Interesting graphic: percentage of each state owned by the feds

[Tod]

New Hampshire is a lot higher than I realized! Nevada is incredibly awful! For some reason, I can't include the picture; not sure why, but when I click "OK" on the dialogue box, it hangs up. Sorry.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/27208_10150112247955058_7590830_n.jpg

[Dr.3D]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/27208_10150112247955058_7590830_n.jpg
Why should they own any of it?

[Tod]

Thanks, Dr. 3D....+rep

[Tod]

Another interesting graphic would be the percentage of land in each state owned by the state.

I saw NV, but AK is even worse, according to this table: http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

[Dr.3D]

Golly, I wonder if they are paying property taxes on all that land.

[muzzled dogg]

Golly, I wonder if they are paying property taxes on all that land.

!!!!

[Carson]

I've always looked at this as our public land.

Most of what is held in California is only being held to insure we can all use it. It seems some have lost sight of this fact and may need to be removed.

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW, there's a company in AZ selling ranch land in those areas. Just call 1 800 BIG LAND. I don't know anything about the company except they've been advertising on teh radio for years and years in Phoenix.

[Pisces]

In Texas, private ownership of beaches is not allowed. I'm not sure if that means that the state is considered the official owner of all the beaches, though. This may not be very libertarian of me, but I kind of like this law because it has kept the super rich from buying up all the beach land and making it off limits to the public.

[heavenlyboy34]

In Texas, private ownership of beaches is not allowed. I'm not sure if that means that the state is considered the official owner of all the beaches, though. This may not be very libertarian of me, but I kind of like this law because it has kept the super rich from buying up all the beach land and making it off limits to the public.
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.

[mad cow]

Looks like,by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be,they purchased a lot of land for the Erection of Forts,Magazines,Arsenals,dock-Yards and other needful buildings in States west of the Rocky Mountains.

[Pisces]

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.

It's not a huge issue to me but I like it kept public so that everyone can enjoy the beach. (There are no fenced off areas.) I've never claimed to be a libertarian. This law was actually part of the legacy of the populist movement of the late 19th century, although I can see where it might be seen as socialist.

[Tod]

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

[Pisces]

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

Thanks. You explain what I was getting at better than I did.

[dancjm]

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

I totally sympathize with what you are saying. Although, taken to it's full conclusion, this mentality is in danger of leading us towards something like this:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-2qPAnr7cLgQ/T8KeU7UrSuI/AAAAAAAANks/dUbqhbKX9F8/wildlands-map-2010_Merrit%25255B4%25255D.jpg

The argument you make, that, "what could have been a really pleasant scene was spoiled by people who weren't even there to enjoy it themselves."

Is, by some people, developed into "what could have been a really pleasant scene was spoiled by people." - Period.

[helmuth_hubener]

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?

[opal]

Florida's percentage on that map really surprises me.. with all the military bases and VA properties.. I would have thought it was higher. Eglin AFB is HUGE by itself.. and there are lots of others. hmmm

[ronpaulfollower999]

Stupid rich people violating my "right" to see and access the beach.

:rolleyes:

[TonySutton]

People could gather to form a private trust that would purchase and administer land in a way that allows the public to utilize it. The state does not need to own land for it to be preserved and used by the public. There are always equivalent private options.

[Dr.3D]

People could gather to form a private trust that would purchase and administer land in a way that allows the public to utilize it. The state does not need to own land for it to be preserved and used by the public. There are always equivalent private options.
Humm.. sort of makes me wonder if I could leave my land to the state to be used by my sons as they wish in perpetuity. This way my sons would have the land to use, but the state would be paying the taxes on it.

:D

[donnay]

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


http://thebullshitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Screen-shot-2011-11-17-at-1.22.17-PM.png


New Hampshire is in 100% of this travesty.

[Dr.3D]

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


http://thebullshitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Screen-shot-2011-11-17-at-1.22.17-PM.png


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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o

[Dr.3D]

This is for the war on drugs and border patrol.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o
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.

[DamianTV]

New Hampshire is a lot higher than I realized! Nevada is incredibly awful! For some reason, I can't include the picture; not sure why, but when I click "OK" on the dialogue box, it hangs up. Sorry.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/27208_10150112247955058_7590830_n.jpg

Can you put up a NON FACEBOOK version of this image somewhere?

[Tinnuhana]

NH = White Mtns Ntl Parks

[helmuth_hubener]

A bow and arrow or a spear through the heart can quell those urges of yours to abrogate arbitrarily in a hurry. Abrogate what, Rev9? Oh yes: abrogate the rights of others. So you are saying that others have rights concerning this right-of-way or whatever it is. And that is all that I said as well. I'm glad we're in agreement. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but if you would have continued reading to the second paragraph (!) then you would have learned already that the need to put an arrow through my heart was a false alarm.

[The Free Hornet]

Can you put up a NON FACEBOOK version of this image somewhere?

The rpf server?

1592

[ZenBowman]

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

Rev9

Exactly.

There's not going to be much freedom if you have to pay at a bunch of toll-booths every time you want to get from point A to B.

The "right to roam" is a natural right that predates property rights.

[DamianTV]

Wow! Yeah, do look at Nevada! #1 is Foreclosures, Unemployment and Bankruptcy, dead last in Education. I wonder if there is a pattern appearing here...

[pacu44]

Agenda 21 in full effect? low populated areas make it easy to exectue?