Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
]Of course not, but the people who are farmers will be able to produce enough food for the people who aren't.
More people farming does not equate higher supply. Why do you think we've moved onto a mechanized form or agriculture in the last one-hundred and fifty years? There just isn't enough man-power alone to feed the entire world. Machines have made that possible.

What's more, where there were hundreds of people working on that land originally, it's all machinized, so nearly all those people end up out of a job.
There's also a large machine industry that employs people too. Those people and their skills will be put out of a job as well. What's more, we need those machines to keep production at a high rate. Manual labor alone cannot keep up production at the same pace as mechanized labor.

My point is that on occasion, they have actually done things to hurt the vast majority of their citizens thanks to the influence of multinational corporations. For instance, raising property taxes to an insane level in order to force natives off their land; there are documented cases of this happening in southeastern Mexico.
This has really been a domestic problem in Mexico. The domination of the PRI up until 2000 signaled close relations with the U.S. as a means to industrialize the country. Fox and the PAN have done very little to curb this.

Pretty much. That money and those possessions always come at the expense of someone else. Look at it this way: America is a nation of people who consume and don't produce (by and large), so the Third World is an antimatter universe of people who produce and don't consume.
I still don't agree with it. The state should have no right on the amount of money I can make within legislative conditions and how many things I can own.

In the two cases you described above the government steps in and compensates the farmer in exchange for the destruction of their product. This seems fair.