4 ms·

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

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.
rayiner 11y ago
The eastern states paid the taxes the federal government used to open western States to settlement through surveying, irrigation, and removing Indians. It's only right that the federal government own the land and use it for whatever purposes the National electorate chooses.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  Honest question: in that case, what would be the reason for creating states on the land as opposed to just leaving it an unincorporated Federal territory? Other than just to satisfy the people petitioning for statehood?
  - saalweachter 11y ago
    Newly created states each get two senators; if you think that a newly created state will side with yours on many or even just a single significant political issue, there is a political benefit to incorporating new states. Creating a state is also a one-way transition in the United States; incorporating a territory as a state is a way to ensure that the territory will never be traded away or declared independent.
- trhway 11y ago
  >It's only right that the federal government own the land there is no right or wrong here. The current situation is just the result of the most recent applications of force on that issue - with Indians in particular loosing in those "applications of force", and until bigger force gets involved it will stay about the same. That is how human race has so far been managing the surface of this planet, or any other resource...
ajross 11y ago
What value does it provide to ranchers in Utah to give them free access to the Smithsonean buildings 2500 miles away? Your point is specious. Governments control arbitrary boundaries. You want "state" control over lands where it suits you, but the point could work in reverse too: why not county control? Someone's got to own it, and in this particular case that was land managed by the federal government before Nevada was a state, and in fact before "Nevadans" even existed as a meaningful population.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  So the trade is, Nevadans get museum tickets (which, you might be surprised to discover, applies to all visitors to DC, not just citizens) in exchange for being fundamentally prevented from managing their own affairs? This is in other contexts known as "imperialism".
justncase80 11y ago
If they intended to use it for some purpose other than destroying a vast habitat so they could grow their own personal wealth, you may have a moral high ground to stand on.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Does the federal government get to seize 86% of, say, Brooklyn, and decide whether the current inhabitants are using it appropriately? Maybe it would be more aesthetically pleasing as a series of meadows, or a large glass bowl.
  - TYPE_FASTER 11y ago
    Brooklyn was settled in 1645, before our country was a country. How much of that 86% have always been public (federal) lands, and how much of that was "seized?"
- loki49152 11y ago
  Using the land for human purposes is the moral high ground.
  - justncase80 11y ago
    For everyones purpose, sure. For one individual persons purpose? No. What's good for the environment and wildlife is typically also good for humanity.

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.

rayiner 11y ago

The eastern states paid the taxes the federal government used to open western States to settlement through surveying, irrigation, and removing Indians. It's only right that the federal government own the land and use it for whatever purposes the National electorate chooses.

brandonmenc 11y ago
Honest question: in that case, what would be the reason for creating states on the land as opposed to just leaving it an unincorporated Federal territory? Other than just to satisfy the people petitioning for statehood?
- saalweachter 11y ago
  Newly created states each get two senators; if you think that a newly created state will side with yours on many or even just a single significant political issue, there is a political benefit to incorporating new states. Creating a state is also a one-way transition in the United States; incorporating a territory as a state is a way to ensure that the territory will never be traded away or declared independent.
trhway 11y ago
>It's only right that the federal government own the land there is no right or wrong here. The current situation is just the result of the most recent applications of force on that issue - with Indians in particular loosing in those "applications of force", and until bigger force gets involved it will stay about the same. That is how human race has so far been managing the surface of this planet, or any other resource...

ajross 11y ago

What value does it provide to ranchers in Utah to give them free access to the Smithsonean buildings 2500 miles away? Your point is specious. Governments control arbitrary boundaries. You want "state" control over lands where it suits you, but the point could work in reverse too: why not county control? Someone's got to own it, and in this particular case that was land managed by the federal government before Nevada was a state, and in fact before "Nevadans" even existed as a meaningful population.

fiatmoney 11y ago
So the trade is, Nevadans get museum tickets (which, you might be surprised to discover, applies to all visitors to DC, not just citizens) in exchange for being fundamentally prevented from managing their own affairs? This is in other contexts known as "imperialism".

justncase80 11y ago

If they intended to use it for some purpose other than destroying a vast habitat so they could grow their own personal wealth, you may have a moral high ground to stand on.

fiatmoney 11y ago
Does the federal government get to seize 86% of, say, Brooklyn, and decide whether the current inhabitants are using it appropriately? Maybe it would be more aesthetically pleasing as a series of meadows, or a large glass bowl.
- TYPE_FASTER 11y ago
  Brooklyn was settled in 1645, before our country was a country. How much of that 86% have always been public (federal) lands, and how much of that was "seized?"
loki49152 11y ago
Using the land for human purposes is the moral high ground.
- justncase80 11y ago
  For everyones purpose, sure. For one individual persons purpose? No. What's good for the environment and wildlife is typically also good for humanity.