Bunkerville NV escalating.

[IndyGunworks]

If one wants to press the broken contract issue then Bundy still should have stayed off the land. Let's say your rent contract says that your landlord has to handle any repairs on the property. He doesn't, so he is in breach of the contract. Do you move out or just squat in the rental you now don't pay for?

I could get behind selling federal lands.

I've been studying a bit on the western frontier safety valve theory. It really seems like it may be what we need to jump start out of our current stagnation.

I don't think the land should be sold off all in bulk, that would destroy the real estate market and more than likely wreck the economy. Sell it off bits at a time for an affordable, though not rock bottom price, to lower and middle class individuals. Drain some of the overcrowding in cities with attractive western real estate prices. I wouldn't let it all fall to speculators though, the process only works when the poorer segments of society are directly receiving the land. I would make an exception for businesses that would provide jobs for newcomers. Has to be something to get them to stay there once they settle.

Would deflate land prices a bit in currently settled areas; I'm not sure if that would cause problems. Lowering population density in urban areas would lessen job competition as laborers moved west.

Idea needs refining, but a viable option in my book.

Do you really think this could be done w/out corruption?

 

[Henry]

Bunkerville

Bunker Hill

Good story line.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you deny the role of the Federal government in what is primarily land acquisitions outside of the 13 original colonies, I think you would have a very skewed view of the Louisiana Purchase, Seward's Folly and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

For every Bundy, there have been thousands of happy ranchers who got their lands by government grants under homesteading provisions, profitable resource extraction companies under mining allotments, development of large cities under government civil engineering programs such as the Hoover Dam.

There really has been no major program in the history of this country that did not require government assistance. I've tried to think of one, but can't recall any.

Government action in expansion of the land area of the country and in selected public works is one thing. Government control of approximately 1/3 of the land area of the United States in perpetuity is something entirely different for which no proper authority exists.

 

[BogWalker]

Do you really think this could be done w/out corruption?

No. That's why I want to ensure it doesn't go to speculators, but in the 1800's homesteading programs they had similar guidelines and it still didn't help. I can not say how it would go over without corruption.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Homesteading act of 2017 (it could happen).

 

[billt]

Sen. Reid calls supporters of Nevada rancher Bundy 'domestic terrorists' | Fox News

Walking turd Harry Reid is now calling people who support him, "Domestic Terrorists".

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sen. Reid calls supporters of Nevada rancher Bundy 'domestic terrorists' | Fox News

Walking turd Harry Reid is now calling people who support him, "Domestic Terrorists".

Being called 'domestic terrorists' by a traitor. Isn't that rich?

 

[Trooper]

Government action in expansion of the land area of the country and in selected public works is one thing. Government control of approximately 1/3 of the land area of the United States in perpetuity is something entirely different for which no proper authority exists.

This is a hard issue. On one hand we need to get government out of land management. But on the other hand do we want to see the rich buy up most of the large tracts so that they have private hunting or ranching? Do we need some land that we all share to have as recreation or hunting or even grazing?

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is a hard issue. On one hand we need to get government out of land management. But on the other hand do we want to see the rich buy up most of the large tracts so that they have private hunting or ranching? Do we need some land that we all share to have as recreation or hunting or even grazing?

My thoughts are that the .gov needs to be out of the business and it needs to be done by auctioning parcels small enough to be affordable to the average buyer, not in chunks of thousands or tens of thousands of acres thus rigging the auction in favor of the few with tons of money, like they did selling the FEMA trailers in lots of a hundred or more units per lot.

If we are going to have land set aside for hunting, ranching, or having picnics while evading Yogi Bear's picnic basket-stealing antics, such land should be ceded to the states to manage which would seem to fit with the Tenth Amendment so far as such activity is outside the authority delegated to the federal government.

 

[Trooper]

My thoughts are that the .gov needs to be out of the business and it needs to be done by auctioning parcels small enough to be affordable to the average buyer, not in chunks of thousands or tens of thousands of acres thus rigging the auction in favor of the few with tons of money, like they did selling the FEMA trailers in lots of a hundred or more units per lot.

If we are going to have land set aside for hunting, ranching, or having picnics while evading Yogi Bear's picnic basket-stealing antics, such land should be ceded to the states to manage which would seem to fit with the Tenth Amendment so far as such activity is outside the authority delegated to the federal government.

Good points. Let the states deal with managing this land, not the feds.

 

[Manatee]

Government action in expansion of the land area of the country and in selected public works is one thing. Government control of approximately 1/3 of the land area of the United States in perpetuity is something entirely different for which no proper authority exists.

Are you certain? Can you point to a law or Constitutional element?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are you certain? Can you point to a law or Constitutional element?

It is the absence thereof. A crucial and frequently overlooked fact is that the Constitution was designed not as a list of limits on the federal government but rather a list of delegated functions and points of authority with the Bill of Rights added to emphasize some things which are out of bounds for the federal government (and addresses the fact that the BoR is not a comprehensive list). In short, if the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to do something, it does not have authority to so it. I have yet to see where the federal government is delegated authority to directly manage and/or control major portions of interior territory. This is a far cry from the authority to maintain forts, magazines, harbors, and other needful buildings.

 

[Henry]

It is the absence thereof. A crucial and frequently overlooked fact is that the Constitution was designed not as a list of limits on the federal government but rather a list of delegated functions and points of authority with the Bill of Rights added to emphasize some things which are out of bounds for the federal government (and addresses the fact that the BoR is not a comprehensive list). In short, if the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to do something, it does not have authority to so it. I have yet to see where the federal government is delegated authority to directly manage and/or control major portions of interior territory. This is a far cry from the authority to maintain forts, magazines, harbors, and other needful buildings.

Well said.

If only others would read.

 

[Trooper]

It is the absence thereof. A crucial and frequently overlooked fact is that the Constitution was designed not as a list of limits on the federal government but rather a list of delegated functions and points of authority with the Bill of Rights added to emphasize some things which are out of bounds for the federal government (and addresses the fact that the BoR is not a comprehensive list). In short, if the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to do something, it does not have authority to so it. I have yet to see where the federal government is delegated authority to directly manage and/or control major portions of interior territory. This is a far cry from the authority to maintain forts, magazines, harbors, and other needful buildings.

If the feds want to insure that the land is maintained as a single tract, they have to give funding to the states when the give the land. Otherwise it would be like Ft Harrison were the land went to the local community and the mayor gave great deals to his buddies. Same thing happened with Ft Sheridan north of Chicago.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If the feds want to insure that the land is maintained as a single tract, they have to give funding to the states when the give the land. Otherwise it would be like Ft Harrison were the land went to the local community and the mayor gave great deals to his buddies. Same thing happened with Ft Sheridan north of Chicago.

Just think of how this could have gone down in a different way had the feds broken it down into manageable parcels and had a direct auction open to everyone AS IT SHOULD BE rather than preemptively making it unavailable to any but the politically connected.

 

[Trooper]

Just think of how this could have gone down in a different way had the feds broken it down into manageable parcels and had a direct auction open to everyone AS IT SHOULD BE rather than preemptively making it unavailable to any but the politically connected.

One reason that the democrats, especially the progressives, have made inroads is that the politically connected gamed the system. We need constitutional protections from them as much as the tyrants.

 

[Henry]

We need constitutional protections from them as much as the tyrants.

What, exactly, is the difference?

Same question regarding Republicans?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Are you certain? Can you point to a law or Constitutional element?

Article 1, Section 8.

The concept of having large amounts of land under government stewardship is a concept with which the American people have become accustomed and which I believe they favor. The problem is that these millions of acres being held in the west by the federal government are held illegally under the plain language of the Constitution.

Should this land be returned to the states it would be political suicide for politicians to attempt to sell it in large tracts to wealthy spectulators.

 

[RockofStrength]

And suddenly all those hypothetical "what will the NDAA mean for honest Americans" discussions don't feel so far out any longer.

» Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters ?Domestic Terrorists? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[billt]

Even Andrew Napolitano on Fox News says this guy is going to have to pay the piper. I was surprised. He usually sides with most anyone against the government in matters like this. I think it's more how the Feds handled it than anything else. Coming in with attack dogs, etc.