Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Idaho_Cowboy

If they would pay the rent for renting land they don’t own there would be no problem. When you don’t pay rent you get evicted! Why should it be any different for them?


18 posted on 04/10/2014 12:07:44 PM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dynoman

The government more or less “legally” owns anything they say they own at any time for any reason.

In this case they didn’t used to own the rights to it. Plus the family was willing to pay, just not to a corrupt organization.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143026/posts


21 posted on 04/10/2014 12:19:40 PM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dynoman

What would the rancher say, if several other ranchers also attempted to graze cattle on “his” land? Other posters argue that the federal government is not the owner of the land. They may be right — I don’t know. However, neither does the rancher own the land. If no one “owns” the land, and no one controls who can graze on it, the land is effectively a “commons”. As in the cautionary tale taught to every first-year economics student: the “Tragedy of the Commons”. If there is no control over grazing rights, the land is soon destroyed for everyone.


35 posted on 04/10/2014 1:38:18 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson