Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.

PressingForward
captain of 100
Posts: 703

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by PressingForward »

I’ve got problems with Ranchers not paying their grazing fees, and just because they’ve held those contracts for years does not mean they are their personal property. I personally believe the “public” (govt) should own land, and by golly it’s a deal to graze BLM land as compared to private property.

User avatar
Ben McClintock
captain of 100
Posts: 947
Contact:

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Ben McClintock »

1. the Constitution says otherwise. 2. Scott's exposure of would be tyrants is perfect

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Joel »

Eroding property rights is a problem for sure. There are different influences working on the politicians to do just that for various agendas.

Sometimes the LDS Church has been such a powerful influence over some politicians that if they want a politician to vote one way they will do it even if they disagree with the use of force the LDS Church advocating for:
Joel wrote: October 14th, 2017, 5:57 pm
Statement made by Utah Senator Madsen on the subject of SB296. Madsen observes that the church is endorsing a senate bill which would make discrimination illegal for businesses in Utah, while giving the church itself an exemption from those requirements. In the close of his comments he pulls back the curtain behind Utah politics by stating that even though he is against the bill, because the church supports it - he is compelled to support the bill.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Serragon »

PressingForward wrote: October 25th, 2017, 12:29 pm I’ve got problems with Ranchers not paying their grazing fees, and just because they’ve held those contracts for years does not mean they are their personal property. I personally believe the “public” (govt) should own land, and by golly it’s a deal to graze BLM land as compared to private property.
The government is not the public.

The government should not own land simply because there is no one to mediate disputes between you and the government as property owners. Imagine you and your neighbor had a dispute over a property issue. Now imagine your neighbor was also the judge in deciding the case. And also the enforcer of the decision. Government as land owner is simply one big conflict of interest.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by brianj »

Serragon wrote: October 25th, 2017, 5:12 pm The government is not the public.

The government should not own land simply because there is no one to mediate disputes between you and the government as property owners. Imagine you and your neighbor had a dispute over a property issue. Now imagine your neighbor was also the judge in deciding the case. And also the enforcer of the decision. Government as land owner is simply one big conflict of interest.
Okay, we do it your way and the government loses title to all its land. Who gets the land? Can I have Yellowstone?

Does the government get to keep military bases? If not, who gets responsibility for impact areas filled with unexploded ordinance?

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by David13 »

The problem is not the government owning land. The problem is the government owning far too much land. Obviously the government needs land to conduct their enumerated powers.
But they don't need to own the majority of Utah and Nevada.
And the problem is they continue to take over more and more land all the time.
So they need to cut back.
And an orderly procedure needs to be developed to all that to happen.
What are the suggestions to accomplish that?
dc

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Serragon »

brianj wrote: October 25th, 2017, 9:00 pm
Serragon wrote: October 25th, 2017, 5:12 pm The government is not the public.

The government should not own land simply because there is no one to mediate disputes between you and the government as property owners. Imagine you and your neighbor had a dispute over a property issue. Now imagine your neighbor was also the judge in deciding the case. And also the enforcer of the decision. Government as land owner is simply one big conflict of interest.
Okay, we do it your way and the government loses title to all its land. Who gets the land? Can I have Yellowstone?

Does the government get to keep military bases? If not, who gets responsibility for impact areas filled with unexploded ordinance?
Great question. Whenever the government has been engaging in extra-constitutional activity for a long period of time it complicates things when you try to make it right.

There are 640 million federal acres. After accounting for constitutional ownership like military bases, I would divide the number of acres by the number of adult citizens. Each citizen would be allocated that number of acres. A lottery system would be used to determine the order the citizens get to choose their acreage. They would then be free to sell it or improve it as they see fit. Abandonment laws would apply if someone chose to do nothing with the property over a period of time.

PressingForward
captain of 100
Posts: 703

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by PressingForward »

Nope. Ever been to Texas? Have to be rich to hunt because there is no public property. No, I think I like the public owning land. I like to hunt and fish. We may have some great goose and pheasant hunting land in the family, but a little shy on deer and elk, and trout and bass. Sure would be crappy in that lottery system to miss out on the good oceanfront land for 2 nasty alkali acres in Utah.......no systems better now for sure.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Ezra »

Serragon wrote: October 25th, 2017, 11:07 pm
brianj wrote: October 25th, 2017, 9:00 pm
Serragon wrote: October 25th, 2017, 5:12 pm The government is not the public.

The government should not own land simply because there is no one to mediate disputes between you and the government as property owners. Imagine you and your neighbor had a dispute over a property issue. Now imagine your neighbor was also the judge in deciding the case. And also the enforcer of the decision. Government as land owner is simply one big conflict of interest.
Okay, we do it your way and the government loses title to all its land. Who gets the land? Can I have Yellowstone?

Does the government get to keep military bases? If not, who gets responsibility for impact areas filled with unexploded ordinance?
Great question. Whenever the government has been engaging in extra-constitutional activity for a long period of time it complicates things when you try to make it right.

There are 640 million federal acres. After accounting for constitutional ownership like military bases, I would divide the number of acres by the number of adult citizens. Each citizen would be allocated that number of acres. A lottery system would be used to determine the order the citizens get to choose their acreage. They would then be free to sell it or improve it as they see fit. Abandonment laws would apply if someone chose to do nothing with the property over a period of time.
National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Ezra »

PressingForward wrote: October 25th, 2017, 11:32 pm Nope. Ever been to Texas? Have to be rich to hunt because there is no public property. No, I think I like the public owning land. I like to hunt and fish. We may have some great goose and pheasant hunting land in the family, but a little shy on deer and elk, and trout and bass. Sure would be crappy in that lottery system to miss out on the good oceanfront land for 2 nasty alkali acres in Utah.......no systems better now for sure.
I'm sure there are many people like you who would want more access to a larger area. Nothing would stop you from starting a coop with others To make areas like that.

I enjoy public lands but don't think we should be paying the government millions of dollars for the mismanagement of them.

In the west we have forests that are over grown which is causing a lot of beetle kills of trees. And major fire hazards. We now instead of having manageable fires have super fires that burn everything to the ground thanks to that and the practice of fighting forest fires.

The Native Americans would occasionally burn the brush back when it was getting too thick so manage the forests as well as to stop the super fires from happening. Also creating a better habitat for the animals as that creates more grass.

We could selectively cut with helicopters. And or other environmentally ways of pruning the forests. Which would make money instead of costing millions every year. Have healthy forests and not have the crazy super fires that cost so much to manage.
But those decisions are made by someone sitting behind a desk in Washington that never sets foot in a forest.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by brianj »

Ezra wrote: October 26th, 2017, 12:25 am National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.
Wait, I am confused. The federal government is "the government" but state, county, and city governments are not the government?


I would love the lottery system if I were lucky enough to get an early pick. I would choose federal land with an aqueduct running across it, like an aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to Southern California. Then I would say that I want to do something else on the land and will destroy the aqueduct unless I am paid $365,000 per year ($366,000 in a leap year) for the inconvenience of allowing millions of people to have potable water.

Or maybe some federal land with a busy freeway crossing it. I could put up a toll booth, and after crossing 208 feet of my land you can pay the next person for the privilege of crossing his or her land.

If none of those are available I will try to get a piece of property at a choke point, so if owners want to visit their own property they either have to fly to their land or they will have to pay me for the privilege of going to and from their land. When they decide it isn't worth the cost I can pick up their land cheaply.

That sounds so much better than being able to go camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, etc.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Ezra »

brianj wrote: October 26th, 2017, 9:28 pm
Ezra wrote: October 26th, 2017, 12:25 am National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.
Wait, I am confused. The federal government is "the government" but state, county, and city governments are not the government?


I would love the lottery system if I were lucky enough to get an early pick. I would choose federal land with an aqueduct running across it, like an aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to Southern California. Then I would say that I want to do something else on the land and will destroy the aqueduct unless I am paid $365,000 per year ($366,000 in a leap year) for the inconvenience of allowing millions of people to have potable water.

Or maybe some federal land with a busy freeway crossing it. I could put up a toll booth, and after crossing 208 feet of my land you can pay the next person for the privilege of crossing his or her land.

If none of those are available I will try to get a piece of property at a choke point, so if owners want to visit their own property they either have to fly to their land or they will have to pay me for the privilege of going to and from their land. When they decide it isn't worth the cost I can pick up their land cheaply.

That sounds so much better than being able to go camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, etc.
I would say you sound delusional. I take it your not a property owner. Have no idea about easements. Or common curtesy.

The the issues with land we are facing are due to the federal government not obeying laws. Laws that you seem fine with them breaking.

The constitution only allows for the federal government to own land in a very narrow scope of reasons. They have not done this and we the people have not held them accountable.

With the separations of power the constitution says in the 10th what ever the constitution dosent specifically specifies as powers then the states or people have those powers or rights.

So the state and local governments are a form of government but it's not so far removed from the people as to be unmanageable and tyrannical like the fed is.

Local government are more easily accessible to the people and their voices. Under the state or local governments you can still have public lands if that's what the people want. The difference is you actually have a voice in that decision and how that land is to be managed unlike with the fed.

Your utopia of transgressions aggression against your neighbors can come true under that system only if you can get enough of your neighbors on board too. But that's just a pipe dream. Instead you have to pay millions to the government to keep you off that land altogether or restrict your access to as much as they can get away with.

Hurray for the fed. Who is still breaking the laws. Whom I'm sure would demand you follow those laws. Who would then be not only your accuser but your judge and jury. I bet that would be a fair trial..

PressingForward
captain of 100
Posts: 703

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by PressingForward »

brianj wrote: October 26th, 2017, 9:28 pm
Ezra wrote: October 26th, 2017, 12:25 am National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.
Wait, I am confused. The federal government is "the government" but state, county, and city governments are not the government?


I would love the lottery system if I were lucky enough to get an early pick. I would choose federal land with an aqueduct running across it, like an aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to Southern California. Then I would say that I want to do something else on the land and will destroy the aqueduct unless I am paid $365,000 per year ($366,000 in a leap year) for the inconvenience of allowing millions of people to have potable water.

Or maybe some federal land with a busy freeway crossing it. I could put up a toll booth, and after crossing 208 feet of my land you can pay the next person for the privilege of crossing his or her land.

If none of those are available I will try to get a piece of property at a choke point, so if owners want to visit their own property they either have to fly to their land or they will have to pay me for the privilege of going to and from their land. When they decide it isn't worth the cost I can pick up their land cheaply.

That sounds so much better than being able to go camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, etc.
The crazy Ranchera are already trying to cut access to public land already. They think the BLM land is theirs.
Some people get it, some people don’t. I really don’t like it when people quote the military and government hater and I have to read the garbage he spews. I think he claimed to be a Bishop one time. Sad.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Ezra »

PressingForward wrote: October 27th, 2017, 12:40 am
brianj wrote: October 26th, 2017, 9:28 pm
Ezra wrote: October 26th, 2017, 12:25 am National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.
Wait, I am confused. The federal government is "the government" but state, county, and city governments are not the government?


I would love the lottery system if I were lucky enough to get an early pick. I would choose federal land with an aqueduct running across it, like an aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to Southern California. Then I would say that I want to do something else on the land and will destroy the aqueduct unless I am paid $365,000 per year ($366,000 in a leap year) for the inconvenience of allowing millions of people to have potable water.

Or maybe some federal land with a busy freeway crossing it. I could put up a toll booth, and after crossing 208 feet of my land you can pay the next person for the privilege of crossing his or her land.

If none of those are available I will try to get a piece of property at a choke point, so if owners want to visit their own property they either have to fly to their land or they will have to pay me for the privilege of going to and from their land. When they decide it isn't worth the cost I can pick up their land cheaply.

That sounds so much better than being able to go camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, etc.
The crazy Ranchera are already trying to cut access to public land already. They think the BLM land is theirs.
Some people get it, some people don’t. I really don’t like it when people quote the military and government hater and I have to read the garbage he spews. I think he claimed to be a Bishop one time. Sad.
Nothing is sad about being a worthy temple recommend holder who studies scriptures and the words of the prophets. I have never said I was a bishop. Don't know where you got that misinformation from also don't know where you got the idea that I hate the government or the military. I hate the curruption. I believe that the USA is still the greatest nation there is. I believe we have the most freedoms of any other nation. I'm just realistic in seeing the creeping chains of a tyrannical group of people who have seats of power in the government. Who use wars to progress their agenda. Just as Moroni warned would be the case. And speaking out aginst that curruption is our duty according to the scriptures. D&c 88 76-82.

Our founding fathers were truly inspired by god.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Serragon »

brianj wrote: October 26th, 2017, 9:28 pm
Ezra wrote: October 26th, 2017, 12:25 am National parks could be turned over to the states and they could become state parks.

Also the unconstitutionally owned federal land could be turned over to the states who could then in turn turn it over to its citizens.
Wait, I am confused. The federal government is "the government" but state, county, and city governments are not the government?


I would love the lottery system if I were lucky enough to get an early pick. I would choose federal land with an aqueduct running across it, like an aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to Southern California. Then I would say that I want to do something else on the land and will destroy the aqueduct unless I am paid $365,000 per year ($366,000 in a leap year) for the inconvenience of allowing millions of people to have potable water.

Or maybe some federal land with a busy freeway crossing it. I could put up a toll booth, and after crossing 208 feet of my land you can pay the next person for the privilege of crossing his or her land.

If none of those are available I will try to get a piece of property at a choke point, so if owners want to visit their own property they either have to fly to their land or they will have to pay me for the privilege of going to and from their land. When they decide it isn't worth the cost I can pick up their land cheaply.

That sounds so much better than being able to go camping, backpacking, fishing, hunting, etc.
You seem to think that only by owning the land can the government mediate disputes about land. The government can and should continue in its role of mediating disputes and enforcing contracts between citizens regarding resources. It does not need to own land to do this.

Both the aqueduct and freeway examples you use are easement situations. You wouldn't be able to do the things you are saying legally. in addition, people would just build around you if you got too expensive. Historically, the scenarios you are talking about do not occur, or do not last long if they do simply because it is to no ones benefit. They won't pay you the ridiculous sums.

In my county, a group of ranchers got together in the late 1800s and formed a company to manage the water distribution. They built a dam on the only large lake, and dug ditches all around. To this day, the company still manages the water distribution in the county. This is more in line with what happens in reality, not the silly situations you have listed.

Your concerns about public access for recreation are more valid. However, it is my experience that these opportunities would definately be available if there is a market for them. Private campgrounds exist today. Many people would open their land to hunting for a small fee if there was demand. Where I live, many farmers will let you hunt on their land if you simply ask. They don't like the deer eating their crops. You are doing them a benefit.

In addition, the government currently limits and prevents people from recreating on their land all the time. They currently limit and prevent access and use of water. They currently charge large fees for using many of their roads. It seems your fears are already a reality. If they can do all these things, is it really "public"? If you can be prosecuted or fined for using "public" land against the governments wishes, how is that any different that what would happen if you did the same thing on private land?

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Thinker »

Anyone know the status of this 2020 bill?

H.B. 3009 Local Government Emergency Response
https://le.utah.gov/~2020S3/bills/stati ... AgOqzRzrx4

Very concerning (part of the bill esp at :02 giving local politicians authority over individuals & their property)…
https://youtu.be/-2L3Ve832Dg
Yet, it seems to contradict the US Constitution as mentioned…

” Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.”

ATB
captain of 100
Posts: 380

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by ATB »

In unrelated developments:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/in ... set-class/
A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by nightlight »

9 And thus because of iniquity amongst themselves, yea, because of dissensions and intrigue among themselves they were placed in the most dangerous circumstances.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Thinker »

ATB wrote: October 16th, 2021, 10:53 am In unrelated developments:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/in ... set-class/
A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”
Strange.
By what authority?
Reminds me of what Native Americans likely felt… karma?

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Vision »

Ezra wrote: October 27th, 2017, 12:10 pm Our founding fathers were truly inspired by god.
So God didn't think women should vote in 1788, but changed his mind in 1920?

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by HVDC »

Vision wrote: October 18th, 2021, 7:11 pm
Ezra wrote: October 27th, 2017, 12:10 pm Our founding fathers were truly inspired by god.
So God didn't think women should vote in 1788, but changed his mind in 1920?
Yes, and No?

Sir H really is trying to be good here.

JuneBug12000
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2066

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by JuneBug12000 »

ATB wrote: October 16th, 2021, 10:53 am In unrelated developments:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/in ... set-class/
A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”
I read the whole article. This is insane.

They are removing the fence entirely. Nowhere left to sit. Choose a side. Heaven or hell await. Choose wisely.

Sometimes people can only see the absurd when taken to the extreme and everything has been so absurd for so long this extreme may finally wake people up.

Shall we vote on September 2021 as the beginning of the end? I mean for real this time.

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by harakim »

This whole thing reminds me of Inclosure. Public land is a benefit to all. Let's not be so hasty to distribute it to the wealthiest citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Utah Politicians Attack Property Rights

Post by Durzan »

Serragon wrote: October 25th, 2017, 5:12 pm
PressingForward wrote: October 25th, 2017, 12:29 pm I’ve got problems with Ranchers not paying their grazing fees, and just because they’ve held those contracts for years does not mean they are their personal property. I personally believe the “public” (govt) should own land, and by golly it’s a deal to graze BLM land as compared to private property.
The government is not the public.

The government should not own land simply because there is no one to mediate disputes between you and the government as property owners. Imagine you and your neighbor had a dispute over a property issue. Now imagine your neighbor was also the judge in deciding the case. And also the enforcer of the decision. Government as land owner is simply one big conflict of interest.
This is probably the best and most straight forward argument that I have seen regarding the assertion. And it makes sense!

Post Reply