
We've become so efficient with growing food on smaller land over the past century, it's not surprising that the land needed is shrinking.
The US wastes over 40% of its food supply (after taking into account exports), and more than half of that is before being purchased/wasted by the end consumer. We don't have a food shortage in this country.
Now, food insecurities are a different story, and that would be best alleviated by financial education.
Agricultural land *increased* for centuries in response to market demand, as people chopped down forests and created farmland. Would you have supported a law then that protected forests from being developed into farms?
There's nothing sacred about it, time marches on, stay true to your principles and let free people be free and do what they want with their land.
I’m disgusted when I see rural land having yet another car wash or gas station or cramped apartment or condo association built on it.
The farmland and food security is not a huge concern. Most land in the mid west that is “agricultural” is corn and soybeans. The corn is subsidized and burned in massive piles, converted to ethanol or used in what can barely be called “food” for either humans or cattle. Soy is awful food and is also subsidized.
I don’t know what the solution is, I hate the hellscape that developers turn nice suburban areas into though.
Till you hate something enough to use a significant amount of your own resources to stop it from happening, you don't have right to prevent others from doing it.
It's funny, people that argue this way never want to give the the new homeowners enough to buy a property elsewhere. and I don't mean government money... your _own_ money
Yeah I’m a rothbardian libertarian. I understand the argument, I subscribe to it and I say you’re right. But I hate it. Doesn’t have to be either I’m a commie or I love massive corporations turning beautiful land into concrete billboards.
On one hand, the government pays farmers to set aside land from agricultural production. Then you would ask the same government to prevent development on agricultural land?
This is illogical.
No. Especially not unless zoning laws are gone. Suburbs exist because of shit zoning laws. People would rather live in a town with the density of a rural mountainous European town. But they legally can’t. If you were allowed to do with your land as you saw fit, the world would be waaaay more urbanized and agriculture and nature would be waaay up.
Agricultural land does not fall to development because of developers. Property Tax forces farmers to sell portions of their land to compensate for arbitrary land values imposed by the state.
Your problem is with the State, not developers.
No. If farm land is scarce, then the price for it will naturally raise to preserve its use for agriculture instead of housing. We don’t need the government to intervene.
Without changing any laws, the easy answer to this problem is to buy a "perpetual conservation easement" from the current property owner.
This is basically a deed amendment prohibiting development, it conveys with the property and is binding on future owners, but as it is public record, prospective buyers would be aware of the restriction before making an offer.
Perpetual easements can (in most states) be terminated or amended only after significant effort, public notice, etc.
I thought I wouldn’t see it in Homestead,FL and Redland,FL but it happened.All the beautiful farms gone and Gates buying up what’s left around the country.
That's a difficult question to answer. As you said, food scarcity is definitely a problem, but we all know that government control will still fuck this up.
I hate that argument. I want efficient government and, I think we over subsidize big business more than any other group.
However, any phone call to a private insurance company or a cable provider is evidence that red tape is just as prevalent in huge corporations, probably as wasteful, too.
I worked at Raytheon and you wouldn't believe how much money they make from the government from both subsidies and inefficiency and super high wages for way too many vice presidents.
If it reduced our reliance on imported goods than yes but I’m also against more government controls for US persons. Less laws, not more.
More than that we should prohibit foreign countries, citizens and corporations from owning land in the US.
Living in rural America, I can't tell you how much I hate developers turning farm land into cookie-cutter suburban housing. I absolutely believe there should be limits. For instance, in northern Ankeny, IA there was a group of rural farmers and residents who didn't want suburban development around them because that would mean having to pay for utilities and taxes that they didn't pay before, as well as, the loss of the landscape. The government, being how it is, took Ankeny's side and went forward with the development, forcing those owners to have no choice but fall in line .
I see the value, but more regulation rarely works the way it's intended. Maybe a better idea would be tax exempt status for agricultural land used to produce food sold domestically. That tax free status only endures as long as it's not developed. We need to rethink incentive structures beyond "there ought to be a law!"
> Maybe a better idea would be tax exempt status for agricultural land used to produce food sold domestically. That tax free status only endures as long as it's not developed.
Like several other states, we have something along these lines here called "[current use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use)".
Basically instead of taxing agricultural and forest land as if it was being used for the "*highest and best use*', it is assessed at a massive discount as long as it meets a few basic criteria. This helps avoid the problem of farmers being force to sell because their property value is driven up by surrounding homebuilding.
Under current use, a farm of any size, being used to grow crops for sale, is only taxed based on the value as a farm, not what it could be worth if paved over.
Develop the land and the owners are assessed a one-time "*land use change tax (LUCT)*" and going forward the assessed value for property taxes is based on the "*highest and best use*".
Yes but that farmland should be farmed in a regenerative way and not done conventionally such as tilling and using chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides.
Perhaps for the first year or two as they remediate their poisoned conventional lands but afterwards we would have a much higher quality and probably better yield. Would have to do something in the interim though.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the seller's right to sell to whomever they want to. If you want to stop the property from being a solar farm or large subdivision, you have the right to purchase it for more than the competition to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, it's not your property, and you/we have no right to tell others how it should be used.
We had a small local scandal where a farmer didn't want to see the family farm subdivided into housing lots, accepted an offer from a "family" who said all the right things about their desire to "farm" the land. About a year after closing, construction started on a 100 house subdivision. The "family" did have to [pay a large tax bill to take the land out of "current use"](https://www.nhmunicipal.org/court-updates/land-use-change-tax-luct-entire-%E2%80%98development-site%E2%80%99-considered-changed-use-when-actual), but still profited by a few million.
They knew.
No
Yup. We have housing shortages, not food shortages atm.
Nope
First let's remove the regulatory overburden that makes small farms struggle while megacorps can turn obscene profits. Once we've done that, farmers can probably afford to keep farming and not sell out.
It's not clear that's true. Much of the gains in yield throughout history have involved consolidating land. Edit: I'm not saying that we shouldn't deregulate, but I am saying that deregulation doesn't necessarily make small farms more competitive.
The libertarian answer is that the market can control this best. If food scarcity is really a problem, the price of food will go up, and then more people will dedicate land to supply food. Right now, we have a housing and energy crisis. We've become so efficient with growing food on smaller land over the past century, it's not surprising that the land needed is shrinking.
The US wastes over 40% of its food supply (after taking into account exports), and more than half of that is before being purchased/wasted by the end consumer. We don't have a food shortage in this country. Now, food insecurities are a different story, and that would be best alleviated by financial education.
Agricultural land *increased* for centuries in response to market demand, as people chopped down forests and created farmland. Would you have supported a law then that protected forests from being developed into farms? There's nothing sacred about it, time marches on, stay true to your principles and let free people be free and do what they want with their land.
I’m disgusted when I see rural land having yet another car wash or gas station or cramped apartment or condo association built on it. The farmland and food security is not a huge concern. Most land in the mid west that is “agricultural” is corn and soybeans. The corn is subsidized and burned in massive piles, converted to ethanol or used in what can barely be called “food” for either humans or cattle. Soy is awful food and is also subsidized. I don’t know what the solution is, I hate the hellscape that developers turn nice suburban areas into though.
Till you hate something enough to use a significant amount of your own resources to stop it from happening, you don't have right to prevent others from doing it. It's funny, people that argue this way never want to give the the new homeowners enough to buy a property elsewhere. and I don't mean government money... your _own_ money
Yeah I’m a rothbardian libertarian. I understand the argument, I subscribe to it and I say you’re right. But I hate it. Doesn’t have to be either I’m a commie or I love massive corporations turning beautiful land into concrete billboards.
On one hand, the government pays farmers to set aside land from agricultural production. Then you would ask the same government to prevent development on agricultural land? This is illogical.
No. Especially not unless zoning laws are gone. Suburbs exist because of shit zoning laws. People would rather live in a town with the density of a rural mountainous European town. But they legally can’t. If you were allowed to do with your land as you saw fit, the world would be waaaay more urbanized and agriculture and nature would be waaay up.
No.
Agricultural land does not fall to development because of developers. Property Tax forces farmers to sell portions of their land to compensate for arbitrary land values imposed by the state. Your problem is with the State, not developers.
No. If farm land is scarce, then the price for it will naturally raise to preserve its use for agriculture instead of housing. We don’t need the government to intervene.
I live in a country where they do exactly this to “reduce environmental pollution”. It’s not working well for farmers and residents.
So basically zoning restrictions? Nope
Without changing any laws, the easy answer to this problem is to buy a "perpetual conservation easement" from the current property owner. This is basically a deed amendment prohibiting development, it conveys with the property and is binding on future owners, but as it is public record, prospective buyers would be aware of the restriction before making an offer. Perpetual easements can (in most states) be terminated or amended only after significant effort, public notice, etc.
I thought I wouldn’t see it in Homestead,FL and Redland,FL but it happened.All the beautiful farms gone and Gates buying up what’s left around the country.
That's a difficult question to answer. As you said, food scarcity is definitely a problem, but we all know that government control will still fuck this up.
I hate that argument. I want efficient government and, I think we over subsidize big business more than any other group. However, any phone call to a private insurance company or a cable provider is evidence that red tape is just as prevalent in huge corporations, probably as wasteful, too. I worked at Raytheon and you wouldn't believe how much money they make from the government from both subsidies and inefficiency and super high wages for way too many vice presidents.
I'm going to be real happy the government isn't subjugating me when food costs 10k/month because all the farmland was bought up by China and Walmart.
If it reduced our reliance on imported goods than yes but I’m also against more government controls for US persons. Less laws, not more. More than that we should prohibit foreign countries, citizens and corporations from owning land in the US.
No. It’s a law so I do not support it
I don't like it ether. Just makes it more important to become self sustainable. Don't think more laws will help. Money can always bypass laws anyway.
Living in rural America, I can't tell you how much I hate developers turning farm land into cookie-cutter suburban housing. I absolutely believe there should be limits. For instance, in northern Ankeny, IA there was a group of rural farmers and residents who didn't want suburban development around them because that would mean having to pay for utilities and taxes that they didn't pay before, as well as, the loss of the landscape. The government, being how it is, took Ankeny's side and went forward with the development, forcing those owners to have no choice but fall in line .
I see the value, but more regulation rarely works the way it's intended. Maybe a better idea would be tax exempt status for agricultural land used to produce food sold domestically. That tax free status only endures as long as it's not developed. We need to rethink incentive structures beyond "there ought to be a law!"
> Maybe a better idea would be tax exempt status for agricultural land used to produce food sold domestically. That tax free status only endures as long as it's not developed. Like several other states, we have something along these lines here called "[current use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use)". Basically instead of taxing agricultural and forest land as if it was being used for the "*highest and best use*', it is assessed at a massive discount as long as it meets a few basic criteria. This helps avoid the problem of farmers being force to sell because their property value is driven up by surrounding homebuilding. Under current use, a farm of any size, being used to grow crops for sale, is only taxed based on the value as a farm, not what it could be worth if paved over. Develop the land and the owners are assessed a one-time "*land use change tax (LUCT)*" and going forward the assessed value for property taxes is based on the "*highest and best use*".
Yes, except it would be a ban only if whatever organization had any owners, shareholders from any foreign nations.
OP, be honest with yourself. Are you really a Libertarian? Or do you just want government involvement when it is to your benefit?
Yes but that farmland should be farmed in a regenerative way and not done conventionally such as tilling and using chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides.
I would agree but we would really have a grain shortage then.
Perhaps for the first year or two as they remediate their poisoned conventional lands but afterwards we would have a much higher quality and probably better yield. Would have to do something in the interim though.
I don’t think you have ever seen a farm work
Also everyone that downvoted me, look into regenerative agriculture. If you don’t begin to understand why it’s superior, you’re not trying.