Privatizing Public Lands

Protected public lands in the United States — including national forests, national parks, and similar areas — cover nearly 500,000 square miles, or 14 percent of the land area of the United States. The existence of these government-controlled lands gives the federal government immense power over much of the United States, and in some US states, the federal government controls a majorityof the land area.

Thanks to the popularity of some public lands, known for their natural beauty, federal control of so much land nonetheless remains popular, and the idea of privatizing these lands is considered a radical idea, to say the least.

But what if these lands were somehow removed from federal control. What exactly would happen?

It is often assumed that public lands would be immediately strip mined or turned into housing developments.

After all, because national parks, for instance, have economic value as nature preserves, privatization would not mean bulldozing over every last leaf, tree, and twig in the parks.

But, to the extent that people will turn portions of these parks from their current use as nature recreation areas to other purposes, it will be to address truly urgent economic needs.

A potential intermediate step toward outright privatization, the case has been made to transfer control of federal lands to state and local government control. To address concerns with such proposals, Ryan McMaken explains :

Contrary to the myth that public lands would immediately be sold to rapacious developers and oil drillers were the lands to fall into the hands of state or local governments, the reality is that public lands such as those in national parks are usually viewed very favorably by surrounding communities and by the voters in the states in which they are located.

As tourist attractions, and as giant recreational areas for locals, public lands are quite valuable as indirect sources of revenue for both private- and government-sector institutions in the area.

This line of argument for decentralizing public lands from federal to local government control also applies to outright privatization. If popular opinion now heavily favors the national parks, "America's best idea” — and is repelled by the prospect of diminishing them — would not these opinions be reflected in the marketplace as well?

Consider how markets would respond. Considering the role of social media, any developer who tried to build a shopping mall in the middle of Yellowstone would seriously risk supplier and consumer boycotts, shame campaigns from environmental organizations, and the general ire of American society. Additional pressure would come from businesses that currently exist just outside these parks and depend upon them to attract customers into the area from around the world.

In part for this reason, if these parks were privatized, their new owners would likely to a large extent direct their use in ways that preserved their natural beauty, following consumer demand. For example, large portions of the parks would simply continue to be recreational areas for hiking, camping and visiting, but under private owners and land conservation trusts with their own money at risk, not taxpayers’. Given the state’s abysmal environmental record, the shift from government to voluntary management is overdue.

There’s no need to rely on speculation to see the voluntary sphere’s immense provision of nature recreation and preservation. The evidence already exists. Americans spend $887 billion annually on outdoor recreation, the largest categories being trail sports, camping, and water sports. Americans willingly pay more to enjoy the outdoors “than they do on pharmaceuticals and fuel, combined” with $117 billion in change.

Beyond outdoor recreation, the market stewards nature in more direct ways as well.

In 2015, private land conservation trusts in the U.S. protected fifty-six million acres, double the acreage of the national parks in the continental U.S. These trusts demonstrate that the public is willing and able to support the environment out of an appreciation of nature, and doesn’t need to be forced to contribute through taxation. These trusts have “Nearly $2.2 billion in endowments and funding,” over 4.6 million active financial supporters, and received 6.2 million visitors in 2015.

At an even larger scale than voluntary land trusts, 441 million acres (the majority) of the country’s woods and forests are privately owned, “Of those, 95 percent are classified as ‘Family and Individual’ ownerships, 4 percent are classified as ‘Corporate’ ownerships, and 1 percent is classified as ‘Other Private’ ownerships.”

Private owners of ten or more acres rank the top five reasons for their ownership as, “Beauty and scenery,” “Part of home,” “Wildlife habitat,” “Pass onto children/heirs,” and “Privacy” in descending order. The number one “issue or concern” among owners of any amount above one acre is “high property taxes.” If the goal is to foster more woods and forests, one step would be eliminating property taxes such that people aren’t punished for maintaining or expanding value-adding forests.

Thankfully, as nations develop and disposable incomes grow, we can expect the market for beauty to blossom further. People enjoy living in the shade of oaks and going hiking, if they can afford to. Once basic necessities are met, people can increasingly turn their incomes to aesthetic, recreational, and charitable pursuits, which in turn fuels enterprises like residential landscaping, camping, conservation trusts, etc.

Might some privatized areas allow drilling and resources exploitation? Yes. But that happens already:

In some national parks, the federal government owns the surface lands and private companies own some of the mineral rights below the surface. This situation is called a “split estate,” . . . There are currently 534 active oil and gas wells across 12 units of the National Park System. There are 30 additional national parks with some “split estate” lands, but no active drilling at this point. 1

If the public lands were privatized, some of it would likely be used for purposes that don’t necessarily preserve the wilderness such as drilling, mining, etc. This prospect is alarming to many, but shouldn’t be. This is because there's no reason to assume that untouched land is necessarily the best use of land when human beings still need housing, food, and other goods that require land to produce.

Fortunately, the marketplace can help human beings strike a balance between nature preservation and other undertakings in a way that proportionately serves human needs.

How much of the country’s wilderness should remain untouched? Certainly not all of it. After all, preventing any human development whatsoever would require vacating the country of humans. The question is, what mechanism should decide how much and which land should be kept wild, and how much and which land should not for the sake of development, balancing the demand for wildlife preserves with the demand for all other goods?

If these decisions concerning tradeoffs are left to people acting voluntarily based upon private property, the question would be decided using prices and the information about supply and demand contained within them. In deciding whether to use any given allotment of land as a park, or whether to use it for something else, business owners calculate the anticipated revenues minus the anticipated costs, or profits, of each potential option.

When people anticipate the profitability of the projects available to them to decide which to pursue, they’re not engaged in something per se nefarious, as is often the connotation of the word “profit.” Close inspection of profit-seeking reveals two useful processes at work.

First, entrepreneurs strive to maximize revenue by finding the way to most satisfy the wants that consumers will demonstrate through what they choose to buy. The higher the price consumers are willing to pay for the entrepreneur’s good or service, the more that consumers demonstrate that they expect to benefit from whatever it is they purchase.

Second, entrepreneurs attempt to minimize costs by using up the least dear (urgently needed elsewhere) combination of resources as inputs in providing the consumers’ desired outputs. The more urgently a particular input is needed elsewhere in another application, the higher its price will be. As a result, when entrepreneurs seek to minimize their costs, they, consciously or not, are seeking to accomplish their goals while least inhibiting the resource needs of others.

That is: they're maximizing revenue and minimizing costs to maximize profits. If a plot of land is more profitable as a drilling operation than as a piece of a recreational park, that means people express greater demand on the margin for additional fuel than for one more camping spot.

Using the government thumb to tip the scale in favor of nature recreation over fuel provision by limiting drilling on public lands prioritizes giving wealthy Americans marginally more camping spots at the expense of raising fuel prices globally for the less privileged.

A balance must be struck in the use of resources between nature preservation and all other potential uses. The market has assigned to nature an enormous, multifaceted lot. Privatizing public lands while removing taxes on property and outdoor recreation will further boost the voluntary stewardship of natural preserves. Meanwhile, market freedom will also grant the flexibility to utilize portions of these parks to serve the consumers’ most pressing economic needs outside of nature preservation.

1.Nicholas Lund, “The Facts on Oil and Gas Drilling in National Parks,” National Parks Conservation Association, npca.org, 2017.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Mises Wire offers contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economy.

The views expressed on Mises Wire and mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Privatizing Public Lands Doesn't Mean Turning Them Into Shopping CentersGor Mkrtchian

Public lands already have value as nature preserves and tourist attractions. At the same time, the economic needs of ordinary human beings — which often require land development — shouldn't be ignored.

Markets Can Give Us BothGreater Income Equality and Greater Economic GrowthMark Thornton

The modern norm is that economic growth causes measured income inequality to increase. But to have greater income equality and greater economic growth. It simply requires more free market policies and less government interventionism.

Yes, many researchers are biased. But as Mises noted: "Reference to a thinker's bias is no substitute for a refutation of his doctrines by tenable arguments."

The brutal, absolutist, and mercantilist state that collapsed under the French Revolution was no benign and restrained regime. And in many ways, the monarchy's embrace of a powerful centralized state sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

If the fans want the women to be paid more than the men, the consumers will have to spend more on watching them.

Robert Blumen is an independent enterprise software consultant based in San Francisco.

Daniel Lacalle and Jeff Deist discuss why all of us have a stake in seeing central bank balance sheets shrink.

Boot Camp is a seminar for those seeking to learn the fundamentals of the Austrian school.

Big GovernmentBiographiesBook ReviewsBooms and BustsBureaucracy and RegulationCorporate WelfareCronyism and CorporatismDecentralization and SecessionEducationFinancial MarketsFree MarketsFrom the ArchivesGlobal EconomyHealthImmigrationLabor and WagesLegal SystemMedia and CultureMoney and BanksPovertyProtectionism and Free TradeSocialismStrategySwiss WatchTaxes and SpendingThe EntrepreneurThe EnvironmentThe FedThe Police StateU.S. EconomyU.S. HistoryWar and Foreign PolicyWorld History

Austrian Economics OverviewBusiness CyclesCalculation and KnowledgeCapital and Interest TheoryEntrepreneurshipFiscal TheoryGold StandardHistory of the Austrian School of EconomicsInterventionismMonetary TheoryMoney and BankingMoney SupplyMonopoly and CompetitionOther Schools of ThoughtPhilosophy and MethodologyPolitical TheoryPraxeologyPricesPrivate PropertyProduction TheorySubjectivismValue and Exchange

BROWSE LIBRARYWho is Ludwig von Mises?What is the Austrian School of Economics?Quarterly Journal of Austrian EconomicsThe AustrianMises WireMises WeekendsMises ViewJournals & PublicationsHomeschool ResourcesResources for the EconomistResources for Students

ABOUT THE MISES INSTITUTEFellowships & Independent ResearchWhat is the Mises Institute?Become a MemberMises EventsPress RoomMises PublicationsOnline LearningMises BookstoreFaculty & StaffFinances and BoardSubscribe to Email ListsSupport MisesPrivacy StatementContact Us

Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436

I have been advocating the sale of public lands for decades to pay down the federal deficit. Obviously, such legislation would have to include a freeze on federal spending. Otherwise, politicians would use the influx of new funds expand the government even more.

Here in AZ we have tried to get our public lands back to local control for a very long time. Once in a while there is a success, like this year’s omnibus land bill that Trump signed into law in March. For the West to truly survive we must address this. We are not even talking about parks, military bases, tribal land...we are talking about the vast acres of land in between.

I really don’t know if we could afford to buy the federal land within our ranch it would double our private land but wouldn’t necessarily double the worth of our ranch as a ranch and couldn’t be recouped from ranching profits.

If you could cherry-pick the parcels and bought only the productive parcels it might work and I guess we could turn it into a hunting ranch and let our children deal with it. It would be a lot of decision making.

Our family has been there 114 years and has been paying lease, I’m assuming all those years, definitely since 1946.
.

There’s nothing in the Constitution allowing FedGov to own all this land; however, I believe the FedGov should be allowed to ‘own’ major national monuments like Rushmore or battlefields from the War between the States.

So, we need a Constitutional Amendment adding parks/monuments of significant cultural, historical, scientific, military, or geographic relevance to Art I Section 8, with the restriction that all land owned by FedGov (parks plus the Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, etc) can be no more than 5% of the total land area of the State.

On a related note, why are there so many Federal agencies owning this land? There should be two - DoD and BLM (the rest).

- National Park Service
- Bureau of Land Management
- Forest Service
- Bureau of Indian Affairs
- Fish and Wildlife
- Bureau of Reclamation
- etc etc etc

I would leave the National Parks under federal control, since the last thing I want is state governments like in California running those things. Most of the other underutlized lands should go private...maybe some exceptions, but the burden should be on the federal government to show why they need to keep control over them.

I don’t care if they stay under Federal control, but if it’s going to be Federal then the states should have no voice in the rules and regulations governing the land.
Constitutional Federal Mining law (1872 MINING LAW) says that I have the right to mine my claim on the Trinity River, California State Law says they will put me in JAIL.

ALL CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS ARE CROOKS, ASSHOLES,WETBACK LOVERS, QUEERS, LESBIANS, AND PIECES OF SHIT.

Billionaires would just buy land and keep hunters and fishermen off of it.

Lots of land out east was striped of trees. Especially in W. NC and North Georgia. Deer had to be brought in to n. Georgia because the habitat was clear cut for lumber. Much of the land was 'worthless' and bought by .gov

Most Americans live in the North East corridor and have NVER been out west.
The federal gubmint owns and controls 85 percent of the west.
WHY?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.