So maybe the real question we should be deciding is why the Federal government actually owns any land at all outside of Washington, D.C.

Let's say that an amendment is passed that prohibits the Federal Government from owning land at all (with the exception of Embassies and Consulates in foreign nations). Any land they want to build a building on, etc., outside the District of Colombia must be leased or rented from the State in which it is located.

Now one can say that all this does is devolve the burden down to the States, it doesn't necessarily eliminate the problem with "public" property. The problem is that in any situation where ownership of land is by a group (so-called public land fitting this description) there must be caretakers assigned for that land, empowered with ownership rights. Even when this is a government agency, the land still has certain conditions of use associated with it and penalties for abrogation. In the case of public properties, that abrogation can amount to a crime instead of merely a dispute between citizens and as such would be decided in a criminal rather than a civil court proceeding. But it is not individual citizens, but rather the property's caretakers who must bring the suit.

The underlying problem is that this is being used as an argument that anyone should have access to "public" land, and this just isn't the case. As is pointed out even today, with "public" land, the government is charged with overseeing its use. Deference is given to citizens with respect to its lawful use, but the fallacy is in associating unlimited rights or passage through or use of that land. No such thing exists in today's world. The only way one might claim such would have been prior to the US' annexation of those territories when there truly was no owner, no authority, and no force of law in those lands.

I can see some validity in the notion of "public
property" in certain limited cases: courthouses,
military bases, police stations, etc. But even then,
the "public property" ultimately belongs to the citi-
zens.
And suppose a hypothetical case: suppose
Smith, Jones, Robinson, and Brown all get to-
gether,and because Green's land is among all
those, they all agree not to let him get out to
go to work, go to the store, fetch water, etc. I
think that in that case, if no one allowed Green
a right-of-way to get out, it would amount to
false imprisonment. Perhaps that is not really
quite relevant to the immigration debate, but it
is something I think about sometimes.

Great question. If I were president, I would allow anyone with enough money to pay for it without borrowing if it were constitutionally permissible.

Would you sell it to American citizens only? Or would it be available to anyone on earth with enough money?

Any one of the 7 billion people on earth who can make it to America are automatically entitled to a share of our hard-earned property - just for showing up.

It's not just the politicians who violated their oaths, it's the judges too by not declaring void the unconstitutional laws.

I see no distinction in property ownership between private corporations and publicly traded ones. Aside from all the reporting differences because of the government the difference is who can buy the stock.

Publicly traded stock can be bought by anyone. But once you own the stock you own a portion of the corporation.

And a very good purchase at that.

I still do not grant the government that right. I also realize the government doesn't see it that way.

The public lands, even those the government purchased, belong to the people. They used OUR money, they have none of their own beyond what they take from us.

See jdg's comment a little further down.

the louisiana Purchase was "purchased" to avoid war

yes, welfare state

This is a badly framed argument. Every piece of land in the US is owned and its use determined by the owner. Two simple examples are the open lands in the Northeat and the checkerboard lands in the West. My land is open to hunters but the abutter has closed their lands so hunters need to observe the rules while the deer don't care about title. In the West every 660 feet you are on another piece of the checkerboard. If the land is Plum Creek and USFS then one is cut and the other is abandoned but it is all owned. Private and public property per se present no problem or conflict in determining the use of the lands. What happens as John Locke saw is that the owners work out agreements to accommodate any common interests. Just like a free country the parcels are sovereign and used by their owners for their quiet enjoyment and pleasure whatever that may be and it is no one else's business. Only if every one has equal absolute property rights does it all work out rationally. Imigrants like hunters go where the game is.

About ten years ago in Northern New Jersey, I was on my way out of a supermarket and decided to buy a lottery ticket. A young Latina was ahead of me at the counter. She spoke no English but clearly wanted milk from the WIC program.When asked for an ID she opened her wallet and since I am 6'1" and she barley 5', I could see her going through 4 or 5 Social Security cards. I knew then that America and Individual Rights were going to die. Marx wanted to abolish private property and this government is implementing his wishes at an ever increasing rate.

Open all so-called public property to auction. The monies gathered to be distributed equally among the highest bidders after everything is sold, after expenses. To be monitored by a private CPA firm.

I would do it anyway, just to get all that property out of government hands.

Maybe "public lands" should be like property owned by corporations made up of stockholders (all the citizens in each state for example). I should have a stock certificate for my share of public lands and property, and be able to vote as we do at stockholders meetings. lands, but rather a minimal amount - because its too difficult to manage. The current system where the amorphous "government" owns the lands for itself should be abolished.

I fundamentally disagree on two levels.

First - I disagree that the government has the right to control public lands to the extent of being able to sell it.

Second - No way would the resulting monies be used to pay down the debt.

Individual rights probably do not exist in the usa any longer. Notice that agencies of the government at all levels violate those rights probably on a daily basis somewhere in the usa that is not necessarily making the national news.as the people who live on the southern border is now or has in the past or will in the future protect what is supposedly their individual rights. i believe you know the answer.

I would have best fit in around 1880.

Perhaps. but China respecting more capitalistic endeavors (through private property rights) has changed the nation. It changes how the people respond to teh govt. Moving to a mixed economy is killing capitalism. But we were always the shining becon on the hill and we have lost so much-but as blackswan said today, give me 2015 over pre- civil war with regards to human rights. I try to keep that in mind.

Me too. A great solution to the U.S. financial situation would be for the government to sell the majority of the land it holds and use the revenue to pay off the debt. It would also make the land productive and tax generating.

However, given how politics works they would give it to their supporters for pennies on the dollar.

The idea of selling all "public property" would require a country that holds at least near-Objectivist values. If the revenues went to buying votes, that could be a whole another chapter in Atlas Shrugged: Now Non-Fiction!

Here's the problem with that: I have precisely zero faith that the resulting revenues would be used to reduce the national debt.

The revenues would be used to buy votes, pure and simple. It wouldn't solve anything.

The immigration described in the article is fine. It allows the country to have an objective set of procedures for verifying the immigrant's authenticity. Under those conditions, immigration is to be supported.

yes