Realizing that the State is a Sovereign nation and the people of the states are sovereign people you will understand why the State owns the land…the State is the People!

Iowans, Mainer’s, Floridian’s are all Sovereign as Australian’s, Kiwi’s or Canadians… You see the federal gov’t is just like the E.U. [the E.U. loosely modeled itself after the United States Federal gov’t], so yes the State OWNS the land and the Federal has no rights to State own land or on State properties.

I did not "twist" Blarman's words He wrote what he wrote. I did not accuse him of advocating collectivism, and do not "fundamentally misunderstands investment", which has nothing to do with philosophy. This is a discussion of ideas, but Blarman is feuding again. He personalizes everything. Discussion with him is often impossible. He could turn a discussion of ice cream flavors into one of his personal feuds and 'downvoting' sprees.

True, a debate is better without the anti-intellectual distractions. But I was happier to not watch their nonsense at all.

Thanks, I now have several weeks or months reading to catch up on. :-]

Given the anti-intellectual nature of Trump I've been trying to understand his allure. All I've ever heard him say is on the order of, "I'm going to do ___", then repeat it three or more times. This seems to have captured the imagination of many people but for the life of me I don't understand why. He strikes me as a narcissistic authoritarian with delusions of adequacy. I doubt that I could ever vote for him.

To many your description of him is part of the charm many see in him. As some wag once said about another pol., "He shoots from the lip." Frankly, I was happier to watch the debate without Trump there sucking the oxygen out of the room while being incoherent.

You are deliberately twisting my words to suit your interpretation of what I said. You aren't seeking for agreement. You don't bother to ask me to clarify my statements to prevent misunderstanding. For that I absolutely will downvote you.

I will repeat. I am not arguing for collectivism. And in my neck of the woods - quite literally - the federal government's mismanagement of the national forests is a huge concern. But the Federal government isn't going to sell that land to private individuals. That's who they've been taking it from in the first place. So the pathway to private land ownership is to have the State government take it back from the Feds first. One step at a time.

"The problem of re-introducing wolves and the attempts to drive the cattlemen off the range in the west is the agenda of the wilderness preservationists. It is ideological."

I agree.

"The problem of the public lands is not "distance" and not slogans about "skin in the game" or your father's rental property. It is the difference between private property and government control and the anti-private property rights ideology."

Then you fundamentally fail to comprehend the notion of investment. The whole purpose behind personal property is that of investment: of "skin in the game" or the personal interest in something resulting from expenditure of resources. You go ahead and twist that any way you want if it makes you feel better. Property is a means to an end - not an end in and of itself. Property is the vehicle of investment and investment (and return) is a measure of personal responsibility.

Why do we criticize the looting mentality? Do the looters not seek for wealth, resources, and property just like anyone else? Of course they do. The end is resources, i.e. property - no different from that of a producer. When we criticize looters, it is because we criticize the means of obtaining property as being unjust (obtained by coercion or theft). We also frequently criticize the use as well because it is inefficient, i.e. not through free market interaction. The core of property rights is not about the property itself, but the disposal and use of that property in the way an individual sees fit.

If you weren't so busy casting aspersions and twisting what I say, you'd be able to see that we actually agree on many points. It's too bad that you are so focused on proving to yourself that I'm an enemy to look for common ground.

If Kelly had been thinking straight instead of following the "narrative" of liberal "war on women" rhetoric she would have noticed that Trump doesn't insult all women the way he denounced Rosie -- but he does show the same mentality of irrelevant and extreme vicious personal attacks against anyone in his way -- from Ted Cruz to the victims of his eminent domain (whom he has accused of living in "cesspools" next to his "great" resort). That would have been the proper question to ask this candidate for president of the United States. She missed badly, but the topic itself also wasn't what got to Trump.

Here is a package-deal from the transcript of Trump's reply to the Federal lands question. It's the at the end of his statement and isn't usually quoted because it's the trailing portion that, in accordance with his style of not knowing when to stop talking, he increasingly makes no sense and as becomes increasingly disconnected from the question he is supposedly answering:

"This is magnificent land and we have to be great stewards of this land. And hunters do such a great job, I mean hunters and fishermen and all of the different people that use that land so I've been hearing more and more about that. It's just like the erosion of the 2nd amendment and I mean every day you hear Hillary Clinton want to essentially wipe out the 2nd amendment. We have to protect the 2nd amendment and we have to protect our lands. [emphasis added]"

Mark Levin noticed that the "hunters doing a great job" was already screwy, and stopped the quote there. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But what does protecting the rights of the individual under the 2nd amendment have to do with retaining the power of statist Federal land "protection" that prevents private property? Is Federal control of the land part of the Bill of Rights for Government? Is Hillary trying to wipe out the Federal control of land?

The incongruous juxtaposition makes no sense, but is an example of Trump's intellectual shape shifting as he morphs incongruities together for emotional appeals for random 'talking points'. This time the "connection" in his mind is that he is dealing with the hunting lobby and never mind that the Bill of Rights and Federal control of the land are fundamental opposites.

It reminds me of Leonard Peikoff's extreme example in OPAR of a psycho trying make concepts based on characteristics of referents which are not fundamental:

"The opposite of the principle of fundamentality is exemplified in certain kinds of psychotic thinking. One schizophrenic in New York City's Bellevue Hospital routinely equated sex, cigars, and Jesus Christ. He regarded all these existents, both in his thought and in his feelings about them, as interchangeable members of a single class, on the grounds that all had an attribute in common, 'encirclement'. In sex, he explained, the woman is encircled by the man; cigars are encircled by tax bands; Jesus is encircled by a halo. This individual, in effect, was trying to form a new concept, 'encirclist'. Such an attempt is a cognitive disaster, which can lead only to confusion, distortion, and falsehood. Imagine studying cigars and then applying one's conclusions to Jesus!"

Trump's lack of coherence is even worse because his juxtapositions are contradictory in addition to irrelevant. The subjective connection in his mind is the sales pitch and the target.

Yes, indeed. I don't know if it was a good evasion or a goofy one, but he stuck to it I guess....

The Federal government assumed control of most of the land in the west as previously unowned in territories not yet divided into states. It didn't have to pay for it, over time it simply reversed the process of recognizing settlement of unowned land and seized it for itself as permanent control.

Private land that is acquired, including by eminent domain, by the Federal government (and much state acquisition) for parks and wilderness is funded mostly through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) from the Great Society programs of the 1960s. That law authorized the funding and Congress annually appropriates the money up to $900 million/year.

The anti-private property preservationist lobby (Audubon, Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, etc. etc.) is trying to turn that into a permanent $1 billion (or more) off budget annual "trust fund" entitlement for acquisition bypassing Congressional appropriations. They also want to expand it into an entitlement slush fund for activist groups and all levels of government for land use and acquisition planning. Paul Ryan's omnibus bill just extended LWCF instead of killing it.

The maintenance of Federal lands is also paid by Congressional appropriations in the general budget, i.e., taxes. The National Park Service is billions in arrears for maintenance and rehabilitation but wants to keep acquiring more in an insatiable mission mentality of expansionism.

The first step in understanding the beginning and early rise of Progressivism is to understand that it is primarily an intellectual and philosophical movement. The politics and political ideology is driven by that, and it began long before it was called "Progressive".

These references include the roots of it in terms of philosophical fundamentals and early chronology.

Start by listening to Leonard Peikoff's lectures on the history of philosophy on how basic philosophical ideas have evolved in western civilization, even though he doesn't mention "progressivism" as such. Notice in those lectures how American Pragmatism came about in the late 1800s from European influences.

Then read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels comparing the statist decline of America with the rise of nazi Germany. He emphasizes the rise of Pragmatism out of European philosophy and its implications for politics.

Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism (by which he means the classical American liberalism of secular individualism) has an excellent chapter, "Progressives as Nationalists", that shows how the early political progressives employed Pragmatism in their ideology. Statism is inherent in Pragmatism as a 'tool' for pursuing what "works" without regard to acknowledged principles.

Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America is a well-written but sympathetic account of the explosive role of Pragmatism in American culture and politics (including the Supreme Court). Because it is a sympathetic portrayal in terms of many beliefs that are commonly accepted today, you have to understand the previous references explaining what Pragmatism is and what is wrong with it or you risk being swept up in it yourself. If you understand the background first, this book will have you gagging over how Pragmatism took over one realm after another beginning in the 1800s and you will understand how pervasive it and its destruction have become.

If you want to understand how Pragmatism took over in the country academically, read Bruce Kuklick's The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860-1930, which begins with the Unitarians and the Transcendentalists (Emerson was strongly influenced by German philosophy). Most of the book is about the academic Pragmatism begun by William James and Josiah Royce at Harvard, the center of Pragmatism and the center of American philosophy, and which you will recognize from Leonard Peikoff's explanations. But this one is more technical philosophically and depends heavily on your understanding of Leonard Peikoff's lectures to understand the essential philosophical themes and what is wrong with them. It emphasizes the role of Kantian influences.

Prior to the rise of Pragmatism in this country was the imposition of statism in education. Samuel Blumenfeld's Is Public Education Necessary? is a history of early public education in America to about the mid 1800s, and how European statism and intellectuals influenced and became embedded in the movement. It's a classic case of the role of fundamental ideas and intellectual activism in determining politics.

For the historical development, beginning in the 1800s, of the 'public lands' (and ranching in particular) of this thread on Trump, see Wayne Hage, Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands (researched by Ron Arnold), and Harold Steen, The Origins of the National Forests. There are specific connections to European land control and immigrant Federal officials, especially German, but more fundamentally you will recognize the common ideological themes, much of which came from the overall cultural and intellectual influences of Europe not necessarily tied to the particulars of specific statist European land control methods.

You don't tell me that I am "not even trying to read what you have written". You are accountable for what you write. If you mean something else then write something else. You are personally feuding again instead of discussing, complete with the obnoxious down-vote.

You said your state is "weighing getting back our public lands". That is the movement to divest Federal lands to the states that Trump is talking about, not private property.

You wrote: "The same is true in my home state next door: like Utah, we have been weighing a push to get back much of our public lands (most of it national forests). We've had all kinds of problems with conflicts between livestock and wolves for example and the net result has been a disaster - all due to Federal Government."

The disaster is not "all due to the Federal government". The "reform" drive for state control is not a solution. The problem of re-introducing wolves and the attempts to drive the cattlemen off the range in the west is the agenda of the wilderness preservationists. It is ideological. They are anti-private property eco-socialist preservationists who have infiltrated all levels of government, where they have hijacked government power to impose their ideology.

You wrote: "Should someone take care of those lands? Absolutely. But distance from a problem always distorts perspective. The people managing something should be those not only present, but with skin in the game. Neither of those two qualifications fit the bureaucrats in D.C."

No one has denied that "someone" should take care of land. Where does that come from?

The problem of the public lands is not "distance" and not slogans about "skin in the game" or your father's rental property. It is the difference between private property and government control and the anti-private property rights ideology.

You wrote: "There are many groups who use the land responsibly - like part-owners. There are unfortunately many who do not, however."

Groups using public land are not acting like "part owners". When government controls the land, no one owns it. This is not a matter of establishing conservative "local control" by a state government, as framed by many conservatives. It is about private property rights. Conservative thinking and rhetoric frequently misses the essential concepts.

You wrote: "In the case of federally-managed lands, the managers even go so far as to think that they should control public access to these lands rather than simply managing the land."

Blocking access to government land today is driven by the preservationists, who are entrenched in all levels of government nationwide, exploiting government power everywhere. They are also blocking use of private property by its owners, nationwide. The difference is private property rights versus government control, not "skin in the game" and "distance", and not analogies about someone's father's rental property. Federal versus state control is a collectivist false alternative.

Trump has shown an amazing degree of narcissism with not only Kelly, but with anyone who has the audacity to criticize him to any degree. Much the way Obama acts with his failure to admit to ever being wrong. Actually, Kelly's question was a powder puff, even though it was inappropriate. For him to turn this mole-hill into a mountain and then continue to bring it up when otherwise it would be long forgotten reeks of either an ulterior motive, allowing an excuse to not have to answer any tough questions usually posed by Fox, or of being a spoiled brat (I'm taking my ball and going home).

You're not even trying to read what I've written. I'm not endorsing governmental control - I'm pointing out the problems in it and why they exist. I'm also pointing out by example why private ownership leads to better results.

None of the above obviously. There is no reasonable excuse for the government to own any land not expressly needed for its legitimate by the Constitution activities. There is nothing there to justify it owning approximately 33% of land in the US.

Public lands controlled by the government have no "part owners". State versus national government "ownership" is a collectivist false alternative. Appeals to platitudes about "skin in the game" are irrelevant and diversionary.

State control versus the Federal government can be a lesser of two evils, just like with voting, but should not be promoted on principle.

He did and would again if there, but doesn't want to sanction her personal hostility while pretending to be a moderator. Their feud is a distraction from serious debate of the principles and policies, which neither understands.

He knows there are bad people to deal with (many of which he apparently likes). Objecting to a biased "moderator" in a debate is another matter. Attacking him for that is like Obama taunting the Republican candidates for openly standing up against the ridiculous, leftist slanted 'questions' in a previous debate, pretending that the clearly articulated objections were a sign of weakness and inability to contend with foreign enemies. We are all expected to take anything from the left without objection, and the same goes for Kelly's inane nonsense. Dare to defend yourself and you are accused of being "weak".

Freedom of speech and thought means that no one should be "required listening".

Mark Levin often has good analyses of political trends, events and legal issues, but is terrible on basic justification of a free society and proper government. He constantly undermines it by packaging it with faith and tradition as fundamental, including bad tradition. Anyone who equates 'states' rights' with 'liberty' is confused. He also has serious personal problems in how he treats other people on his show, including often his own supporters, with subjective accusations and personal insults followed by perfunctory dismissal. A lot of people despise him for his streams of vicious, taunting, ad hominem personal attacks.

He has also been very bad on Trump, buying into the demagoguery as if it were principled substance, and urging Trump to have a better "campaign" without regard to what he stands for.

Thank you for this post. I had not heard the interview and now realize that Trump is not for me. There are a plethora of local laws dictating land use as The Donald knows from his business experience. And eminent domain is not something to embrace as he suggests. I see that his deal making will continue to send us in the wrong direction. While he is certainly entertaining his mindset is worrisome.