Comments (36)

• Nick Bradley

  I've heard that the total value of all federal lands is over $20 Trillion Dollars.
  

  
  When Ross Perot ran for President in '92, he said that we should sell off federal lands to eliminate the federal debt. He said, however, that there was not enough money in circulation to buy the land!
  

  
  With our federal debt around $9 trillion, Why don't we sell land for assumption of debt? In exchange for a $100,000 piece of property, you are responsible for $100,000 worth of debt. That includes $600 a month in monthly interest payments.
  

  Published: May 10, 2007 8:30 AM

• Manuel Lora

  The selling of land is a possible solution, yes, but the problem here is why should the government get land that it has already taken by force?

  Also, you are assuming that government debt is legitimate.

  Published: May 10, 2007 8:50 AM

• Jean Paul

  Allowing the state to retain the profits on the sale of an asset secured through tax funding is deplorable.

  The only acceptable way to privatize a 'public' asset is to form an independent corporation to hold the asset, and cede 100% of ownership in the corporation to the historical taxpayers through stock issue - stock which may then be traded on the free market. This goes for all tax-funded assets - roads, utilities, etc.

  Of course the tax funding must immediately, or at worst on a finite and immutable timeline, cease.

  That just leaves the problem that there isn't actually a free market to trade in...

  Published: May 10, 2007 9:35 AM

• Johnathon

  Manuel,
  Great post! I was wondering if you could help me follow your argument better when you say the following:

  "If so, then for there to be chairs, we would have to have carpenters and furniture experts in power also. And for us to have computers, then programmers would have to take over the state. This line of thought is nonsensical."

  I understand that when the government owns the property, it can't be guaranteed to stay a nature preserve. An extreme example may be, if a technology was developed such that a single blade of grass could power a car for 100 miles, then you would probably find the government making arguments for harvesting the grass, instead of keeping the land as a preserve. However, I am confused about what you are arguing in the above snippet. Programmers and chairs aren't something owned by the state, so why would you have to have related interests in power to keep them? Conversely (wrong word?), since the government owns the land, if you had ecologists in power, it would be in their best interest to keep the land as preserves, because of their desire to be re-elected based on the principles they had run on... Maybe I am missing the point. I'm just looking for you to expand more on the above snippet. Again, great article and thank you in advance for the clarification!

  Published: May 10, 2007 9:38 AM

• Manuel Lora

  My point was to throw a bit of suble mockery to those who want to elect, for example, environmentally friendly politicians assuming that this will fix the problem. It won't, and it might be worse so long as private property rights are not increased. And this is like saying that if you must have (a market for) X, then government must supply this and people who favor X must be in government.

  Published: May 10, 2007 9:44 AM

• Michael Towns

  Manuel, brilliant posting. I enjoyed reading it this morning....it's articles like these that attracted me to the Mises Institute in the first place, and I always learn something new and decrease my philosophical ignorance thanks to such a great organization. Many thanks!

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:03 AM

• mike Bamford

  Recreational access lobby groups demanding full use of public lands as "taxpaying citizens" has become commonplace. Kayakers are suing to open rivers to boats in Yellowstone and ATV riders demand access to hiking trails nationwide. They all claim to be “nature loving” enthusiasts, eager to explore wilderness utilizing their chosen method of travel. These organizations are often funded by manufactures of the associated outdoor gear.
  The recreation lobby demanding full access is undermining conservation organizations. Those being restricted consider stratification, or zoning, of impact levels “unfair”.
  The historical farce of “public lands” was well documented in The Tragedy Of Commons. Current Government agencies responsible for "management" are in a new dilemma; open lands to all the public or risk lawsuits from recreational lobbyists.
  The collision course between recreation and conservation is inevitable. Watch for the fireworks at a NEPA hearing near you.
  

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:16 AM

• Manuel Lora

  Mike,

  Thanks for the comments. The problem, as you have mentioned, is the expection of openness by public lands. If they were private and land rights respected, then the recreation lobbies would have to find their own lands to promote their activities. Instead, they're going for political means.

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:21 AM

• Nick Bradley

  Manuel Lora, Jean Paul:
  

  
  Although I have no comment on the legitimacy of federal debt, a property-debt swap is the least bad option.
  

  
  While allowing the state to retain the profits of past seizures, prying the property out of the government's as soon as possible would maximize liberty. Waiting for the best option, a holding company for all federal assets, with taxpayers serving as shareholders, may take far too long, with rights being violated in the meantime.
  

  
  Furthermore, such a holding company would only be truly just if ALL assets were placed in the holding company; and it would be highly unlikely that the holding company would be a true private corporation. There would be federal oversight, with board members appointed by Congress or the Executive Branch.
  

  
  A market for government-owned property could be set up quite quickly. TreasuryDirect.gov is a quite vibrant market for government debt, and has the look, feel, and quality of a major brokerage firm website.
  

  
  Property would be parceled out and put on the auction block.

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:29 AM

• Michael Van Milligan

  ... In Zimbabwe and Botswana, where it is legal to kill elephants, the number of elephants has been growing by 5% per year. During the 1980s, the Kenyan elephant population dropped from 65 to 19 thousand while in Zimbabwe the population grew from 30 to 40 thousand. ...
  
  
  Something tells me that even if you were to point this out to someone in favor of socialist animal protection they have already absorbed the paradigm to the point where they would probably rather have the animals decline and extinct than to be used (or in their words, exploited) by the market.

  Published: May 10, 2007 11:21 AM

• Jean Paul

  "While allowing the state to retain the profits of past seizures, prying the property out of the government's as soon as possible would maximize liberty. Waiting for the best option, a holding company for all federal assets, with taxpayers serving as shareholders, may take far too long, with rights being violated in the meantime."

  I don't see why it needs to be a big wait to do one versus the other - calculating each taxpayer's share in a given asset may be done in more or less elaborate ways, but you'd stop tweaking the allocation at a certain threshold of diminishing returns - I can't imagine it would take more than a few weeks or maybe months to figure it out.

  The hardest part is just making the decision to privatize the assets. Once that's done, a couple months to come up with a 'pretty good' allocation is far better than letting the thief make good with the loot that day.

  Also, it doesn't need to happen for all state assets at the same time held in the same single company. Some assets or sets of assets would be easier than others to allocate - do those first and leave the 'hard ones' for later. Finer grained is arguably better any way you look at it.

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:28 PM

• Nick Bradley

  When I speak of time it would take, I am of course speaking of the popular support to do so. A lot of Americans feel uneasy about the size of the federal debt, and in our current statist system, that may be the only way to privatize.
  

  
  Like I said, a holding company would be better, but it is less feasible to take place within a statist system.
  

  
  

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:42 PM

• Jean Paul

  "Furthermore, such a holding company would only be truly just if ALL assets were placed in the holding company; and it would be highly unlikely that the holding company would be a true private corporation. There would be federal oversight, with board members appointed by Congress or the Executive Branch."

  EVENTUALLY you'd want all assets to be transferred, but I don't see why it all has to happen at the same time through the same company. Finer grained would be far better as control would be distributed across many, many different management teams.

  Also, of course it would be a requirement that there would NOT be state oversight, binding legislation, or any retained state ownership. 100% of all shares would be issued to taxpayers - all identical, voting shares with no special classes or privileges.

  The board would NOT be state appointed but at the very least democratically chosen by the shareholders. Better would be a corporate charter maximizing direct-democratic control over the asset.

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:43 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  Manuel,
  "Also, you are assuming that government debt is legitimate."

  My initial reaction was to claim the government defaulting on its debts would only shift the tax burden(off of tax payers, on to lenders). But then I realized lenders are(intentionally or not) investing in theft and deserve to lose.

  
  Great article, by the way.
  

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:45 PM

• Josh Purinton

  Nice job. I especially liked the question-and-answer section.

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:47 PM

• Jean Paul

  Right, the time to obtain buy-in from both the masses and the elites in power is overwhelmingly the obstacle in either case. I'm not convinced there's that much difference betwen the two - it's a LOT of idealogical distance to cover no matter what the implementation ends up being.

  Given that, I'd continue to advocate doing it the right way.

  On the topic of debt - it can't just be ignored away, so I'd probably say that the debt should be allocated along with the assets, where it would become part of the mandate of the managment team to get back into the black. Not sure how workable that is from a legal, contract standpoint...

  Published: May 10, 2007 12:50 PM

• Jean Paul

  "But then I realized lenders are(intentionally or not) investing in theft and deserve to lose."

  I sympathize with this and would love to just say "screw 'em", but it's probably an unfair oversimplification. Taxation IS theft, but on some level it was also 'the rules of the game' all this time... I'm not sure justice is served by punishing those who acted within the legal framework, such as it was at the time.

  What's the proper libertarian/anarchist stance on sins of the father being visited to the present? Do the first nations get a stake? How about absurdly further back to the ancient romans? There are a lot of claimable debts - sorting out the legitimacy of any is a thorny problem because injustice has been systematic throughout history.

  Published: May 10, 2007 1:00 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  Doing justice is indeed a problem, but not doing injustice is less difficult.

  The alternate to not paying back debt is paying it back. That can only be done through taxes. Present, past, or future. The Government's land holdings are all past taxes, loans are promises to tax in the future. Taxes already collected should not be used to pay off taxes promised. Taxes already collected should be returned and future taxes should never be collected.

  If government is forced to honor promises towards future taxation than, in pratice, taxation is not abolished. Tax payers are being held to promises they never made.

  Published: May 10, 2007 1:10 PM

• Manuel Lora

  Taxation IS theft, but on some level it was also 'the rules of the game' all this time... I'm not sure justice is served by punishing those who acted within the legal framework, such as it was at the time.

  But if the law is unjust, do we not punish? At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, if certain actions and policies are unjust regardless of (positive) law, are those actions justified and therefore not punishable?

  Published: May 10, 2007 1:13 PM

• Jean Paul

  Right... Godwin's law more or less avoided, and I think you've convinced me. 'Legal' is certainly not equivalent to 'Just', and unjustly earned debts, however legal, do not deserve particular respect. I think I'm comfortable with that.

  Published: May 10, 2007 1:25 PM

• Michael D. Setty

  Taking Lora's ideas to their logical extreme, I'm curious how Loras would charge each individual for the oxygen needed to breathe, which would be produced by 100% privately owned trees, and I also presume ocean-based algae and other plants as well.
  
  
  
  What about the clean water services performed by wetlands? How would he have the wetland owners recover the rent owed for their land's services to the public?

  Published: May 10, 2007 3:27 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  "How would he have the wetland owners recover the rent owed for their land's services to the public?"

  You just defeated your own logic. The public would not enjoy his wetland, only his customers would.

  You're asking what socialist mechanics would exist in a free market. Answer: None.

  Published: May 10, 2007 3:38 PM

• Robert Brazil

  Great article. But isn't part of the problem that many in the conservation crowd want MORE parks/open spaces than would exist in a free market?

  This is why they turn to the state in the first place -- not because conservation is impossible in the market but because they want more parks/open spaces than the amount for which they are willing to personally give up the satisfaction of other desires.

  A local newspaper recently ran a story about how we "need" to conserve X amount of open space by the end of 200X. But that is as arbitrary as saying, because one likes pubs, that we need to have 20 pubs for every 300 square miles of land.

  The rationale for conservation (as opposed to pub-building) is that conservation is the will of the people as expressed in voting. And the public here does vote for conservation. But (1) people will always demand more of something when they are not presented with a bill; and (2) the individuals who value other things more than parks and trees lose their say in the matter.

  Published: May 10, 2007 4:06 PM

• Manuel Lora

  Great article. But isn't part of the problem that many in the conservation crowd want MORE parks/open spaces than would exist in a free market?

  This is why they turn to the state in the first place -- not because conservation is impossible in the market but because they want more parks/open spaces than the amount for which they are willing to personally give up the satisfaction of other desires.

  Part of the problem is that the state is crowing out possible conservation efforts from what would exist in a market. So it's both unfair to the conservation crowd that they can't easily homestead land or recover it from the state while at the same time the state gives out handouts to companies and the politically connected, exacerbating the problem by favoring some at the expense of the others.

  Nothing new here: good old socialism and state-favoritism.

  Published: May 10, 2007 5:10 PM

• jason

  I have noticed that some are trying to say what the state should do with the public land. What gives them the right to do anything with the public land? They have no just claim on the land. It is not theirs to sell. We don't need government to do anything in order to desocialize.

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:05 PM

• David C

  There is a fine line between justice and revenge. Justice is stopping evil choices and using that to set an example, revenge is making another hurt because hurt was done. Sometimes justice and revenge match up, but other times they don't. In the case of evil systems, if the system changes than the evil stops and the success of the change sets the example and tends to lock in change. Perhaps attacking a participant while an evil system is in place would be just (but often not wise), but afterword's I don't think it would be a good idea other than for the most severely harmful actions.

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:06 PM

• Hyrum Berg

  One way to redistribute the government owned land would be to have state lotteries give it away. Thats what some of the eastern states did like the Carolinas back in the early 1800s. It would be fare and citizens from all walks of life would a reason to support it.
  
  

  Hyrum

  Published: May 10, 2007 10:22 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  "There is a fine line between justice and revenge."

  The debt, as extension of the tax system, remains a win-lose.

  You have to choose to pay back the lenders at the tax payers expense, or default on the loans. The lenders may not be completely guilty, but tax payers are completely innocent. There can be only one decision.

  Published: May 10, 2007 11:20 PM

• Alexander Villacampa

  Nice job Manuel, you've done it again!

  Published: May 11, 2007 6:05 AM

• Sooperdave

  The Economist agrees.
  

  Published: May 11, 2007 12:21 PM

• Paul Marks

  Quite so.

  Forests, rivers (and so on) that are in private ownership tend to be looked after better than those that are in "public" hands. Nor does "privte ownership always mean "for cash profit" ownership - an individual or an association (trust and so on) can have other objectives that cash profit.

  As for the profits of sale.

  Like it or not tens of millions of people are dependent on government for such things as their pensions (either through Social Security or via private pension funds who have part of their assets in government bonds).

  It is no good to say to a 65 year old (or an 80 year old or whatever) "well you should have been saving for retirement in a better way - and you should go back to when you were 21".

  The profits of selling off government lands (and the interstate road system, and the U.S. postal service and so on) should be used to "pay off" people who have become dependent on the government (either directly via Social Security and Medicare) or indirectly (via the investments of private pension funds).

  2007 is not "year zero" and tens of millions of people can not just be left to die - when they could be paid off.

  This would not be a perfect solution - I doubt that the value of such government assets is really enough to give these people as much as they would lose (by the end of Social Security and Medicare and so on) - but it is better than cutting them off with nothing.

  As for the environment:

  If interstate roads really are the most economic way of moving people and cargo then private companies. And if they are not that means that private railroads and so on (freed with the elimination of the F.C.C. and other parts of government) would become more important (which will please the anti C02 people).

  After all it was partly price control (on the city networks in the 1920's and 1930's and the national railroads especially in the 1960's) and partly the building of "free" roads that undermined "mass transit" in the first place (and made networks vulnerable to decline and take over).

  "But the government needs somewhere to train the military".

  Even non anarchists (such as myself) need not be concerned about this. Only a tiny percentage of government land is used to train the military.

  Published: May 11, 2007 12:31 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  "Like it or not tens of millions of people are dependent on government for such things as their pensions (either through Social Security or via private pension funds who have part of their assets in government bonds)."

  Doesn't work. How can the government "owe" something it doesn't own.

  You're right, it does suck for pensioners. But the only way to keep paying them to is to continue a policy of redistributing wealth, that is, to continue government.

  Published: May 11, 2007 5:43 PM

• Jim Tetzlaff

  Being from Nevada, where 84% of the entire state is "owned" by the federal government, I wonder if any of you have actually read the constitution. Ten square miles is reserved, per state for federal activities. The rest rightfully belongs to each state. What they do with it is not a federal asset or concern.

  Semper Fidelis,
  JimT
  

  Published: May 11, 2007 9:34 PM

• Paul Marks

  Article One, Section Eight, Subsection 17.

  It is one ten mile square (maximum) bit of land - for the capital (which became Washington D.C.) and for land duely puchaced with the consent of State legislatures for the erection of "forts, magazines, arsonals, dockyards and other needful bildings" ("other needful buildings" can cover a lot of things for national defence).

  As we would agree the Tenth Amdendment makes clear that if the Congress is not given a power, the government can not do it. Hence (for example) it can not rightly own the third of the United States it claims to own.

  The debate is whether the governent should give up this land (and let the old and so on who have been led to depend on it) die off, or whether it should seek to sell this land (and such assets as the interstate road network and the postal system) to try and pay these people off.

  The pure libertarian line may be the former, but I hold to the latter.

  Published: May 14, 2007 11:00 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  You're right, it does suck for pensioners. But the only way to keep paying them to is to continue a policy of redistributing wealth, that is, to continue government.
  
  There are various ways to handle a transition, from applying a certain cutoff age or date, to a gradual phasing out of the program over a certain number of years.
  
  I'm inclined to think that discussing how to do it isn't too important unless most people agree it should be done SOMEHOW, first. Then we could hammer out the details.

  Published: May 14, 2007 11:59 PM

• Manuel Lora

  Some more relevant info (with a graph) here:

  http://blog.mises.org/archives/006625.asp

  Published: May 16, 2007 6:38 PM