Lionel: "and it is necessary because otherwise we can't even have functional government offices" They could always pay rent. Might even let taxpayers see more of the actual costs of the government as it grows.

Interesting point about military bases.

As you've seen, most OBJ's abhor eminent domain - but what about seizure of land for military purposes.

Assuming the need is objectively genuine, I think we'd probably have to weigh on the side of defense then.

Anybody...?

Which is the goal of radical environmentalists. The want human-kind returned to the caves and trees that they came from 50,000 years ago.

Better send the EPA and Department of the Interior packing too. Then on to HHS and so on...

Eminent domain is nothing but legalized theft.

I took the greater good as sarcasm. Hope that was the right take.

For the Native population it was more like "territory protection" rather than "property rights" as we know them today.

Much like all aboriginal peoples they thought of themselves as being part of the land. The idea of land ownership was a foreign thought.

That's how I see it as well.

The O'Shaugennessy dam was a solution that worked - provided a water source for what was then a major metro area (for the early 1900's) and generated power for it as well. Without that power and water the industry (and military base) that grew up in the SF Bay area would never have happened.

As a natural preserve - while the Hetch-Hetchy valley is, indeed, flooded it is still a beautiful and striking area. It truly serves a dual purpose of a recreational area and a lifeline for a few million people.

What makes me laugh is the starry-eyed people who clamor "Destroy the dam and restore the valley". That piece of dirt has been underwater for some century or so... even the most determined restoration effort (at how many billions of OUR tax dollars) it will never look or be as when John Muir hiked through it. It can *never* be "restored" - just drained, planted, reseeded, maybe move dome rocks around, add some concrete to bolster the bottom of the many falls, and make it a Disneyland.

Yeah, had it never been dammed - then it would be different. But it was. And people now need it for their lives and businesses. Considering it is a link in a system designed to water a desert peninsula (and state), when the state has so many ongoing water problems, killing it - would be akin to a death sentence for a large chunk of California.

Even though we frequent the National Parks, there remains the principle that government shouldn't own land at all.

When government began creeping into land ownership it began the violation of individual property rights.

As for the Hetch Hetchy Valley dam and subsequent flooding thereof, 1934 was before the invention of desalinization plants.
I've often quipped that our government can spend money frivolously in California for a railroad across the desert and LA will drain Owen's Valley for its water resources but won't spend money on desalinization plants for Southern California.

I don't believe there should be National parks at all. State parks, yes. National parks, no - with the possible exception of Washington, D.C. I'd like to turn most of that into a park...

That would keep Rand Paul very busy indeed. I think that I would do the same, but there are so many executive orders that need to be rescinded.

"Rand Paul tells audience he would only use executive orders to rescind past orders if elected president"

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-tells-au...

Very simply: we would not have government parks. Instead, if people wanted to save a parcel of land apart from development, let them form a company for that purpose, to subsist on private donations if necessary. (For in the Objectivist universe, taxation would limit itself to a voluntary fee for the support of whatever police protection the park would require, that the company would not provide by itself.)

Rand did, to be sure, propose continued development. But a parkland might support itself on fees that certain groups might pay to it for opportunities for organized group tent camping, hiking, riding, and other activities involving "outdoor survival" skills. So long as enough people know those skills have value, they will want a place to practice them. And they will pay for it. Directly, not buried in some budget along with a lot of "pork." And I imagine that artists will pay for it, too, to have vistas where they can go for inspiration.

I would fire all government bureaucrats and force them to apply for their jobs back.

Elimination of 90% of the Department of Justice, and 100% of the Department of Education, for starters.

The national parks were established via executive order, so they should be . In order to free up the Wyatts and Danaggers, I would have to also revoke prior executive orders that the EPA now administers.

The key is the enforcement. The improvement defines the right

Well I think you 'd need Congress's approval j. Actually this is kind of fun. I 'd dismantle the majority of federal agencies and the others I would hamstring into a regulatory bill of rights. I 'd repeal ACA by executive order and change interstate commerce laws to allow people to move with their insurance. I 'd send lots of reinforcement to the southern border. And release all non -violent drug offenders from prison. I 'd also get DoJ on all recent anti trust cases and release those jailed or reduce those fined. I 'd sign orders to regionalize Federal offices significantly reducing the importance of DC. Oh I 'd getstarted on pork bills like abolishing farm subsidies. Ok your turn...

Thanks KH never heard that about the Pueblo. So improvement is the key and paying the present owner for their value added, derived by negotiation, is the key.

Well it was initially "purchased " or won in a war by a government which fullfills the definition of improvement. I don 't know how often eminent domain has been used for military bases but I know in many cases the govt purchases the land. Recently Ft. Carson wanted to expand but did not get cooperation from many ranchers even though the majority of land owners were receptive. They had to drop it.

OK, I would put them on the market. There are many things that I would do on the first day. Debt reduction is critical. Selling all federal land, other than some defense bases and nuclear facilities, would unleash a few Ellis Wyatts and Ken Danaggers. Trickle down economics starts properly from those who are able to obtain the natural resources from which to make products.

That's the very first thing you would do?