Elites will live on vast estates covering hundreds of square miles without any constraints.
Future home for the masses under construction.
Posted on 12/29/2016 10:00:33 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Have you ever heard "what if Texas were its own country" or "what if California", etc.... Here we go.
If Alaska were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 33rd among all of the world's nations.
If Texas were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 40th among all of the world's nations.
If California were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 59th among all of the world's nations.
But what of the BLM - the Bureau of Land Management, an out of control behemoth of a federal agency filled with progressives and bureaucrats that you never elected - which, BTW, owes its existence due to the lineage going back to the work of big government Theodore Roosevelt - where would it stand?
If the BLM were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 26th among all of the world's nations.
Naturally, the BLM would knock Alaska down to the 34th country, Texas to 41st, and California down to 60th, respectively.
You still don't think progressive governance is a problem?
Ping................
So you listened to Steyn today and decided to rip off his material and credit your blog?
Wow. Typical I guess.
BLM IS its own country. It answers to no higher authority than itself.
What we really need is one big crazy Oklahoma-style Land Run.
And with a population of about 800, it would be smaller than every member of the U.N. and even Vatican City.
I just made up 800, who knows how to count a permanent population on land that is leased, or parkland? At any given time there are probably tens of thousands of people on BLM land. From what I understand, national monuments are BLM but national parks are not. But if national parks are also BLM, then millions could be on BLM land at any given time in the summer at least.
It is about time someone wrote about this agency. Like the UN, it needs to be abolished.
Silly argument. BLM is we the people. What would you prefer, state control and 50 different rules? Private ownership and denying the people access or benefit from land that is ours? This topic is so far down the priority list its not worth wasting time on even in a blog.
I wanted to issue a small correction/update:
The BLM as it exists today was formed in 1946. However, much of their current holdings, as well as their current culture as a modern progressive bureaucracy owes much to Roosevelt’s run-arounds of congress and his 1000+ executive orders, most of which were related to convervationism. Over the last hundred years of progressive governance, there has been much overlap and passing around of land between the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and others.
My comment was primarily aimed at the culture that was created within government by the 26th president, not so much the minutae of which department ended up owning which parcels of land on an executive order by executive order basis, and how it would have shook out later over time.
It should be noted that the National Park Service was not created until 1916, roughly 8 years after TR left office. Prior to the progressive era, government engaged in considerably less land hoarding. Nowadays, environmentalism and land use are synonymous terms to out of control, bossy government.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3447792/posts
Tell me about it, from a family who has leased BLM land for over 100 years, they are tyrants. They are actually easier on us because they get huge lease payments from companies who put towers on top of our mountain but our neighbors have real hell. Most of this area has been a wilderness study area for 30 years. Just a way to control people.
I know a lot of ranchers who charge trespass fees for people who have to cross their private land. We haven’t done it but there is just one access point of the whole 14k acres that is not on private land and you can just access a small portion from there. We like to stay under the radar.
BLM is not “we the people”.
BLM is “them the government”. That’s why there are so many tales of harassment and intimidation, anecdotally as well as in the news from time to time.
“Society” and “government” are two completely different and distinct entities.
Absolutely. I prefer state control over the collective We.
I agree. Time to end the BLM and let each state establish the standards of control with the help of that state’s people and governing bodies.
I agree. Time to end the BLM and let each state establish the standards of control with the help of that state’s people and governing bodies.
Elites will live on vast estates covering hundreds of square miles without any constraints.
Future home for the masses under construction.
How can 10 square miles be a high 26th rank? /s
But most BLM lands doesn’t have paved roads.
Incorrect
When the BLM was formed at that time, it was created by merging the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.
The BLM as it exists today was formed when Congress enacted the Federal Lands and Policy Management Act of 1976.
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.