Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!TISSS!MCKEE From: mckee@TISSS.RADC.AF.MIL (DAVE MCKEE) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics Subject: RE: Environment Message-ID: <90038.1315.MCKEE@TISSS> Date: 7 Feb 90 13:15:00 GMT Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Reply-To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Lines: 63 Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway Comments: To: politics >I'm curious to where you arrived at the figure of 42%. I've never run across >the figures for how much land Uncle Sam owns - probably because I've never >looked - so I'd appreciate a source to check. Thanks. I got the figures from a book entitled _Restoring the American Dream_ by Robert Ringer who got the figures from government sources (I'll try to get the exact sources for this from the book, I dont have it with me now) These figures are 1979, so are out of date, they may be lower (as Jamie suggested). Still, even if we use the figures Jamie gave (34%) It is too much... >This does bring up an interesting point, however. I think I can ascertain >Dave's stand on the issue ( ;-) ), and you can probably guess that I'm just >waiting to take a counter position. But anyway, where do you think the gov't >should stand in terms of its own land ownership? The issue has come up several >times as a tangent, but never really fully addressed. I think all (and I mean ALL) governmet property should be owned by private persons and leased, or sold to the government...now this is a huge issue here, involving a free market government which would only be about 5-10% the size of our current government. I could pages on the reduction of taxes, and methods for reducing the size of government, but I think selling off government lands, unused bases, and other assets would be a good start. >Can we assume that the government will care for the land properly and make >the best use of it? The government has given rights to various companies to strip mine, mass log (ie:cut down everything that stands above a foot tall), dump wastes, and generally destroy huge tracts of "protected" lands. Now I like parks and such, but I don't think the government can, or should run them. If these lands were owned by private individuals they, like you or me, would take care of their assets. They have a stake in their property (the government has no stake and therfore has nothing to lose by destroying these lands). Beleive it on not there are privatly owned "parks" that are beutifully kept up...you have to pay to go in them, but you pay taxes now for state and federal parks. >Would the land be put to better use if it was 'privately' owned? and developed? Yes I think so, but it would probably be wise to have a system like the "Homestead Act" to parcel; out the land so it could not be bought up in large tracts by foreign investors or companies, I am not sure on this point, but it seems that it would be best if the land were sold to thousands of smaller investors and private landowners, than just having the equivalent of the land changing hands from one large powerfull organization (government) to another (large corperation). >Don't we have an obligation to the rapidly deteriorating environmental sit- >uation around the world? Hence to not develop the land and thus contribute >to the Greenhouse Effect? (O.K.- loaded question, but relevant.) I think so, and I think private ownership is the way to achieve this. Just think if it were possible to desalinate sea water and pump it into the desert areas of central USA...and start a new forest. >As I said, I know the issue has been covered somewhat as a side issue to larger >arguments; but I'd like to know what people think of the issue as a 'real >world' issue (for lack of a better term - and thesaurus). I agree > --Chris Dave McKee