Nothing wrong with owning military bases, office buildings, real estate that is tied to a proper federal function. But out west they own large percentages of entire states. This is not proper and in my opinion is unconstitutional.
you have raised a losing argument and I would drop it.
In fact they keep expanding their ownership of federal lands and those lands they hold, they continue to make more and more of them off limits to use by the public.
There is nothing wrong with reserving some lands as parks and forests, but federal parks and federal forestland should be state parks and forests.
BLM land likewise should be handed off to the states. My belief that much of this should then be privatized is perhaps a separate issue, but since much of this is leased to private parties anyway, I don't see the problem in simply privatizing it.
The feds should properly own land required for military bases, government office complexes, any proper federal function. They should not hold entire swaths of land that should properly belong to the state. In a lot of areas the government uses its control of federal lands as a means of controlling ranchers and private landowners, and for that matter, the states themselves.
Maybe this is a loser for electoral politics (especially back east) but between you and me, this is what we need to do to distribute power back to the states. You could say that a campaign to eliminate the Education Department is a loser politically, but again, its what we need to do.
Further expansion of land ownership is an issue with which I have a lot of sympathy, and the distribution of a lot of BLM land is probably quite reasonable.
Disestablishing national parks in particular and national forrests, with I will grant arguable exceptions, is a losing issue. I am otherwise pretty conservative, but I think that there is nothing uncostitutional, or harmful, in holding public lands for public recreation. Indeed, this kind of conservation is something that a lot of even conservatives will support, and do support. There is a strong argument for the federal government holding the land. There is no pressure to sell it to a property developer. If Rock Creek Park were owned by the DC city it would be highrise condos right now, with Marion Barry the beneficiary of the deal. The residents of DC are pretty uniform in support of the existence of the park and its maintenance by the NPS.