Skip to comments.When the government owns the land it's communism
Posted on 04/24/2014 6:03:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
When the government owns the land and natural resources and controls production from same, it's called communism. The Founders intended Americans to enjoy their God-given liberty. The constitution was written to severely restrict government power and ensure freedom. The founders never intended for an all powerful central government to own the land or to control the means of production. They limited the central government to about 18 enumerated powers and left all others to the people and the states to decide locally. The United States was intended to be a free Republic governed at various levels by elected representatives, working within the framework of and restrained by the constitution, not a communist state controlled by unelected bureaucrats and corrupt politicians of a powerful central government.
It's way past time for we the people to tell the bureaucrats and the corrupt crony politicians who unlawfully change the constitution by bureaucratic regulation, congressional act, judicial activism or executive fiat to get lost. If we are ever going to restore our constitution and reclaim our liberty, we're going to have to be a bit more assertive about it.
The current activities in Nevada, Utah and Texas are a wake-up call for the people. When I see men and women determined to fight for our constitution and our freedom against heavily armed, lawless, entrenched bureaucrats, I feel optimistic about our prospects for long lived liberty. We need more of this, not less.
(If it is, it's not working)
The way Hairy is talking it’s probably Jimson weed.
Well..., I knew it wasn’t Sage.
It was and understood right of the commoner to grazes there livestock on the common (waste) public land...”enclosure”...blocking that right ...is how you convert common land to private ownership
all agree its public (common) land be it federal or state..in effect this is conversion by enclosure of common publicly owned land to private Federally owned land.. (the kings land..80% of Nevada)
Damned straight! They’ll have us all living in ‘sectors’ if they have their way.
Everything that the government is doing - cities, counties, and states - are in accordance with the UN resolution 21. Get people out of the rural areas, put them all in high apartments in downtown areas, and totally totally control their lives.
The more people crowded in cities will make people believe the fallacies of an overcrowded planet which, in turn, helps to promote the evils of abortion and euthanasia.
Yup, that’s communism.
Most definitely AMEN.
Federal control of contiguous lands is contrary to the spirit of our founding. The Feds need to prove that control of these lands is necessary for it to perform its duty to the states. Of course, it cannot.
Washington Pledged long ago that it would sell the land to any american who would buy it. It broke that pledge in the 1970’s with deasterous unfair consequences to the Rural people of the Western states. Stifling their economic potential.
This must end, Put the land up for sale again!
“Federal control of contiguous lands is contrary to the spirit of our founding. The Feds need to prove that control of these lands is necessary for it to perform its duty to the states. Of course, it cannot.”
The only way they could do that is to build a military base on it. The feds already have plenty of military reservations out west, they don’t even need a lot of them.
Technically under the Federal Constitution their suppose to get State consent for said military bases.
I understand the feds control something like 90% of Nevada, 60% of Utah. Was much of that land private and now federalized, or was it federal and they’ve just stopped selling/privatizing it?
Look, i refuses to acknowledge the significant of the U.N. its a joke to anyone who looks around the world and sees everyone flaunt the opinion and edicts of the New York based mob of dictators and tyrants.
As for urbanization. I would note that city’s are generally located on the nexus of natural trade routs thus giving them best access to resources around them.
Baring political corruption(the liberal high tax and regulatory kind), a service based economy will normally find it most efferent to setup business in theses locations.
That is why the city’s grow, people and industry want access to resources and natural factors make such places the best general locations on earth.
If you want to attack urbanization, you got to chear on local Liberal corruption.
IE: let liberals drive up the cost of business and living in the city’s so people and industry find it more advantageous to move away.
Unfortunately Liberals In Washington have been working hard to shift this wasteful political corruption costs to everyone everywhere thus making their own localized corruption less particularly detrimental.
This is why rural folks have typically resented the behavior of urban politicians, as they tend do such things for just such reasons.
“I understand the feds control something like 90% of Nevada, 60% of Utah. Was much of that land private and now federalized, or was it federal and theyve just stopped selling/privatizing it?”
more like 81% of Nevada and 61% of Utah. The problem is primary Washington has just stopped generally selling much of it in the 1970s. But there are numerous cases where Washington has acquired new lands to horde or lord over.
Such is the case in States Like Texas who were at one point their own republic thus never started out with any Federal land.
Anyone know the status of the land where the nukes were tested?