Selling Jellystone: Liquidating Public Lands, These Guys Are Serious

[SR71]

I first caught wind of this about ten years ago. I think it came up while arguing about if T. Roosevelt was a communist, or some other dumb shit, with a liberturd. His involvement in National Parks brought up the suggestion that public lands are the government stealing from the people and that they should be sold. The thought of selling public lands was so foreign to me. It still is. I like the idea of having common national assets. I don't want a world where every square inch is under private ownership. It seems like a very constricted way to live.

At any rate, these people, who I would consider extremist, seem to feel the moment is as right as it's ever been to move on that idea. We have the efforts of Libertarian members of congress in league with Cliven Bundian type freeloaders and corporates and developers all slavering over the prospect. Seems like a good time to start a thread where to drag all of the those type things into.

[SR71]

Republicans Are Majorly Infighting Over a Plot to Sell Off Federal Wilderness | Alternet

In an interesting twist, the debate over federal land ownership is exposing real rifts in the Republican coalition. It may even create a rift between business interests and conservative voters who love to hunt, fish and enjoy nature.

This is what I'm hoping. If we're lucky there are enough outdoorsy types in the GOP itself to put the brakes on this operation.

[Zehava]

Good thing is Trump' pick for Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke (R-Montana), seem to be opposed to the sale of public lands. How strong he holds this position or how much he will push back against the administration remains to be seen.

[lpetrich]

There's a lot of Federal land that's not anywhere close to being national parks, and some of that land could be sold off. Grazing land, for instance.

[Crumb]

Just look at how much of my state is federal land.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

There's a lot of Federal land that's not anywhere close to being national parks, and some of that land could be sold off. Grazing land, for instance.

What is the justification for selling it outright when it can be rented out? I was aware I was using a bit of forumistic license in naming the thread.

[SR71]

Major outdoor retailers boycott Utah over threats to sell off public lands

Chaffetz withdrew a recent legislative proposal because of public outrage, but it seems like he just can't get let go. So, say goodby to a trade show, Utah.

After 20 years of hosting the bi-annual outdoor retailer show in Salt Lake City, organizers of the show finalized their decision to move the $45 million event after a “disappointing” call Thursday with Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R).
A spokesman for Herbert said OIA’s move perpetuated a “false narrative” about Utah, despite the fact that the governor has been pouring $4.5 million of Utah taxpayer dollars into a lawsuit to seize national public lands in the state each year; an effort that is opposed by Utah residents, and has very little chance of success.

[SR71]

Press Release: Chaffetz Withdraws Bill Ordering Sale of Public Lands

BOZEMAN, Mont. – Thursday morning, Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz withdrew H.R. 621, a bill ordering the Interior Secretary to dispose or sell more than 3.3 million acres of public land.

“The folks who try to transfer our public lands were once again overruled by those of us who hunt, fish, and float. Outdoorsmen and women across the West spoke up and got Rep. Chaffetz to withdraw his very misguided bill. This is what happens when we all band together and make our voices heard. We won’t stop until every member of Congress commits to keeping our public lands in public hands,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) stated Thursday.

Chaffetz had reintroduced the bill on January 24, stating, “The long overdue disposal of excess federal lands will free up resources for the federal government while providing much-needed opportunities for economic development in struggling rural communities.”

The reintroduction of the bill ignited subsequent rallies in many Western states. The 10 states to be affected by the bill were Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.

[SR71]

My guess is the sell off of public lands will go ahead with barely a sidewise glance. Outrage overload. Just another swimmer in the baitfish ball of things that shouldn't be happening, but are happening nonetheless.

Trump's order on national monuments decried as corporate a give-away

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday that gives the U.S. Department of the Interior only 120 days to file a report evaluating two decades’ worth of national monument designations, even though most of the designations under the Antiquities Act were the culmination of years of public outreach and negotiation.
The Interior Department will submit an initial 45-day review that will focus on the status of the Bears Ears National Monument Designation in Utah, while the full report will look at all of the national monuments designations since January 1, 1996.

4 things you need to know about Trump's attack on National Parks and Monuments

Every indication is that the administration’s “review” will conclude that there is too much protected public land in the country. The Republican Party platform called for turning over public lands to states, and, as a candidate, Donald Trump repeatedly said we need to drill and dig more fossil fuels from U.S. lands.
But many people don’t even know what the Antiquities Act does

and then they tell you

[Watser?]

Hey did I ever tell you how the nazis invented privatization?

The Coining of “Privatization” and
Germany’s National Socialist Party

Against the mainstream: Nazi
privatization in 1930s Germany

[MonCapitan2002]

As far as I'm concerned all publicly owned land should remain publicly owned land. In fact, were it up to me, there would be hard limits on the amount of land owned by private individuals. Secondly, corporations would be barred from owning any land outright. Their only option would be to lease land owned by private individuals.

Then again, I am very strongly anti-corporation. Were it up to me, no corporation would be allowed to grow to the point where their revenue is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Ideally, the maximum amount of market share that can be controlled by any one company would be 10%.