Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water som…
Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizur…
But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land.
In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built.
Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.