[Reno89519]

Interesting point--whether the government should or should not own the land. I prefer they do for lots of reasons, specifically to sustain public access and use. Consider lands picked up by various conservation groups or private owners that lock off the areas. Whether the government should or should not have held the lands, they are now national treasures and I'd hate to see them sold to enable Congress to spend more money, which is what they'd do with the revenue.

But Bundy is issue beyond this as he knowingly didn't honor his contract to graze his cattle on public lands, depriving taxpayers of that revenue, preventing the government from leasing it to someone else, and he pockets the extra profit in the process--welfare by theft.

[Rusty0604]

That was the point I was trying to make, but not very well I’m afraid. In Bundy’s case he didn’t think the federal gov’t had the right to charge him for grazing but he was willing to pay the local government. I guess the courts didn’t do him any good so he stood up for what he thought was right a different way.

As for the selling of the federal lands the article I linked says this:

“Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.