5 ms·

The Great Republican Land Heist

26 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

dmix 11y ago
No better way to destroy an intellectual debate than prefacing your headline with Republican or Democrat: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ The fact the people involved in this are self described as "anti-government" and small-government, plus the entire issue is reducing federal control back into state law seems to only be an inconvenience... Trying to frame it outside of the scope of left vs right, rather than local vs federal control, doesn't seem to fit well into mainstream political discourse. Side note: single page article http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land-heist/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land... (admins?)
- rayiner 11y ago
  The ranchers might be anti-government, but the legislators passing laws in their favor are Republican.
  - dmix 11y ago
    Yes one specific republican started an organization, the only bill which passed only affected Utah and was never actually enforced. As it was state-level and federal agencies threaten to sue if Utah did. Bundy is from Oregon. Further more: >> One of ALEC’s model bills is the Eminent Domain Authority for Federal Lands Act, which, like Bundy, cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution to justify state seizure of federal land. (A spokesperson for ALEC disavowed Bundy and his actions.) The laws they are fighting are federal and mostly from the 1930s, enacted under the Hoover government, which was republican. This is about state vs federal rights, not left vs right. It should be framed as such.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Yes. Pro-rate destruction versus pro-environment is an issue that overwhelmingly falls along partisan lines. I dislike partisan bickering too, but on this issue it's clearly partisan.
      - dmix 11y ago
        Just because an issue was co-adopted by parties doesn't make it inherently a partisan political issue. Technically it opposes both parties in federal gov, as the representatives in question are state level and opposing any federal intervention.
        rayiner 11y ago
        It's not about federal intervention versus lack of. It's federal land. The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus grazing.
        dmix 11y ago
        > The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus grazing. Correct, that's the issue and the proposed solution is abolishing federal land control, transferring rights to state control, and therefore preventing federal intervention in grazing. >> 'But the stockmen’s ambition went further: they wanted the federal government to transfer control of all federal land, including the national parks, to the states.' The state legislators would still be free to enforce their own laws in that respect - technically they could themselves limit externalities or even enhance conservation. The parties involved (ie, ranchers) believe that they would be better served at the state level, a belief which was also held by many of those who were behind the constitution - whom they spare no time trumpeting.
        dibujante 11y ago
        Those parties might have more credibility if their act of protest wasn't wholesale environmental destruction. You can imagine that, were the state to take over, these people would settle for nothing less than the state withdrawing the protected status for this land. It's not about states' rights and never was.
fiatmoney 11y ago
What interest does a New Yorker or Californian have in owning 86% of Nevada? Why shouldn't the citizens of the state in question have the right to manage that land for the purposes they deem important?
- cjensen 11y ago
  The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. That's not a new thing: that precedent goes back to Day 1 of the United States, and maybe further. I've never heard Ranchers request the opportunity to purchase the land. They just want to use it as if they owned it.
  - ericras 11y ago
    With the situation in Oregon, part of the dispute comes from the federal government wanting to purchase the land from the ranchers.
  - dghf 11y ago
    > The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. But surely the state government, rather than the federal government?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Well, no. The federal government acquires a chunk of land (by conquest or purchase). It becomes a territory. Who owns the land (all of it)? The federal government. Eventually the feds decide to organize a state in that area. The day Congress passes the bill of statehood, who owns the land? The new state? Only if the bill of statehood said that the land transferred.
  - jack9 11y ago
    > The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. That's not a new thing: that precedent goes back to Day 1 of the United States, and maybe further I think you are talking about the fluidity of borders and lands worldwide. In reality, country borders are based on if land can be defended from other claimants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk). This is the final arbitration, even after exploring existing treaties (which arent always followed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c). The idea that the US federal government owns land until it's disseminated is one of those american myths that the US Govt tries REALLY hard to let alone, despite most federal lands being originally acquired by fiat and in the last 200 years by eminent domain (sometimes a front for private parties like the railway barons). Almost any private vs federal case can raise issues that can be elevated to the supreme court where the USG has a lot more to lose, regardless of the outcome. So they make lots of small steps, wisely. When they run into a case, even if they lose, the USG will simply work around the small setback.

26 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

dmix 11y ago

No better way to destroy an intellectual debate than prefacing your headline with Republican or Democrat: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ The fact the people involved in this are self described as "anti-government" and small-government, plus the entire issue is reducing federal control back into state law seems to only be an inconvenience... Trying to frame it outside of the scope of left vs right, rather than local vs federal control, doesn't seem to fit well into mainstream political discourse. Side note: single page article http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land-heist/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land... (admins?)

rayiner 11y ago
The ranchers might be anti-government, but the legislators passing laws in their favor are Republican.
- dmix 11y ago
  Yes one specific republican started an organization, the only bill which passed only affected Utah and was never actually enforced. As it was state-level and federal agencies threaten to sue if Utah did. Bundy is from Oregon. Further more: >> One of ALEC’s model bills is the Eminent Domain Authority for Federal Lands Act, which, like Bundy, cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution to justify state seizure of federal land. (A spokesperson for ALEC disavowed Bundy and his actions.) The laws they are fighting are federal and mostly from the 1930s, enacted under the Hoover government, which was republican. This is about state vs federal rights, not left vs right. It should be framed as such.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Yes. Pro-rate destruction versus pro-environment is an issue that overwhelmingly falls along partisan lines. I dislike partisan bickering too, but on this issue it's clearly partisan.
    - dmix 11y ago
      Just because an issue was co-adopted by parties doesn't make it inherently a partisan political issue. Technically it opposes both parties in federal gov, as the representatives in question are state level and opposing any federal intervention.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        It's not about federal intervention versus lack of. It's federal land. The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus grazing.
        dmix 11y ago
        > The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus grazing. Correct, that's the issue and the proposed solution is abolishing federal land control, transferring rights to state control, and therefore preventing federal intervention in grazing. >> 'But the stockmen’s ambition went further: they wanted the federal government to transfer control of all federal land, including the national parks, to the states.' The state legislators would still be free to enforce their own laws in that respect - technically they could themselves limit externalities or even enhance conservation. The parties involved (ie, ranchers) believe that they would be better served at the state level, a belief which was also held by many of those who were behind the constitution - whom they spare no time trumpeting.
        dibujante 11y ago
        Those parties might have more credibility if their act of protest wasn't wholesale environmental destruction. You can imagine that, were the state to take over, these people would settle for nothing less than the state withdrawing the protected status for this land. It's not about states' rights and never was.

fiatmoney 11y ago

What interest does a New Yorker or Californian have in owning 86% of Nevada? Why shouldn't the citizens of the state in question have the right to manage that land for the purposes they deem important?

cjensen 11y ago
The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. That's not a new thing: that precedent goes back to Day 1 of the United States, and maybe further. I've never heard Ranchers request the opportunity to purchase the land. They just want to use it as if they owned it.
- ericras 11y ago
  With the situation in Oregon, part of the dispute comes from the federal government wanting to purchase the land from the ranchers.
- dghf 11y ago
  > The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. But surely the state government, rather than the federal government?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Well, no. The federal government acquires a chunk of land (by conquest or purchase). It becomes a territory. Who owns the land (all of it)? The federal government. Eventually the feds decide to organize a state in that area. The day Congress passes the bill of statehood, who owns the land? The new state? Only if the bill of statehood said that the land transferred.
- jack9 11y ago
  > The government owns all land until it is transferred/sold to a private owner. That's not a new thing: that precedent goes back to Day 1 of the United States, and maybe further I think you are talking about the fluidity of borders and lands worldwide. In reality, country borders are based on if land can be defended from other claimants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk). This is the final arbitration, even after exploring existing treaties (which arent always followed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c). The idea that the US federal government owns land until it's disseminated is one of those american myths that the US Govt tries REALLY hard to let alone, despite most federal lands being originally acquired by fiat and in the last 200 years by eminent domain (sometimes a front for private parties like the railway barons). Almost any private vs federal case can raise issues that can be elevated to the supreme court where the USG has a lot more to lose, regardless of the outcome. So they make lots of small steps, wisely. When they run into a case, even if they lose, the USG will simply work around the small setback.