Skip to comments.How can it be a state if the central government controls 86% of its land and all of its resources?
Posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Sounds like the very definition of elitism. The elites in Washington DC, most of whom have never set foot in Nevada (outside a casino), controlling what the local citizens can or cannot do on the land within their state boundaries? This is not the way America was intended to be governed. Ever heard of local control? Self-government? States rights?
To many of us out here in the West, pursuit of happiness means ranching, farming, logging, mining, drilling, hunting, fishing, or just living in and enjoying God's great outdoors. It's un-American and unconstitutional for unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington DC to lock us out of our own lands.
Uh, if they can elect and elect a rustler to be their Senator time after time?
The mob elects the mobster senator. They control him.
That’s the point. What business do the feds have owning so much land that isn’t needed to be protected like a national park? They should sell it off voluntarily or by Congressional legislation. IMO, Nevada has a right to its land without some compelling reason otherwise.
I prefer Kleptocacy.
...but the U.N.’s Agenda 21 which Obama has fully embraced speaks otherwise. Another battle front.
Time for the states to start taking it back.
You just know this land is being used as colateral for all the loans we have been getting from the chinese to support our current welfare state....
As long as the federal government keeps the land within her borders locked up and out of control by her own citizens, I don’t see how Nevada is even legally a state within the union. It’s been a century and a half since statehood. There’s no reason whatsoever to have the feds ruling over Nevada’s land. Or the land in any other of the western states. That’s not the way it was done in the other states.
With all due respect, sir, the nature of political rights, the economic and intrinsic value of humanity, morality, and our relationship with G-d are MAN-BASED, not DIRT-BASED.
So, while there are many good arguments against a government holding much dirt, the how a state’s dirt is owned is a small component of Statehood. Alaska versus Rhode Island being fine examples. Is an Alaskan more or less free than a Rhode Islander? More of Alaska is held by the Feds. But there are substantially more restrictions on the behavior of a “citizen” in Rhode Island.
So, I’ll argue that while we should have governments divest themselves of dirt because holding dirt is not their core function, merely holding dirt is not as inimical to freedom and citizenship as bureaucracy, laws limiting behavior, taxes, etc.
I love ya, Jim. And I concur on divestiture of land by governments. I choose to hold that issue lower than more direct assaults on our freedoms.
The unconstitutional Administrative State which, just like the multi-trillion dollar government, was latent until Obama. Only the American People with concerted effort and faith in a big God can take it down.
Economic warfare against republican states.
Lock up as much land as possible to kill jobs and business. Slows outflow from Democrat states.
Even shut down huge areas from recreational activity, to make it less attractive to move there.
The elites in Washington want control so that they have more things to tax, which of course generates greater revenues to feed the hungry beast of big government. Its all about self-serving interests and weilding political power.
They don’t want you to be independent. They want you to be dependent on them.
The vast majority of Ohio was owned by the federal government in 1787.
16 years later, it became a state and most of the land had transitioned to private hands.
By 1815, federal holdings in Ohio were minimal.
If Nevada had followed that rate of progress, 90% of NV land would have been in private hands by 1900.
East answer, there is _no_ state if it doesn’t have land. The _very_ definition of state within USA is the 50 land regions which are owned and controlled by soveriegn states.
But I see no constitutional justification for the feds holding on to that property. As far as I’m concerned Nevada has a greater constitutional right to that land than the feds.
Sorry JR, I had to edit that a bit:
The elites in Washington DC, most of whom have never set foot in Nevada (outside a casino or bordello)...
Pretty much ANY unconstitutional action by the feds is an assault on our freedom. And if we don't stop the seemingly less direct intrusions, we may not be able to stop the direct intrusions.