Interesting graphic: percentage of each state owned by the feds

[donnay]

That map is concerning as well as this map...

New Hampshire is in 100% of this travesty.

 

[Dr.3D]

That map is concerning as well as this map...

New Hampshire is in 100% of this travesty.

So are Michigan, Maine, Florida and Hawaii.
I would like to know how they can violate the constitutional rights of those living those states.

 

[donnay]

So are Michigan, Maine, Florida and Hawaii.
I would like to know how they can violate the constitutional rights of those living those states.

This is for the war on drugs and border patrol.

 

[Dr.3D]

This is for the war on drugs and border patrol.

And the war on drugs is also unconstitutional.

 

[donnay]

And the war on drugs is also unconstitutional.

And so is this unconstitutional free zone. They have no right asking citizens to show their papers 100 miles away from our REAL borders.

 

[ZenBowman]

I have to admit, I agree w/ Pisces on this. The issue really hit home when I was on vacation to the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, at a little town called Lion's Head. I walked up a road hoping to get a view down on the town below, but the whole thing was lined with mostly empty vacation cottages and I couldn't even get a nice view. It made me sad that what could have been a really pleasant scene was spoiled by people who weren't even there to enjoy it themselves.

Just imagine if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet bought all of the unique and natural wonders and kept them closed off from the public. Try as I might, I can't in my heart of hearts justify that. It just feels wrong.

44.992499,-81.247269

Agree with this sentiment.

There's nothing wrong with public land, it would exist even in a voluntary society. If there is a piece of land that is used by a bunch of different people, then nobody can claim it as their own, nobody can homestead it because it is already in public use.

 

[ZenBowman]

The Fed needs to lose all its land. Period. Complete separation of Land and State. All land should be owned by those individuals who homestead it, who then in turn may sell it if they wish.

Including beaches.

If everyone thinks large stretches of unhampered beach to be a good idea, then presumably they will pay to make such an idea happen. If not, then not. Either way the people (not the state) get to decide what happens. The people are in charge of the market. The elite are in charge of the state. Which one do you want making the decisions?

If land is already in use by multiple people, then no one among them can homestead it except by consent of all others. So it will remain public, just not state owned.

 

[cjm]

With eminent domain, the feds own 100% of all States.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If land is already in use by multiple people, then no one among them can homestead it except by consent of all others. So it will remain public, just not state owned.

Well, this is a good point. I believe in easements, but I believe everything scarce should be private property, somehow, if possible.

But you make a very good point. This mutual ownership would lead to problems in the future, though. The same kind of problems one runs into in today's world by not having a clear title, or having a place inherited by 9 different siblings. Then you can't do anything with the place. What happens if it makes sense to relocate the road? To make improvements -- pave it or whatever. Who owns the improvement? Can one person veto the idea? What constitutes these "all others" from whom one must get consent to sell, develop, or change in any way the land? In the case of a beach, like Waikiki, it could be millions of people a year using this place.

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. I'll have to think about it.

 

[RabbitMan]

The majority of the Federally owned land in the West is simply National Parks, Wilderness areas, and unsettled/uninhabitable tracts of land. This is very, very low on my political 'give a sh!t' list.

 

[ZenBowman]

Well, this is a good point. I believe in easements, but I believe everything scarce should be private property, somehow, if possible.

That is a belief inconsistent with liberty IMO.

But you make a very good point. This mutual ownership would lead to problems in the future, though. The same kind of problems one runs into in today's world by not having a clear title, or having a place inherited by 9 different siblings. Then you can't do anything with the place. What happens if it makes sense to relocate the road? To make improvements -- pave it or whatever. Who owns the improvement? Can one person veto the idea? What constitutes these "all others" from whom one must get consent to sell, develop, or change in any way the land? In the case of a beach, like Waikiki, it could be millions of people a year using this place.

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. I'll have to think about it.

It's not a mutual ownership, rather its the absence of ownership, because there is no legitimate claimant of the land. I think we can both agree though, that the decision of how to manage development of such places should be as local as possible, and the feds should not be the ones managing it.

 

[Travlyr]

The majority of the Federally owned land in the West is simply National Parks, Wilderness areas, and unsettled/uninhabitable tracts of land. This is very, very low on my political 'give a sh!t' list.

There is a lot of uninhabitable land in the West, but there are also huge tracts of highly valuable habitable BLM land.

What is interesting about the map in the OP is that around the time of the Civil War (overthrow of the Constitution) the Feds sharply reduced sharing the land with free people. It is time that they started sharing again.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's not a mutual ownership, rather its the absence of ownership, because there is no legitimate claimant of the land.

If there are no legitimate claimants, then no one's rights would be violated if I built a condo there. After all, they have no legitimate claim to any decision-making rights over that land.

Your point is that there are legitimate claimants! The stickiness is that there could be multiple legitimate claimants. There are 10 people, or 100, or 1000, who all have just been mutually using an area as a open beach or as a road without formally working anything out. They've been doing so for quite some time. It would seem to be aggression to come in and build a hotel on the beach, or in the middle of the road. I am saying you're right about that. You have a good point. And I'm not sure what the solution is. (Yet.)

 

[ZenBowman]

If there are no legitimate claimants, then no one's rights would be violated if I built a condo there. After all, they have no legitimate claim to any decision-making rights over that land.

Your point is that there are legitimate claimants! The stickiness is that there could be multiple legitimate claimants. There are 10 people, or 100, or 1000, who all have just been mutually using an area as a open beach or as a road without formally working anything out. They've been doing so for quite some time. It would seem to be aggression to come in and build a hotel on the beach, or in the middle of the road. I am saying you're right about that. You have a good point. And I'm not sure what the solution is. (Yet.)

Good point, I stand corrected.

 

[mad cow]

The majority of the Federally owned land in the West is simply National Parks, Wilderness areas, and unsettled/uninhabitable tracts of land. This is very, very low on my political 'give a sh!t' list.

Article One,Section Eight of the Constitution spells out what land the Federal government can own and how they should acquire it.Any other land acquired by any other means is Unconstitutional,and should be given back to the States respectively,or to the people.

This is very high on my give a shit list

 

[Revolution9]

What's special about beach land that would make you want to keep it "public" (socialized)? Your view is not only not libertarian, it's a type of socialism.

Right of way of the commons is ancient common law..not frikkin' socialism.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

If there are no legitimate claimants, then no one's rights would be violated if I built a condo there. After all, they have no legitimate claim to any decision-making rights over that land.

A bow and arrow or a spear through the heart can quell those urges of yours to abrogate arbitrarily in a hurry.

Rev9

 

[Pisces]

After bringing up the subject of Texas beaches last night, I was curious to learn if what I was stating from memory was correct. I found this information from the Texas General Land Office:

In Texas, public access to Gulf Coast beaches is not just the law, it is a constitutional right. In fact, walking along the beach in Texas has been a privilege since Texas was a Republic, and the beaches were sometimes the best road between growing trade outposts.

The Texas Land Commissioner, by law, protects this public right for all Texans by enforcing the Texas Open Beaches Act.

Under the Texas Open Beaches Act the public has the free and unrestricted right to access and use the State's beaches, which are located on what is commonly referred to as the "wet beach", from the water to the line of mean high tide. The dry sandy area that extends from the "wet beach” to the natural line of vegetation is usually privately owned but may be subject to the public beach easement.

http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/open-beaches/index.html.

 

[Carson]

What's special about beach land that would make you want to keep it "public" (socialized)? Your view is not only not libertarian, it's a type of socialism.

I think it goes back to a time when people used water for travel. Most navigable rivers are open to access all along a high water line or something like that. I'm thinking that coastal water is also open to the tidal line. It is meant to give travelers the right to travel and camp as they see fit.

 

[Carson]

While were on the topic of public ownership we also have a partnership that is being abused along the lines of mineral rights. We've all seen Jed Clampett and how he was out shooting for some food and then the royalty checks started rolling in.

Where's mine?

Alaska is the only place any payment what so ever is collected and distributed for their oil reserves.

What about lumber off the public holdings? Other minerals?

And a big one they are about to stiff us with. The new plans for a big global water squeeze. Its our water in the first place!


Oh and as a little tidbit from California. Most everywhere people have water meters. Everywhere except the state capital, Sacramento. Then again it is right on a river. And then again maybe they do now. I haven't checked in a while.