Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "public" Lands don't belong to us

  1. #1

    Default

    "public" Lands Don’t Belong To Us

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "PUBLIC" LANDS DON’T BELONG TO US

    Tuesday, February 14, 2006

    In the wake of the Bush Administration’s reported decision to sell off a pretty large portion of what are misleadingly called “public” lands—including 85,000 acres of national forest land in California—many who speak out in behalf of the special interest groups championing keeping these lands under government control are protesting. The Los Angeles Times reports, for examples, that Professor of environmental history, Char Miller of Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, chimed in with the this tidbit in response to the Bush Administration’s initiative: "This is a fire sale of public lands. It is utterly unprecedented." He added that "[i]t signals that the lands and the agency that manages them are in deep trouble. For the American public, it is an awful way to understand that it no longer controls its public land."

    What is worth special attention in this comment is the unselfconscious way that idea of “public land” is conflated with land that the American public controls. In point of fact, the only land members of the American public control is their own, their private property. The so called public lands are the farthest things from what the American public controls.

    Here is an example. I live in Silverado Canyon, in Orange County, California, which is adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest—the canyon community consists of a population of about 3000 people who all own their own pieces of land ranging in size from as small as 3500 square feet to several acres and some few larger parcels, including a church and a horse ranch. But next to this oasis of pieces of private property stands the huge national forest and it is controlled not by the American public at all but by some bureaucrats, including rangers, who do with it what they choose. Most often, for example, the forest is shut down—“Gate closed”—so no one may enter either on foot or by vehicle. One reason given recently is that some toad that’s deemed to be endangered might get crushed if people were to amble about there. Anyone who would like to take a walk there is shut out, period. Those who might use the dirt road and climb up to the crest of the Santa Ana Mountain, maybe descend down into Riverside County, are without any control of these “public” lands.

    I am sure that were I in a position to be addressing the good professor from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, with these points, I would receive an earnest lecture about democracy and how that system makes it perfectly legitimate to speak of “the American Public” controlling “public lands,” despite the fact that you and I and millions of other Americans have zero control at all concerning the way those lands are used. But democracy in the American political tradition was never to be used to authorize the federal government to wrest control of land around the country. Democracy was to be used for electing the administrators of our constitutional system of government.

    Instead of this, we now have a dictatorship of the portion of the citizenry that votes in various politicians who, in turn, appoint various regulators who then proceed to control whatever comes under so called “public” jurisdiction, including huge forests and other lands around America. This bunch is nothing but a special interest group that has a firm grip on very valuable property around the country, calling the shots about how that property is to be used.

    Perhaps their idea of how to use this property is sound, perhaps it is not, perhaps it varies from parcel to parcel. But that’s not important. What’s important is that to call all this the American public’s control of public lands is either confused or an out and out, deliberate ruse by which some people get to control land while all the rest of us are forced to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of these lands without any say about its use.

    The concept of “public” has served these people well, I must admit. They have managed to expropriate for themselves all kinds of valuable properties by pretending to the rest of us that they are the guardians of what “we” own and supposedly control. This, of course, goes contrary to the idea of the unalienable individual rights doctrine that the American founders sketched out in the Declaration of Independence and included in the Bill of Rights.

    Sadly, over the two centuries since these documents were written, various forces, including some deplorable jurisprudence—of which the last clear example was the Summer 2005 Kelo v. City of New London, CT, ruling of the US Supreme Court—have undermined the individual rights framework. In its place has been substituted the collectivism under which government ownership of much of the country is now virtually taken for granted and promoted vigorously by the likes of Professor Miller.

    I am no great fan of George W. Bush’s administration but I must raise my voice in support of the little bit it’s trying to do to restore private ownership of land, a significant portion of the means of production, which these basically socialist forces in our nation are trying to oppose. Just recall that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels listed the abolition of private property as the first step on the way to communism in their Communist Manifesto. We are a pretty long way there now.

    http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/117/379...d=3791&wid=117
    __________________

  2. #2
    Just Empty Every Pocket Zookeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Lansing
    Posts
    538

    Default

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yetti &#064; Feb 19 2006, 06&#58;23 PM) [snapback]10615[/snapback]</div>
    Instead of this, we now have a dictatorship of the portion of the citizenry that votes in various politicians who, in turn, appoint various regulators who then proceed to control whatever comes under so called “public” jurisdiction, including huge forests and other lands around America. This bunch is nothing but a special interest group that has a firm grip on very valuable property around the country, calling the shots about how that property is to be used.[/b]
    This, in microcosm form, is what&#39;s happening in Michigan with the DNR and DEQ, in case you haven&#39;t noticed. The bureaucrats and their "promulgated rules" are damn powerful. In fact, after a Supreme Court ruling in the late 1990s, it is now impossible for the Legislature to change such promulgated rules before they take effect. The Legislature must actually pass a law preventing such a rule or changing it. That&#39;s different than it used to be because the Legislature used to have right of review on new rules and the ability to amend them before they took effect.

    The problem with the new system is that we have to clutter the state&#39;s books with new laws every time there&#39;s a disagreement between what the bureaucrats think should be done with Michigan&#39;s "public" lands and what the elected officials think should happen. That also means that the rules take effect, people get screwed, and then the Legislature has to try to correct a problem that shouldn&#39;t have existed in the first place.

    Now, politicians are far from perfect. But, the bureaucrats are isolated in their cubicles and protected by Civil Service rules and union representation for the 30 years they want to work in state government. The elected officials are at least subject to getting the boot either via the voting booth or term limits.

    :bigemo_harabe_net-54:

    *climbs down off his soapbox*

    Ari Adler
    KD8CXP

    2003 lift-challenged TJ that's locked and loaded

  3. #3
    Long Forgotten GLFWDA Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redford, MI
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    I think after voting for Bush twice, I&#39;m through with the Bi-Partisan parties. They&#39;d rather whine behind the closed doors, and then laugh after screwing us over. I&#39;m already tired of Bush whoring the land to participate in this hobby of off-roading, and other related hobbies. This is just plain sickening to me.

    <throws mic to next person>

    RT

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2009, 01:35 PM
  2. Oppose the "Cash for Clunkers" Bill!
    By Jeeperz-Creeperz in forum General Chatter
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 31st, 2008, 04:00 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 12th, 2006, 11:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
respective-triangle
respective-triangle
respective-triangle
respective-triangle