Lew Rockwell's 30 days Plan for Leaner Gov

[FSP-Rebel]

LR must have a position in the RP cabinet as an advisor!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

[constituent]

i agree w/ much of it in terms of ideaology... actuality is another thing.

particularly w/ selling off all the gov't owned land. who is going to buy? china? ya. china.

as a compromise how about making all gov't land unownable and establishing once and for all squatters rights.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

i agree w/ much of it in terms of ideaology... actuality is another thing.

particularly w/ selling off all the gov't owned land. who is going to buy? china? ya. china.

as a compromise how about making all gov't land unownable and establishing once and for all squatters rights.

Easy: ranchers, people who want to establish huge "national" parks under a foundation in their name. (I'm hoping to save up enough to pay for the "Scribbler de Stebbing Grizzly Bear Sanctuary.") Land thrives best under the stewardship of private owners.

[DjLoTi]

This was talked about on the Rick Williams show today on RonPaulradio.com...

[recess]

"DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities."


Oh yeah this is a great idea. Make sure any last vestige of wilderness is destroyed.
I cant wait to go up in the mountains and see mines and roads everywhere.

As Edward Abbey Stated
"If wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws can save wilderness."

[constituent]

amen

[MsDoodahs]

Private ownership is the most effective way to really protect wilderness areas.

[recess]

Private ownership is the most effective way to really protect wilderness areas.

How so?

[mconder]

The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities

To U.S. citizens only I might add.

[constituent]

Land thrives best under the stewardship of private owners.

if you ignore all those landowners that use their front yards as dumps and salvage yards... yea those guy are excellent stewards of the land...

it seems like the indians were doing pretty well w/ the land before we got here (although there were several tribes that had class-based, ownership societies in Texas alone).

[MsDoodahs]

How so?

See Scribbler's comment, above.

:)

[Blowback]

People who don't need any more money like Bill Gates would buy it up and it would probably become the best parks/wilderness you have ever seen. I can guarantee you Billy would manage it better than the gov ever could.

[born2drv]

People who don't need any more money like Bill Gates would buy it up and it would probably become the best parks/wilderness you have ever seen. I can guarantee you Billy would manage it better than the gov ever could.

exactly.... or the gov't could sell these national treasures off to the highest bidder of private citizens who form a non-profit entity, they could even say that only non-profit corporations can own them if the public was really worried they would eventually be commercially overhauled.

[constituent]

I bet china could outbid bill gates.

[Marshall]

There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR's, so it's torn down and the land sold to a farmer.

I had to chuckle over the FDR bit. We could try to raise the money for the Jefferson memorial on here :D

[Mastiff]

I disagree with Lew on selling all the land and streets. Frankly, this is some of what I was talking about in my "is Lew a liability?" thread. Don't get me wrong, I 95% agree, but the last 5% doesn't seem to have been thought out.

Regarding the land, I think sometimes we have to accept that normal markets aren't always efficient in solving some very specialized problems. If all the national parks are sold off, it's quite possible we simply won't have large open areas of land available anymore. There are coordination issues with making a viable business out of a huge tract of land. Heck, if all that land went on sale, I'd consider buying myself 80 acres. Once everyone does that, it's no longer possible to hike or drive a Jeep 100 miles because you hit a new private land boundary every quarter mile. Maybe it'd work out, but I think the economics of it are questionable.

Not that he mentioned this, but global warming is another example like this. If (IF) global warming is a problem, I don't see it being realistic for threats of lawsuits to solve the problem when both the victims and the perpetrators are so diffuse. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding roads. First, where's the competition? Second, so long as the roads are only funded with fuel tax and car registrations, who cares? If you don't use the service, you don't have to pay. As long as there is no barrier to competition (I don't think there is) you can make your own road system. If this actually becomes real, push to pay for gov't roads only with registrations or to have a way to get tax free gas (farmers do already).

All just my opinion.

[constituent]

monuments and memorials are half the problem....

modern shrines to modern gods.

[guntherg16]

LR must have a position in the RP cabinet as an advisor!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

That's seems quite possible. Lew Rockwell served as Congressman Paul's chief of staff in Congress according to this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert122.html

[recess]

I disagree with Lew on selling all the land and streets. Frankly, this is some of what I was talking about in my "is Lew a liability?" thread. Don't get me wrong, I 95% agree, but the last 5% doesn't seem to have been thought out.

Regarding the land, I think sometimes we have to accept that normal markets aren't always efficient in solving some very specialized problems. If all the national parks are sold off, it's quite possible we simply won't have large open areas of land available anymore. There are coordination issues with making a viable business out of a huge tract of land. Heck, if all that land went on sale, I'd consider buying myself 80 acres. Once everyone does that, it's no longer possible to hike or drive a Jeep 100 miles because you hit a new private land boundary every quarter mile. Maybe it'd work out, but I think the economics of it are questionable.

Not that he mentioned this, but global warming is another example like this. If (IF) global warming is a problem, I don't see it being realistic for threats of lawsuits to solve the problem when both the victims and the perpetrators are so diffuse. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding roads. First, where's the competition? Second, so long as the roads are only funded with fuel tax and car registrations, who cares? If you don't use the service, you don't have to pay. As long as there is no barrier to competition (I don't think there is) you can make your own road system. If this actually becomes real, push to pay for gov't roads only with registrations or to have a way to get tax free gas (farmers do already).

All just my opinion.

I agree, once Ron Paul starts winning primaries a smear campaign will be on.
The MSM will try to find anything they can to paint Ron Paul as an extremist.
Out here in the Pacific Northwest people love open spaces and public lands, it is part of the culture out here. Hunting, fishing, mountain climbing,backpacking and just generally enjoying wilderness areas.Selling off all public lands to the highest bidder isnt going to win any points. Even if Ron Paul doesn't say he would be in favor of it personally. The MSM will try to connect him to Ideas like this.

[quickmike]

Easy: ranchers, people who want to establish huge "national" parks under a foundation in their name. (I'm hoping to save up enough to pay for the "Scribbler de Stebbing Grizzly Bear Sanctuary.") Land thrives best under the stewardship of private owners.

I only have about an acre of land but I figure I could set up a ferret sanctuary so they can be out of Ghoulliani's reach, seeing that he saw fit to ban them from NYC when he was mayor.

[richard1984]

I only have about an acre of land but I figure I could set up a ferret sanctuary so they can be out of Ghoulliani's reach, seeing that he saw fit to ban them from NYC when he was mayor.

WHAT?!?!?! :confused:

Are you serious?! That's insane!

Why in the world would he ban ferrets from NYC? I mean...their ferrets--not aligators or tigers. I don't get it.

[1000-points-of-fright]

DAY TWO: All other federal taxes are abolished, including the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the gasoline tax, "sin" taxes, excise taxes, etc. Businesses boom, and the few legitimate federal functions are funded with an inexpensive head tax. People who choose not to vote need not pay it. (Note: this was a mainstream view in the 19th century.)

Why should someone who is defended by the Military not have to pay for it just because they don't vote?

[johnrocks]

I really don't want to see tract homes up in Yellowstone!! I support Ron Paul but I really want to keep the National Park system even if we need an amendment to do so.

[Syren123]

I really don't want to see tract homes up in Yellowstone!! I support Ron Paul but I really want to keep the National Park system even if we need an amendment to do so.

I agree. The National Park Service is one of the few entities I would be in favor of keeping once the great President Paul governmental dismantling takes effect.

Selling off government land is Lew Rockwell's idea, not Ron Paul's.

[Hook]

I bet china could outbid bill gates.

Not damn likely. BillG has more net worth than entire countries.

[Marshall]

Not damn likely. BillG has more net worth than entire countries.

Yeah, but China and other countries can magically print money from thin air.

[Hook]

Although China has $1.3 Trillion in treasury bills. So I guess you are right. I doubt they would waste their money on something like that though.
I think the private ownership idea is great. I donated some money to the Nature Conservancy to buy acerage in South America for a wildlife refuge. I trust the NC more than I trust Bill Clinton with public land. When you complain about pollution and land destruction, think of who owns the land being destroyed. Who owns the clear-cut land? It is the government.
Out here in the West, the Feds own about 3/4 of the land in Nevada and Utah. It is mostly barren desert, but they will never sell any of it because of the ridiculous laws on the books.

[mconder]

I bet china could outbid bill gates.

I would not favor auctioning off U.S. public lands to anyone but the U.S. public (i.e. citizen). I would not even favor corporations buying it up. I would sell it only to private citizens and see were it goes from there. It's a rediculous idea to let China come and buy half the U.S. National Parks and do what they will with them. un-libertarian you say? Screw that! Additionally, international companies should have no interest in U.S. land ownership, though I would welcome them to lease our land.

[foofighter20x]

Not trying to be a naysayer here, but this plan runs into problems on Day 2. His proposal is in direct violation of the 25th Amendment.

First, they'd need to repeal that.
Next, they'd either have to pass a law or amendment authorizing such a thing, as elections are a reserved power of the state government. In other words, they'd have to realize the 10th Amendment stands in their way and work to get the power from the state.