
The Great Republican Land Heist - pmcpinto
http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land-heist/?mod=e2this
======
dmix
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...](http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-
land-heist/?single=1) (admins?)

~~~
rayiner
The ranchers might be anti-government, but the legislators passing laws in
their favor are Republican.

~~~
dmix
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
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
rayiner
State versus federal regulation is the means, not the end. The end is cheap
grazing land for ranchers at the cost of the environment.

~~~
dmix
Yes but do you see the fallacy in your comment? Whether state vs federal,
conservation is similarly a problem that could technically be solved at both
levels. Your comment:

> "The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus
> grazing."

The real problem IMO is whether states would be better at managing these laws
than the federal level.

This is what they are proposing... even if they do achieve this, there is no
guaruntee that it would instantly turn into a free-for-all for ranchers.

There is no clear answer to this question. What if Oregon green-activists
acquire similar power, embraces this idea, and do a far better job than the
feds at conservation? A model for other states to follow.

This is an interesting thought experiment, lost in hyper-political handwaving.

------
fiatmoney
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
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.

~~~
dghf
> 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
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.

