The Property Clause and Its Discontents: Lessons from the Malheur Occupation

[SuburbanFarmer]

That series gave me the impression that this was much more about congressional horse-trading, than any sort of "equality mandate".

As per usual, the book is much better. The key point I took out of the book is actually how well Congress worked together, and worked hard to ensure equality between the states. Made me envious of a time long past.

All the big square flyover states were made up with a rule of thumb of 3 degrees by 4 degrees on lat/long. With modifications for certain geography. Making states equal is a huge part of our history. We need to honor that again.

I'm sure it was an ideal, when they were being created.. but that doesn't relate to modern Federal land control, does it?

[C-Mag]

That series gave me the impression that this was much more about congressional horse-trading, than any sort of "equality mandate".

As per usual, the book is much better. The key point I took out of the book is actually how well Congress worked together, and worked hard to ensure equality between the states. Made me envious of a time long past.

All the big square flyover states were made up with a rule of thumb of 3 degrees by 4 degrees on lat/long. With modifications for certain geography. Making states equal is a huge part of our history. We need to honor that again.

I'm sure it was an ideal, when they were being created.. but that doesn't relate to modern Federal land control, does it?

Why not.


What's the case for the Federal Government keeping it? It's a stark contrast across the country. The feds gave up the great plains, the Mississippi Valley, the Great Lakes, the Smokeys, the Appalachains, but they wont' let go fo the Rocky Mountain West and far West, why ?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

[C-Mag]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

So, if you are a citizen of the West, you are relegated to turning down sheets and flipping burgers for wealthy urbanites on vacation ?
Because that is exactly what is happening.

You tell me why the government should not balance the percentage of land owned in the states, buy up land in New England and restore the land? It's better ecologically to have a balance from sea to sea, rather than just a corridor along the Rocky Mountains.

[jbird4049]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

So, if you are a citizen of the West, you are relegated to turning down sheets and flipping burgers for wealthy urbanites on vacation ?
Because that is exactly what is happening.

You tell me why the government should not balance the percentage of land owned in the states, buy up land in New England and restore the land? It's better ecologically to have a balance from sea to sea, rather than just a corridor along the Rocky Mountains.

As a citizen of one of those Western States, I'm not so sure about that shifting landownership now, would be anything but be an opportunity for the elites to steal it all.

Also Nevada has no there there. It's basically the central Rockies, with bonus desert. Not many people can live there, so unless you propose giving Nevadans vast individual swaths of nothing, why bother? I suppose one could make a case for better redistribution of Federal land in California but, if our government is not completely corrupt, it would stay locked up. We already have a very hard time supplying the water needed for almost forty million people, and adding more land for population growth would be a bad thing. if we could keep the population stable maybe?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

So, if you are a citizen of the West, you are relegated to turning down sheets and flipping burgers for wealthy urbanites on vacation ?
Because that is exactly what is happening.

You tell me why the government should not balance the percentage of land owned in the states, buy up land in New England and restore the land? It's better ecologically to have a balance from sea to sea, rather than just a corridor along the Rocky Mountains.

Because you can't just bulldoze a strip mall and wait for wolves to show up. That shit would cost a hell of a lot more than the dumbass border wall.

[C-Mag]

As a citizen of one of those Western States, I'm not so sure about that shifting landownership now, would be anything but be an opportunity for the elites to steal it all.

Also Nevada has no there there. It's basically the central Rockies, with bonus desert. Not many people can live there, so unless you propose giving Nevadans vast individual swaths of nothing, why bother? I suppose one could make a case for better redistribution of Federal land in California but, if our government is not completely corrupt, it would stay locked up. We already have a very hard time supplying the water needed for almost forty million people, and adding more land for population growth would be a bad thing. if we could keep the population stable maybe?

I get that.
I would prefer a new Homestead Act, made for the modern era that still requires the land to be your primary residence. This would distribute wealth and give Americans, and perhaps Immigrants who are willing to work hard the chance at a future outside of the government dole.

The idea that we need to maintain these massive Mega-Cities in desert environment is insane, especially as resources become more strained. If I were King, there are some cities that would just fade away. Vegas would go back to a small cow town by the year 2100. The solution to pollution is dilution. What in the hell do we really gain from these Mega-Cities ?

[C-Mag]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

So, if you are a citizen of the West, you are relegated to turning down sheets and flipping burgers for wealthy urbanites on vacation ?
Because that is exactly what is happening.

You tell me why the government should not balance the percentage of land owned in the states, buy up land in New England and restore the land? It's better ecologically to have a balance from sea to sea, rather than just a corridor along the Rocky Mountains.

Because you can't just bulldoze a strip mall and wait for wolves to show up. That shit would cost a hell of a lot more than the dumbass border wall.

Start in Detroit and the Rust Belt. The Southside of Chicago isn't doing us much good. Not that many people there are property owners, lots of slum lords. Get rid of them.

Wildlife comes back quickly when given a chance. We should have Wolves in New England, you can't tell me it wouldn't help trim the deer populations.

[jbird4049]

Wildlife comes back quickly when given a chance. We should have Wolves in New England, you can't tell me it wouldn't help trim the deer populations.

I like deer, but they can turn into hoofed locusts easily. As much as I would worry for my pets as we already have coyotes that like them foodwise, a few wolves would help with the deer nicely. But coyotes already make Californians nuts, as sometimes mountain lions do too. Not bobcats, or bears although I've never see bears outside the mountains.

If we added wolves, it would be an experiment in fear control. I just wonder how New Englanders would do compared to Californians.

[Okeefenokee]

Probably because those areas were protected in time to save them from being paved over. Have you been to New England? There isn't an inch that isn't paved and covered with shopping malls (relatively).

Also, all of our remaining mega-fauna is in the West - for the same reasons. I'm just thankful that we stopped when we did, or there'd be nothing left.

Maine,


Vermont,


New Hampshire,


Pennsylvania,


New York,


Connecticut,