Paolo wrote on November 01, 2007 09:14 PM: "The land is not unclaimed, especially here in Nevada. The people of the territory gave all unclaimed land to the federal government as a condition of statehood."

So, "the people" who had never made use of this "unclaimed land," somehow had the right to cede this land to the federal government?

And then, this mystical abstraction called "the people" have some sort of "right" to expect a "return" on their "investment"? What "investment????"

I stick by my original thesis: land that is unused and unclaimed should be open to claim and development by anyone, in line with the proposed usage. In the Homestead Act, this meant 160 acres to anyone wanting to start a ranch.

Michael wrote on October 22, 2007 10:57 AM: Excellent article. We've come so far from the days of "Live free or die" and "Give me liberty or give me death." The men and women who fought for and built this country wouldn't know whether to laugh at us, or cry.

Jeremiah wrote on October 22, 2007 08:40 AM: Curt,

If you do not appreciate the schools, that's certainly your right to feel that way. However, my point, which you apparently completely missed, is that this column was a piece that merely pandered to a synchophantic readership. Vin's assertion that Berkeley virologist Dr. Peter Duesberg's theories on AIDS have been proven is intellectually dishonest; as is his continued ranting about the safety of passive smoking in spite of copious amounts of evidence to the contrary. His touting of the Enstrom & Kabat study is an insult to the intelligence his readers, as anyone with an Internet connection can find that their study was completely discredited. Enstrom and Kabat misrepresented their research and were both paid Phillip Morris consultants at the time if their study. The Journal of the American Medical Association wouldn't even print it.

Vin blames the schools for society's belief that HIV causes AIDS and that passive smoking is dangerous. What, the parents have nothing to do with that? Well, copious amounts of empirical data back those opinions up. I apologize if I don't teach my third graders about a discredited theory on AIDS and a dubious passive smoking study. I'll just stick to reading, writing, and math, thanks.

John F wrote on October 21, 2007 05:40 PM: Paolo,

The land is not unclaimed, especially here in Nevada. The people of the territory gave all unclaimed land to the federal government as a condition of statehood. Whether it sits idle is ireelevant. The land belongs to the people of the United States. I believe the people of the United States are entitled to some kind of return on their investment if a mining company wants to extract OUR mineral wealth. I'm not against allowing mining. What I'm against is giving our wealth away.

Curt Howland wrote on October 21, 2007 04:42 PM: > Please don't disaprage schools any further like this.

Coercive attendance is identical to the military draft: It assumes that the individual is the property of the state, to be enslaved at gun point on the whim of the government.

Public schools are 13 years of forced labor for the crime of being young. I will not be satisfied until they are all burned to the ground, no stone left upon another, and the soil sown with salt.

Paolo wrote on October 21, 2007 01:18 PM: John F wrote:

"Should a mining company be allowed to walk on to public land and start mining?"

Idle, unused land should in no sense be considered "public" land. In a free society, it would more rightly be called "unclaimed land."

Should a mining company "be allowed" (who's doing all this "allowing" here?) to stake a claim on unused, unclaimed land? Absolutely!

The only role the government should play is to see if there are any competing claims on the same land, and adjudicate the matter fairly in a court of law.

If party A stakes a claim, intending to use the land for mining, while party B also stakes a claim on the same land, intending to use it for ranching, a legal mechanism needs to be in place to reach a fair and just solution to competing interests (most likely, a bidding system would do the trick).

You don't just "walk on" to the land and start mining. First, you go to the local courthouse and register a claim. If you get clear title to the land, then you can walk on to your own land and start mining.

John F wrote on October 21, 2007 09:22 AM: Mr. S.,

I agree with you up to a point. Refer to the mining editorial appearing today. Should a mining company be allowed to walk on to public land and start mining? There have to be some restrictions on the use of public lands, but I agree the default position should be to allow public access. It is, after all, our land.

I do believe 'em when they say, "You made these laws yourselves; you are the government." That's one of the reasons I'm such a pessimist.

patte wrote on October 21, 2007 08:58 AM: I love your columns Vin, sock it to 'em!

Sandro wrote on October 21, 2007 08:16 AM: Sadly, most of the horrible laws on the books really *are* due to "the people".

Paolo wrote on October 21, 2007 08:02 AM: There should be no such category as "Federal Lands" at all, except what land is absolutely necessary to carry out the powers enumerated in the Constitution (maintenance of a navy, post roads, border inspection stations, and the like).

Instead, the "default setting" is that all unused land now belongs to the federal government. Citizens are then taxed to maintain the land, but are forbidden to enter it!

In a free society, any person should be allowed to stake a claim on any unused, unclaimed land. (The amount of land one could fairly claim would depend on the proposed use; I believe the Homestead Act, for example, allowed 160 acres to be claimed for a family farm.) The only role the government should play in this is to register the claim at the local courthouse, and adjudicate any disputes.

Lake Mead, with hundreds of miles of valuable lakefront property, should be surrounded by thousands of nice homes and businesses by this time. But the government forbids citizens from owning such excellent property.

Read All Comments