Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › National/Public Parks
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) National/Public Parks (Read 3190 times)
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #20 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 7:35am
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:04pm:
Ok, so let me try to understand this... if it's ok for the Russian Government to sell "administrative authority over the land" to the U.S. Government then why is it not equally acceptable for the United States Government to sell the "administrative authority over the land" to another entity?


"Adminstrative authority" refers to "legal jurisdiction" by government where the law of the government are enforced. This relates to the "people' living in the territory of legal jurisdiction and does not related to the land. I seriously doubt that the US government is going to "sell" it's legal jurisdiction over "Yellowstone Park" as that would result in US law no longer having any effect in that territory.

Of course we understand that resorting to playing "word games" is actually an admission that a valid argument cannot be presented.

The government does not "own the land" and has no authority to sell or give away that which it does not own.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #21 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 11:25am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 12th, 2013 at 7:35am:
"Adminstrative authority" refers to "legal jurisdiction" by government where the law of the government are enforced. This relates to the "people' living in the territory of legal jurisdiction and does not related to the land. I seriously doubt that the US government is going to "sell" it's legal jurisdiction over "Yellowstone Park" as that would result in US law no longer having any effect in that territory.

Of course we understand that resorting to playing "word games" is actually an admission that a valid argument cannot be presented.

The government does not "own the land" and has no authority to sell or give away that which it does not own.

I disagree 100%. The Government has given some partial authority over to Tribal governments and their land. Why not give partial authority over yellowstone park to the Audobon Society or other non-profits?

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than having the government in charge and letting the place go to hell as a result of mismanagement.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2119
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #22 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 11:54am
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 9:50pm:
Then only the ultra rich would own that land. And that's BS. What about the little guy. Im an outdoorsman but I'm no hippy ree hugger. But my one thing that makes me wary is during the 20's 30's and so on. Big buiness ran rampant with pollution so your saying sell the land to highest bidder some of the most beautiful places in the country. Let them pillage the land for a buck. So in a true libertarian society if your rich enough you could essentially own half the the countries land with its resources and sell and pillage it. I'm anti war, small government and consider myself financially conservative. But I'm slowly losing faith in calling myself a libertarian. Even though libertarian is a broad term





Big business was given the 'right' to pollute by... guess who. Big business existed because they were given such advantages by ... guess who. Business cartels exist today thanks to ... guess who?

What about the flipside of this argument. What makes you think privately owned parks would be worse than state run parks? Why couldn't the so-called hippies buy the park and maintain it? How would businesses make a profit on these parks, if they destroy them? Mind you, the government did not create any of these parks. The government confiscated Mt Rushmore, which was privately built.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #23 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 12:38pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 12th, 2013 at 11:25am:
This makes a hell of a lot more sense than having the government in charge and letting the place go to hell as a result of mismanagement.

Dennis, haven't you been reading Shiva's posts? Government isThy Omnibenevolent Superior which is why we need it to guide over all of us mere inferior individuals.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #24 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 12:59pm
Print Post  
Now we've spun into a discussion about if you truly "own" land or not.

In b4 discussion about homesteading.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #25 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 1:08pm
Print Post  
So what do you guys think about Blocks theory of "negative" homesteading? Can you "homestead" misery?


  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nubber
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 14
Location: Above FL
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #26 - Dec 12th, 2013 at 9:29pm
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 9:53pm:
When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.

I guess I'm the libertarian environmentalist of this page .....haha


I am with you.  Keeping and protecting land that deserves to be protected doesn't require government involvement or coercion.  The public can collectively decide to protect these lands.  I believe in economic freedom as much as anyone here but we have to be a touch pragmatic about it.  When we are all standing on a scorched, barren, and polluted earth we may feel a little differently about our past choices.
  

"We forfeit three quarters of ourselves to be like other people" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #27 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:30am
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 12th, 2013 at 11:25am:
I disagree 100%. The Government has given some partial authority over to Tribal governments and their land. Why not give partial authority over yellowstone park to the Audobon Society or other non-profits?

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than having the government in charge and letting the place go to hell as a result of mismanagement.


Actually the "Indian Nations" are considered sovereign nations unde the US Constitution and any federal authority over them was granted by the Nations themselves. Of course we have problems in that the US government has NOT complied with the treaties it's signed with the "Indian Nations" such and the territorial land of the Sioux nation over the Black Hills.

By treaty literally all of the non-Souix living in the Black Hills should be evicted as they're living on tribal lands granted by treaty agreement that was illegally occupied in the 19th Century. The "non-native land owners" are there in violation of the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties and under the Rule of Law do not have a valid claim to the land they're in possession of.

I don't have a particular problem with a private entity being the trustee of public land but that does not include ownership of the land. Of course many "Americans" would also object to the Audobon Society being the trustee as they would probably prevent development and dramatically reduce access to a place like Yellowstone National Park.   

We should also note that when a "territory" became a "state" that the public lands should have come under "state" jurisdictional authority. Remember that the federal government did not "own" the land to begin with nor would the "state" own the land either.

Government does not have a "Right of Property" and no individual can claim actual ownership of the "Earth" and they did not create the Earth with their labor. Based upon the political ideology of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" a "person" cannot own land and, at best, has a limited right to "Use the Land" so long as they don't violate any other "person's" similar right to "Use the Land" (Rights cannot infringe upon another person's Rights).

I repeatedly bring up this point that our understanding of "Ownership of Land" is based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" which is juxtaposed to the Inalienable Rights of the Person when we deal with the Right of Property related to land. The belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" was rejected in the United States when it was founded but we continue to resort to the "Divine Right of Kings" whenever it benefits the "elite" in society.   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #28 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:40am
Print Post  
This might also be a good place to address another issue of "federal lands" as it related to BLM lands. These lands are often leased out generally to cattle ranches based upon public bids.

In Arizona, where my parents live, there have been environmental groups that have entered the "bidding wars" with the cattle ranchers. They can come up with more money for a five year lease than the cattle ranches and "win the bid" for the use of the land. This results in a dramatic reduction in the size of the cattle ranches so that in five years, when the bidding process starts over, they can't afford to bid on the land and won't for fear that after five years they'll lose it again. In fact, without the BLM lands, many of these cattle ranchers have simply gone out of business.

The "environmentalists" win overall because a single high bid results in forcing the ranchers off the BLM lands permanently.

I'm not saying this is a "bad" thing per se because it is based upon "capitalism" but it does introduce an interesting aspect. In truth, over the long run, the government actually receives less revenue and the lands go unused completely eventually returning to a natural state. 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #29 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:41am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:30am:
Actually the "Indian Nations" are considered sovereign nations unde the US Constitution and any federal authority over them was granted by the Nations themselves. Of course we have problems in that the US government has NOT complied with the treaties it's signed with the "Indian Nations" such and the territorial land of the Sioux nation over the Black Hills.

By treaty literally all of the non-Souix living in the Black Hills should be evicted as they're living on tribal lands granted by treaty agreement that was illegally occupied in the 19th Century. The "non-native land owners" are there in violation of the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties and under the Rule of Law do not have a valid claim to the land they're in possession of.

I don't have a particular problem with a private entity being the trustee of public land but that does not include ownership of the land. Of course many "Americans" would also object to the Audobon Society being the trustee as they would probably prevent development and dramatically reduce access to a place like Yellowstone National Park.

We should also note that when a "territory" became a "state" that the public lands should have come under "state" jurisdictional authority. Remember that the federal government did not "own" the land to begin with nor would the "state" own the land either.

Government does not have a "Right of Property" and no individual can claim actual ownership of the "Earth" and they did not create the Earth with their labor. Based upon the political ideology of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" a "person" cannot own land and, at best, has a limited right to "Use the Land" so long as they don't violate any other "person's" similar right to "Use the Land" (Rights cannot infringe upon another person's Rights).

I repeatedly bring up this point that our understanding of "Ownership of Land" is based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" which is juxtaposed to the Inalienable Rights of the Person when we deal with the Right of Property related to land. The belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" was rejected in the United States when it was founded but we continue to resort to the "Divine Right of Kings" whenever it benefits the "elite" in society.


So government can't own land, and people can't own land.

Therefore, we need a government to give us legal jurisdiction over a certain piece of land?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › National/Public Parks
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy