Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: High federal ownership of land  (Read 3899 times)

Rod Allen

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
High federal ownership of land
« on: June 08, 2003, 01:38:04 pm »

Learned of FSP one hour ago and got very excited.
I have had similar thoughts for several years and welcome this forum.

One quick question.
The FAQs indicate that the FSP prefers states that have a high percentage of land owned be the federal gov.
I view this as a point of leverage that can be exploited by the feds.
Any thoughts?
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2003, 01:49:42 pm »


The FAQs indicate that the FSP prefers states that have a high percentage of land owned be the federal gov.
I view this as a point of leverage that can be exploited by the feds.


I'm not concerned with how much land the feds have, as long as there's some left over for us, where we have the rights of a State.

Hong Kong isn't very big, and they made out pretty well.
No matter how small our State is, we'll have better than "Most Favored Nation" trading status with the U.S., and don't need a passport to travel to the other 49.  Pretty nice.

Logged

Karl

  • Guest
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2003, 02:28:31 pm »

One quick question.
The FAQs indicate that the FSP prefers states that have a high percentage of land owned be the federal gov.
I view this as a point of leverage that can be exploited by the feds.
Any thoughts?

I think you may have misunderstood.  We favor states with LESS government ownership of land for precisely the reason you stated.  Where in the FAQ did you see this?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2003, 02:30:19 pm by Karl »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5723
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2003, 05:41:52 pm »

Hi Rod, welcome to the forum!

You must be referring to the "Theory" section on the State Data page.  There it says that high federal land ownership could be a positive, or could be a negative for us.  Obviously our goal is to have zero federal land ownership in our state, except land for federal buildings as constitutionally authorized.  But the idea is that significant federal ownership might give us an issue on which to campaign.  The negative, as you mention, is possible interference by the federal government (I don't know if "leverage" is the right word there - leverage would exist if they could credibly threaten to take over more land if we did stuff they didn't like).  So different people will have different opinions about whether federal land ownership is a good or bad thing for the purpose of choosing a state.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2003, 12:33:34 am »

One quick question.
The FAQs indicate that the FSP prefers states that have a high percentage of land owned be the federal gov.
I view this as a point of leverage that can be exploited by the feds.
Any thoughts?

I think you may have misunderstood.  We favor states with LESS government ownership of land for precisely the reason you stated.  Where in the FAQ did you see this?

Karl, check the states data page or the spreadsheet.  Most of us think a higher percentage is better and for good reasons.  

States with high federal land ownership are also the states that are the most anti-federal government power in the nation.  States like NV, WY, ID, AK and MT.  These states are wonderful in that the voters are very friendly to many of our ideas simply because many of our ideas center around the state taking over such and such from the feds.  

These are the states the constantly challenge the feds.  They feds do great damage to all states but these are the states that are more likely to challenge the feds.  And some of them, such as Wyoming, usually win, even without our 20,000 friends to support them.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2003, 12:34:06 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

Michelle

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2003, 08:41:11 am »

Karl, check the states data page or the spreadsheet.  Most of us think a higher percentage is better and for good reasons.  

I don't agree with this statement. The only FSP members I've talked to who seem to think a higher percentage is better are those who  favor a state with a higher percentage. Personally, I can see both sides, but I think the odds are much higher that we would find a high percentage of federal land to be a major negative.
Logged
Please join NHLA today! http://www.nhliberty.org With every new member we gain political weight to support liberty-friendly candidates and promote liberty throughout NH.
Support the Liberty Scholarship Fund. Please make a donation today! http://www.lsfund.org

Karl

  • Guest
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2003, 09:13:27 am »

Okay, I see the spot in the state data page where it favors high federal ownership:

Quote
Another aspect of viability that is occasionally mentioned is federal land ownership. More federal land ownership might mean an excuse for federal meddling in the state, but it could also mean a legitimate grievance for the state's citizens. From observing the politics of states like Idaho, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming, it is clear that federal ownership of land is on balance a positive for us, because the issue is a burning one for voters. (emphasis added).

I likewise can see it both ways.  However, the battles ensuing in these states can be equally viewed as evidence of attempts at Federal leverage over these states.  It might make for an angry electorate, but if the Feds have us pinned, how much can that anger be leveraged?  This hasn't been quantified.  Similarly, I could say that the anger generated by high taxes in ME and VT are a "net postive" for those states, so we should choose one of them, yet that would be viewed as absurd.

Is it possible that some biased analysis snuck into the state data description?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2003, 10:34:36 am by Karl »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5723
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2003, 09:27:24 am »

Well, the reason it would be absurd to say high taxes are an advantage is that high taxes are an indicator of the state's willingness to accept them, whereas no such thing is true of federal land ownership.  But I'll remove the "it is clear" portion from the State Data page.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

cannon

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
  • Mostly Harmless
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2003, 10:12:51 am »

Okay, I see the spot in the state data page where it favors high federal ownership:

Quote
Another aspect of viability that is occasionally mentioned is federal land ownership. More federal land ownership might mean an excuse for federal meddling in the state, but it could also mean a legitimate grievance for the state's citizens. From observing the politics of states like Idaho, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming, it is clear that federal ownership of land is on balance a positive for us, because the issue is a burning one for voters. (emphasis added).

I likewise can see it both ways.  However, the battles ensuing in these states can be equally viewed as evidence of attempts at Federal leverage over these states.  It might make for an angry electorate, but if the Feds have us pinned, how much can that anger be leveraged?  This hasn't been quantified.  Similarly, I could say that the anger generated by high taxes in ME and VT are a "net postive" for those states, so we should one of them, yet that would be viewed as absurd.
cription?

I don't know how much money the Federal government currently spends on federal lands in a given state, but isn't it possible to take the funds used to administer those lands and use them as a bargaining chip in Congress?

For example, if the US legislators for the Freestate approach the legislators from California and say, "We want your support for an amendment to bill X that diverts all funds from Freestate to the state of California that are normally used to fund federal lands in Freestate. In exchange, we want that same amendment to remove all Federal authority over those lands in Freestate."

Even if there's not much money at stake, I would be surprised if California legislators turned it down.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2003, 10:14:37 am by cannon »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:High federal ownership of land
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2003, 01:52:13 am »

I don't know how much money the Federal government currently spends on federal lands in a given state, but isn't it possible to take the funds used to administer those lands and use them as a bargaining chip in Congress?

Administration of national parks should be the highest federal expense apart from military installations because of the need to staff them.  Other tracts of BLM land are mainly just fenced off and occasionally patroled.

And, yes, we could make the case about how turning that land back over to the state saves the federal government money.  The expense of maintaining BLM land is probably not all that great when you compare it to the rest of the budget, but it would probably appeal to more frugal lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Pages: [1]   Go Up