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

To: Enchante

If the legal owner wanted to donate their own land to the feds, I have no problem w/that. Not what I would do.

I’ve always said, instead of tyrannizing the rest of us w/eco regulation, folks who want to protect land should pool their money together to acquire land they want to protect.

On the flip side, if loggers want to buy land and mow it down, so be it. Property rights are a foundation of freedom. We’ve already lost a lot of property rights in the name of “safety” and “public interest”.

If the gov had stepped in via eminent domain to accomplish this, I’d have a problem with it. Not the case here.

English common law has always allowed deeds to be transferred w/restrictions. So the donor could’ve actually saved quite a bit of money simply by donating that property to me instead of lobbying the feds to put it under their domain.


24 posted on 08/24/2016 2:29:59 PM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: fruser1

A new National Monument is not “free” to the public, no matter how it comes about. It is going to cost the federal budget a great deal of money over the years. Plus, it brings a large federal govt presence into northern Maine that the legislature, governor, and public majority all strongly object to.


25 posted on 08/24/2016 2:36:07 PM PDT by Enchante (Hillary's new campaign slogan: "Guilty as hell, free as a bird!! Laws are for peasants!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: fruser1

“English common law has always allowed deeds to be transferred w/restrictions.”

You have it backwards, fruser1. English common law ended the dead hand doctrine.


29 posted on 08/24/2016 3:20:19 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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