Trump - Who should own America? The Feds or the States
From a Field and Stream Interview last week (Jan 22, 2016):
Interviewer: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
Donald Trump: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Interviewer: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
Donald Trump: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Answer: Individuals.
"Here we go to another fundamental issue. Why is it that if the Federal government runs something, it'll be protected and pristine and so forth and so on, but somehow the states are incapable of it? Is that what the 10th amendment's all about? Is that what federalism's all about? Now the Federal government should own all this land because only the Federal government can keep this land properly? ... I never give up liberty."
Notice the jarring jump from state control to "I never give up liberty". The liberty of the individual requires private property rights, not living under control of the land by state government instead of the national government, but this is all too typical of the conservative ideology of "states' rights" statism.
As for Trump, his demands for the most centralized national form of control because "we have to be great stewards of this land" is typical of his own strong arm statist nationalism and anti-private property fascism. Just as with his "eminent domain is wonderful" pronouncements and his trashing private property owners who have dared to oppose both him and the infamous Kelo decision that he loudly endorses, he is no defender of the protection of the rights of the individual with power of government strictly limited to authorized functions. He is not only a full-fledged anything goes nationalist statist to "make us great", but is more openly brazen than even Obama in shouting it to the corners of the earth while denouncing his victims in the most vicious terms.
Trump also panders to whatever group he is campaigning for in search of a "deal". The interview promoting massive Federal lands was for a hunting and fishing lobby that typically pushes for more Federal acquisition, including eminent domain.
But it was only 3 weeks ago that he published an op-ed in the in the Nevada Reno Gazette-Journal decrying "faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy" and "arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making" -- because Federal ownership in Nevada is so controversial. But he didn't say what he would do about it other than vague calls for "leadership" to "make us great" and a tangent on "immigration". Readers here on the gg forum will notice that he said nothing about private property rights in a free society, only calling to give him the power under incoherent pragmatism opposed to principle on principle. His only rudder is power for himself to be "great". http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voic...
Mark Levin often has good analyses of political trends, events and legal issues, but is terrible on basic justification of a free society and proper government. He constantly undermines it by packaging it with faith and tradition as fundamental, including bad tradition. Anyone who equates 'states' rights' with 'liberty' is confused. He also has serious personal problems in how he treats other people on his show, including often his own supporters, with subjective accusations and personal insults followed by perfunctory dismissal. A lot of people despise him for his streams of vicious, taunting, ad hominem personal attacks.
He has also been very bad on Trump, buying into the demagoguery as if it were principled substance, and urging Trump to have a better "campaign" without regard to what he stands for.
9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the question was "who should, not who has the constitutional rights. So I can answer it based on my reason, but I think the Constitution provides support for "the people."
Then there is the question of the definition of "should" or "Shall". At the time of the Constitution, "shall" was translated as "must".
Since then the Supreme Court (appointed corrupt political looters) have decided to change the meaning to suit their needs and they say "shall" now means "may."
When he says "you don't know what the state is going to do" he means that the closer control gets to the individual the more likely it is that he isn't going to like the outcome. Of course, taking a realistic look at the truly staggering amount of unfunded pension liaiblities that are facing governments at all levels over the next few decades, they probably would sell off all the land. If that were actually used to pay off the unfunded liabilities [and they learned not to give away more of other people's money] the end result would be great. Not likely to happen, but hey in the Gulch we dream big!
Trump is a Teddy Roosevelt kind of republican... in many unfortunate ways.
Regards,
O.A.
What are they counting on? Trump is a salesman in search of a "deal", a very big deal putting himself in control of the country. He has even called his own campaign a "deal", and is playing us for it as part of the shell game dealing. He is a demagogue without principles, pandering to any side of any hot button issue in accordance with whomever he is talking to at the moment, currently mostly conservatives in the Republican primary.
But have you noticed that as he moves to what he thinks is his role in the general election he openly boasts how well he "gets along" with Pelosi and Reid, and insists the same for Hillary before he was running against her? He thinks it's in his favor that he can and would make "deals" with them, and the rest of the radical progressives, on anything, with no limits under any principle, over what he would give up for what at the expense of whose rights. The victims are simply denounced -- as he did while proclaiming "eminent domain is wonderful" -- as "holdouts" obstructing "the deal".
This guy differs from previous statists from Nixon to Teddy Roosevelt, mostly in his open disregard for any principles except for a Pragmatist anything goes for any "deal". It is the complete abdication of principle as such.
once you look closely at govt management of "public lands (and waterways), you see a history of mismanagement and abuse...it is in the nature of govt to do so...
Trump does not know beautiful yet...
There are areas that should be preserved in the federal land, but there are areas that should be used, harvested and developed as well. The question is who decides what lands should be used in which ways.
The right answer is "the people," not the state or the fed. An Oklamhoma land rush should take place with the land and people could then develop it preserve it, whatever they like.
Personally I would take my 4 wheeler and head out to a remote area I know on the fed land that has several little known slot canyons that are great. If I won that land I would put in a little resort place and give people maps for where the cool slot canyons are and have horses for people to ride.... It would be great.
FFA: Yes, you do.
Neither understand the meaning of private property.
I can imagine Putin is looking on making mocks with mimicked scared chicken noises.
Buck! Buck! Buck! SQUAWK!
He would still be a better president that Bolshevik Bernie or Benghazi Killary though.
Sanders is honest at least, which I give him credit for, but he assumes there is a money tree out there that just grows and grows by itself without human intervention and can supply everything that anyone would ever want.
Hillary is a chameleon. I have no idea what her positions are, since it depends on the wind. She is in a race with Sanders to figure out how to increase taxes.
At least Trump will slow down the movement to socialism in the USA. He wont stop it, because the president cant on his own, and he isnt very consistent on the subject of private property and human rights. BUT, he is a businessman and will undoubtedly be a good administrator of the federal government.
There is no rational reason to support Trump, He has no more regard for private property than Hillary or Sanders.
The man is juvenile in personality, as he has demonstrated many times. Further, his obsession with his daughter's looks creeps me out. A vote for him is equal to voting for Hillary or Sanders. The three of them are the worst in the race.
I am surprised that you seem to lump all non-objectivist candidates into one group- all the same. They arent all identical in the amount of inconsistent talk about freedom and what they would do in various situations. Some are worse than others. For example, Sanders wants 62.4% of capital gains in tax. So if i sell a company for $1 million, I have to give essentially 2/3 of what I made to his administration. Currently its 23.8%. Hillary would raise it somewhat more than 23.8% but nowhere near the 62.4% Sanders wants.
I will admit that I look at these candidates in terms of the bad stuff they would do to ME They are all a mixed bag, but we WILL get one of them regardless of how we vote. A consistent Objectivist just isnt going to have a chance in this environment to get elected. The culture is just too "entitled" for that to happen.
I dont want anything positive at this point from this batch of candidates, but I do want the least harm to be done.
If you dont vote for Trump, you will wind up with Hillary or even Sanders- both of which will do more damage than Trump. Think about that.
Rearden as well as Dagny paid public officials off so they would get out of their way I dont see anything wrong with that. I dont think the public officials are in the right to extract money so as to let people do what they should be allowed to do in a free society.
I could attribute several meanings to his sentencing. I think he answers that way so that different people can hear what they want to hear. Some hear what they don't want to hear, and for them, since what he said was in reality unclear, he can change the meaning to suit them. He's a negotiator alright. Can we get rid of him? Maybe offer him one of the small Hawaiian islands?
Sales people have a knack at that.
When Trump threw his hat into the ring, I delightfully viewed his overall approach as fresh.
Now he's becoming a bit too ripe.
"This is magnificent land and we have to be great stewards of this land. And hunters do such a great job, I mean hunters and fishermen and all of the different people that use that land so I've been hearing more and more about that. It's just like the erosion of the 2nd amendment and I mean every day you hear Hillary Clinton want to essentially wipe out the 2nd amendment. We have to protect the 2nd amendment and we have to protect our lands. [emphasis added]"
Mark Levin noticed that the "hunters doing a great job" was already screwy, and stopped the quote there. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But what does protecting the rights of the individual under the 2nd amendment have to do with retaining the power of statist Federal land "protection" that prevents private property? Is Federal control of the land part of the Bill of Rights for Government? Is Hillary trying to wipe out the Federal control of land?
The incongruous juxtaposition makes no sense, but is an example of Trump's intellectual shape shifting as he morphs incongruities together for emotional appeals for random 'talking points'. This time the "connection" in his mind is that he is dealing with the hunting lobby and never mind that the Bill of Rights and Federal control of the land are fundamental opposites.
It reminds me of Leonard Peikoff's extreme example in OPAR of a psycho trying make concepts based on characteristics of referents which are not fundamental:
"The opposite of the principle of fundamentality is exemplified in certain kinds of psychotic thinking. One schizophrenic in New York City's Bellevue Hospital routinely equated sex, cigars, and Jesus Christ. He regarded all these existents, both in his thought and in his feelings about them, as interchangeable members of a single class, on the grounds that all had an attribute in common, 'encirclement'. In sex, he explained, the woman is encircled by the man; cigars are encircled by tax bands; Jesus is encircled by a halo. This individual, in effect, was trying to form a new concept, 'encirclist'. Such an attempt is a cognitive disaster, which can lead only to confusion, distortion, and falsehood. Imagine studying cigars and then applying one's conclusions to Jesus!"
Trump's lack of coherence is even worse because his juxtapositions are contradictory in addition to irrelevant. The subjective connection in his mind is the sales pitch and the target.
Take it anyway you want. It's always open season on candidates and politicians.
Fox took the bait and issued snide comments in retaliation. They are now feuding. Fox is supposed to be reporting the news, not making it and battling with candidates, and Trump is supposed to be articulating principles and positions, not engaging in school yard tactics for feuding.
Who owns the government?
We are at the cusp right now, you can see it with Local and Federal governments attacking our rights more vigorously, SCOTUS finding against the people's beliefs and the U.S. Constitution; these next steps are going to be important for our future.
1) Libertarian way...the people would own the land, but that would end up being sold for the want of trinkets meaning business will own most if not all the land
2) Framers way [as written in the U.S. Constitution] governed by the state which is the holder of said land for the people's use. This is shown by the U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 3 The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;
3) Which is not in the U.S. Constitution; that the Federal has the right to own and rule over all lands.
I believe the answer lays closer to if not with the Founders and Framers. That is the Land can be purchased and owned by the People with the State having the ability to form State Parks for the need of the people such as water supplies, fort's for State military or State Government Offices as well to hold historical areas for remembrance. The federal would need to buy lands from the States for national security [forts, navy yards], or Court houses to do the business of the People according to the U.S. Constitution.
So I can see why Donald Trump would say as he did in the interview...1) he had not researched the subject before being asked 2) he is concerned that without the security of the Government Water Supplies and historical sites would be sold off for wealth without regard for We The People...
The Federal government was authorized to acquire land for specific, limited purposes within a state subject to the state legislature's approval of the ceding of territory. The Constitution does not say that states are supposed to own the land or the Federal government may acquire land from a state. The role of the state is jurisdiction over territory within state borders, not state ownership.
Iowans, Mainer’s, Floridian’s are all Sovereign as Australian’s, Kiwi’s or Canadians… You see the federal gov’t is just like the E.U. [the E.U. loosely modeled itself after the United States Federal gov’t], so yes the State OWNS the land and the Federal has no rights to State own land or on State properties.
Elect a new one and claim no representation anything to cost them money and make them look bad. Shoudn't be hard it's everything they do.
When you are asked to vote for one or the other of the Government party say I don't vote left wing unless your are a socialist or progressive and then boy cott their businesses. Progressive Insurance is a good start. So is Geico just for general principles and really bad service. but Progressive is a relaly good start.Anyone who claims to prefer independence, freedom, the ability to think and reason or any affilliation not to the left that buys from them is either BSing us themselves or both and migh t as put a big mark on their fore head that says SP
That blunt enough....
Well, what about the Federal government selling those lands? With $19 trillion of National Debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, I think we could say the Federal government is in trouble. I know he's talked many times before about the country being in trouble, and Federal debt and liabilities are a big part of the trouble. This is why I don't like Trump; he'll say anything to appeal to as many people as he needs to get elected. Then what he does when he gets into office will be a big surprise to many people.
the main contradiction I see is contradicting the Constitution by ignoring it or flat out violating it.
The main one is allowing government tacit control of the economy. I would have the Bill of Rights include: "Congress shall make no law abridging free trade among consenting individuals". It could probably be refined to ensure that its meaning is clear. Fraud should be more sharply delineated as a use of force for which one can be prosecuted. The Constitution should also make clear that taxation is theft and that theft is also a use of force for which one can be prosecuted.
Yet the feckless public will vote them or someone like them back into office with 95% of the votes cast. just like before.
One because of dumbed down stupidity and the other because they don't know history worth a tinkers damn and have too much faith in urban myths.
The system set forth by the Constitution for the States to ban slavery started with Pennsylvania if I'm not mistaken and most of that was done prior to 1800. Delaware and Maryland were the last. After the Civil War Mississippi was the last finally making it illegal in 2003 give or take a year.
All the should could woulds are nice ideas but what organization has been put together to effect those changes? Answer ....None that aren't just fronts for a 700 Club style rip off of dollars.
It's a couch potato nation where talk is considered the same as doing but in the end like all hot air it rises and disappears over some rainbow.
I like a friendly debate let's see where this leads.
By the way do you know what -- signifies in grammar --?
Its my understanding that the Feds hold the land of territories in trust until they become states, when the state takes possession and control of undeeded real property.
What authority grants the deed to previously undeeded and undeveloped land?
They cheated when the western territories applied for statehood by grabbing the land from the territories beforehand. This needed and still needs to be overturned by the courts.
These references include the roots of it in terms of philosophical fundamentals and early chronology.
Start by listening to Leonard Peikoff's lectures on the history of philosophy on how basic philosophical ideas have evolved in western civilization, even though he doesn't mention "progressivism" as such. Notice in those lectures how American Pragmatism came about in the late 1800s from European influences.
Then read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels comparing the statist decline of America with the rise of nazi Germany. He emphasizes the rise of Pragmatism out of European philosophy and its implications for politics.
Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism (by which he means the classical American liberalism of secular individualism) has an excellent chapter, "Progressives as Nationalists", that shows how the early political progressives employed Pragmatism in their ideology. Statism is inherent in Pragmatism as a 'tool' for pursuing what "works" without regard to acknowledged principles.
Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America is a well-written but sympathetic account of the explosive role of Pragmatism in American culture and politics (including the Supreme Court). Because it is a sympathetic portrayal in terms of many beliefs that are commonly accepted today, you have to understand the previous references explaining what Pragmatism is and what is wrong with it or you risk being swept up in it yourself. If you understand the background first, this book will have you gagging over how Pragmatism took over one realm after another beginning in the 1800s and you will understand how pervasive it and its destruction have become.
If you want to understand how Pragmatism took over in the country academically, read Bruce Kuklick's The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860-1930, which begins with the Unitarians and the Transcendentalists (Emerson was strongly influenced by German philosophy). Most of the book is about the academic Pragmatism begun by William James and Josiah Royce at Harvard, the center of Pragmatism and the center of American philosophy, and which you will recognize from Leonard Peikoff's explanations. But this one is more technical philosophically and depends heavily on your understanding of Leonard Peikoff's lectures to understand the essential philosophical themes and what is wrong with them. It emphasizes the role of Kantian influences.
Prior to the rise of Pragmatism in this country was the imposition of statism in education. Samuel Blumenfeld's Is Public Education Necessary? is a history of early public education in America to about the mid 1800s, and how European statism and intellectuals influenced and became embedded in the movement. It's a classic case of the role of fundamental ideas and intellectual activism in determining politics.
For the historical development, beginning in the 1800s, of the 'public lands' (and ranching in particular) of this thread on Trump, see Wayne Hage, Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands (researched by Ron Arnold), and Harold Steen, The Origins of the National Forests. There are specific connections to European land control and immigrant Federal officials, especially German, but more fundamentally you will recognize the common ideological themes, much of which came from the overall cultural and intellectual influences of Europe not necessarily tied to the particulars of specific statist European land control methods.
Given the anti-intellectual nature of Trump I've been trying to understand his allure. All I've ever heard him say is on the order of, "I'm going to do ___", then repeat it three or more times. This seems to have captured the imagination of many people but for the life of me I don't understand why. He strikes me as a narcissistic authoritarian with delusions of adequacy. I doubt that I could ever vote for him.
Yes, my above statement is sarcastic and a failure for answering your question. You can still get yourself arrested, though.
Thus ends the ConLaw lesson for the day. The right to own land was a right granted Temaklos found 'use of land ' but not ' control of land.' Have to read the whole document.
Moot point. With the Bill of Rights effectively gone whose to stop them doing what they want?
Should have paid attention to the New Years Eve speech of our Dictator in Chief and his heavily supporting power base in the US Congress.
Overwhelming majority both sides of the ha ha aisle You elected and sent them.
If you need heart medicine take it first.
Trumps tax plan presented by Cousin Vinnie
Bureau of Land Management, a part of the Department of the Interior are not ninth or tenth Amendment issues. This is a Article I issue; Interior was the first great extension of Federal Power, illegally created in 1840 when early big money interests in railroad and mineral/mining & Real Estate Marketing issues pressured Congress to find a way to control the Wild Indians. The ensuing sixty years would catalog one of the greatest genocides ever committed by man.
The entire finagle is an Unconstitutional swindle by congress purportedly allowed by the "Commerce Clause" which regulates Interstate Commerce. Obviously, Land within a single state should not be covered, in spite of BLM's claims, said land is within one state and not interstate in any way.
BLM was created in 1946 by Harry S Truman a Progressive Democrat, a follower of the equally Progressive Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom believed that 'We the People' were too stupid to manage ourselves. They often made decisions to solidify their own political power. BLM was formed by merging the General Land Office, created in 1812 to assume control of "Public" lands that the Federal Government had no title to, and the Grazing Service Agency which sold grazing rights to land the Federal Government never held title to. The biggest land swindle in history taking place over 204 years now allows BLM to control more than 700,000,000 acres of "Public Land" allegedly, "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." The only trouble to that whole idea is that the Federal Government never held legal title to any of those lands.
When I went to high school in the Santa Clara Valley in California, the whole valley was covered in orchards, and fruit harvesting was the primary first job. Today, now that it's become Silicon Valley, you're lucky if you can find a bush here and there among the concrete jungle it's become. Corporate exploitation of the land can be cruel and unforgiving in pursuit of profit.
This is a sweeping misrepresentation. The state of Maine did not "give" anyone "exclusive rights" with a "license", the land in question is not "over 75% of the state" nor is it "inaccessible to the public without permission", and neither does "most state revenue come from this land".
Approximately 2/3 of Maine is sparsely settled and mostly used for timber. It is private property, like any agriculture land, not "licensed" and not "given away". It was previously unowned. The plantations and townships mostly have such small resident populations (if any in the plantations) that they have no organized town government, though there are some organized towns within the region and everything is in some county. There are public roads and state highways for access just like everywhere else, although it is very rural even where there is a population, and there are many private roads through the woods, including logging roads in the timberland.
The contiguous region with no town governments are called the Unorganized Territory. The property taxes in the UT are collected by the state, are paid by the property owners there -- including residents, businesses, and the large timber companies -- and are used for state and county expenses within the UT, mostly for education. They do not fund the rest of the state, let alone "most state revenue". (Elsewhere in Maine property taxes are paid directly to the town governments, with a portion diverted to the relevant counties, which are comparatively weak in Maine, especially outside the UT). State income taxes are paid to the state everywhere in Maine. The wood products industry is about $8 billion and is not the largest segment of the economy.
There is a tradition of public access in most of the woods, especially on the large private timber company land, for hiking, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling at no charge. North Maine Woods is a private organization sponsored by major landowners that provides campgrounds, and some other maintained areas, for a nominal fee -- essentially a private park. This all coexists with the private logging operations.
Baxter State Park is a large area around Mount Katahdin, which was privately purchased and established ed in the 1930s by a former governor of Maine specifically to stop a threat of a National Park Service takeover.
This system of mostly private property should be praised, not smeared as "Corporate exploitation of the land can be cruel and unforgiving in pursuit of profit" along with other factual misrepresentations.
It is also under constant threat by the national viro preservationist pressure group lobby which has been pushing for the last 30 years for a Federal takeover intended to reduce Maine to the submissive status of western states and to destroy the natural resources industry. A particularly active drive for a 3.2 million acre National Park intends to "restore" a region larger then Yellowstone to primitive pre-settlement conditions and eventually take over Baxter State Park, which they still resent losing Federal control to.
That lobby currently threatens a Federal takeover of a portion to establish a National Park Service foothold through a National Monument decree by Obama because they have been unable to establish public support and Congressional approval. Just the sort of "deal" the Trump mentality goes for with his nationalist mentality of Federal control for "stewardship of this magnificent land" with "eminent domain is wonderful".
You sound like an environmental socialist. We are not running out of land - there is plenty of land that is undeveloped.
Maine and the logging companies have not justification for this exclusion unless it disrupts their operations. Property rights are not unlimited.
I'm far from an "environmental socialist," but There are tracts of wilderness that have a unique ecology that most people would like to see remain minimally disturbed. I recognize that nothing remains the same, even without human involvement, but we can sympathize with others who like the idea of some protection for these areas.
There is a spectrum of human social behavior we have to deal with, from extreme individualism bordering on anarchy, to an almost herd behavior of constant approval-seeking, and we have to live with the whole spectrum. Creating the opportunity for all of these groups to live together with minimum hostile interaction is the challenge for government.
The purpose and "challenge" of government is to protect our rights, not to compromise with statists to "live together" under pressure group warfare, let alone eco-fascists.
"Extreme individualism" is individualism as opposed to collectivism. It is not "bordering on anarchy". See Ayn Rand's essays "Extremism, Or The Art of Smearing" and "The Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Notice also his leftist viro anti-industry, anti-profit attack on Silicon Valley because he doesn't like that it's developed.
Generally, I agree with your posts, but in this case I read your above email and thought, "So. What's wrong with that?"
I do not know if you are aware that land that is used (but not over-used) is in better condition, has more species of both animal and plants, and a healthier turnover in life cycles than land that is left as untouched wilderness. (Admittedly, this could be because we have altered the ecology by destroying the large predators and the beavers.) There have been a number of studies on this.
I like the idea of the states having their own lands, just so that we have many 'experimental crucibles' going to see what is best. With specific reference to mines, Wm has commented to me that in the MidWest, where he is from, when a strip mine was mined out, the developers would compete for the site. They would make a lake out of the mine, and then construct an elite country club around the lake, and sell the houses for a pretty penny. Apparently there are a lot of these developments where he came from.
I too prefer to live in as close to rural surroundings as possible, but there are many people who prefer the concrete jungle.
Jan
With the good chain eventually comes the cougars and bears. Where I lived before the country people couldn't send their kids to catch the school busses even with little rain protection sheds because of the cougars. Often times it was easier to drive them to school and pick them up. Sometimes that rotated but with after AND before schools activities more important than education I'm wondering how many went to home school and how many did like I did and GED'd the kid out of school at 15 and put them in JC. Not sure about now but JC back then was the equivalent of High School when I attended. Since we're again talking Oregon a high school equivalent education from the late 50's early sixties might requrie a full four year degree program these days.
The same is true in my home state next door: like Utah, we have been weighing a push to get back much of our public lands (most of it national forests). We've had all kinds of problems with conflicts between livestock and wolves for example and the net result has been a disaster - all due to Federal Government.
Should someone take care of those lands? Absolutely. But distance from a problem always distorts perspective. The people managing something should be those not only present, but with skin in the game. Neither of those two qualifications fit the bureaucrats in D.C.
The classic case in this is (of course) rent vs buy. My father has owned a rental property since the 80's when (under Reagan's tax reforms) a rental property was a good investment. (Not so now but that's another matter.) I can't tell you the number of times I've been out there to help him fix that place up because renters trashed the place. Why? No ownership. No personal investment.
Public land faces the same problems. There are many groups who use the land responsibly - like part-owners. There are unfortunately many who do not, however. In the case of federally-managed lands, the managers even go so far as to think that they should control public access to these lands rather than simply managing the land. That is what has happened in the Malheur example: the managers have used their control to expand their control all for the sake of control. They face no negative repercussions for these actions - or haven't until now. A private land owner would have serious negative repercussions for the actions taken to this point.
State control versus the Federal government can be a lesser of two evils, just like with voting, but should not be promoted on principle.
You said your state is "weighing getting back our public lands". That is the movement to divest Federal lands to the states that Trump is talking about, not private property.
You wrote: "The same is true in my home state next door: like Utah, we have been weighing a push to get back much of our public lands (most of it national forests). We've had all kinds of problems with conflicts between livestock and wolves for example and the net result has been a disaster - all due to Federal Government."
The disaster is not "all due to the Federal government". The "reform" drive for state control is not a solution. The problem of re-introducing wolves and the attempts to drive the cattlemen off the range in the west is the agenda of the wilderness preservationists. It is ideological. They are anti-private property eco-socialist preservationists who have infiltrated all levels of government, where they have hijacked government power to impose their ideology.
You wrote: "Should someone take care of those lands? Absolutely. But distance from a problem always distorts perspective. The people managing something should be those not only present, but with skin in the game. Neither of those two qualifications fit the bureaucrats in D.C."
No one has denied that "someone" should take care of land. Where does that come from?
The problem of the public lands is not "distance" and not slogans about "skin in the game" or your father's rental property. It is the difference between private property and government control and the anti-private property rights ideology.
You wrote: "There are many groups who use the land responsibly - like part-owners. There are unfortunately many who do not, however."
Groups using public land are not acting like "part owners". When government controls the land, no one owns it. This is not a matter of establishing conservative "local control" by a state government, as framed by many conservatives. It is about private property rights. Conservative thinking and rhetoric frequently misses the essential concepts.
You wrote: "In the case of federally-managed lands, the managers even go so far as to think that they should control public access to these lands rather than simply managing the land."
Blocking access to government land today is driven by the preservationists, who are entrenched in all levels of government nationwide, exploiting government power everywhere. They are also blocking use of private property by its owners, nationwide. The difference is private property rights versus government control, not "skin in the game" and "distance", and not analogies about someone's father's rental property. Federal versus state control is a collectivist false alternative.
I will repeat. I am not arguing for collectivism. And in my neck of the woods - quite literally - the federal government's mismanagement of the national forests is a huge concern. But the Federal government isn't going to sell that land to private individuals. That's who they've been taking it from in the first place. So the pathway to private land ownership is to have the State government take it back from the Feds first. One step at a time.
"The problem of re-introducing wolves and the attempts to drive the cattlemen off the range in the west is the agenda of the wilderness preservationists. It is ideological."
I agree.
"The problem of the public lands is not "distance" and not slogans about "skin in the game" or your father's rental property. It is the difference between private property and government control and the anti-private property rights ideology."
Then you fundamentally fail to comprehend the notion of investment. The whole purpose behind personal property is that of investment: of "skin in the game" or the personal interest in something resulting from expenditure of resources. You go ahead and twist that any way you want if it makes you feel better. Property is a means to an end - not an end in and of itself. Property is the vehicle of investment and investment (and return) is a measure of personal responsibility.
Why do we criticize the looting mentality? Do the looters not seek for wealth, resources, and property just like anyone else? Of course they do. The end is resources, i.e. property - no different from that of a producer. When we criticize looters, it is because we criticize the means of obtaining property as being unjust (obtained by coercion or theft). We also frequently criticize the use as well because it is inefficient, i.e. not through free market interaction. The core of property rights is not about the property itself, but the disposal and use of that property in the way an individual sees fit.
If you weren't so busy casting aspersions and twisting what I say, you'd be able to see that we actually agree on many points. It's too bad that you are so focused on proving to yourself that I'm an enemy to look for common ground.
Should be answered with a point. IS is another story.
Any State wishing to expand their geographic responsibility only has to apply to Congress for for a transfer of title from Federal to State. Some pieces are given by the Federal Government an example being the Planet Ord or Fort Ord near Monterey California. When the base was closed it went under local government ownership. Same with El Toro Marine base and aviation site which was turned in to three or four golf courses with private air plane airport and a lot of illegal aliens but the local citizens got to pay for the water to keep the greeens green.
Who should own the land? The citizens of the country instead you just get to pay for the cost. Just think of it as condo ownership. First you buy then you rent and then you pay taxes same as any land 'ownership' in the USA. You only get the right to mantain, assume laibility, and pay annual rent. End of property rights.
owned in the first place. And I have a problem
with the notion that the only government oppres-
sion is Federal power. The land should belong to
whoever first fences it in and cultivates it. (Or at
least, fences it in). As the the present "govern-
ment" land (uncultivated, I mean), it should ei-
ther be put up at public auction, or thrown open
to people going in and settling it.
I don't like state government oppression,
either: for instance, slavery and Jim Crow.
Nothing new it' s been around ever since the Patriot Act went into effect.
Did know that Constitutional Rights are suspended anywhere within 100 miles of the borders or sea coasts? Why not it' s no big secret.
Load more comments...