[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Marichiko cheats. The bulk of Mari's post covers a very different sort of problem than selling public lands. Cutting of timber on Federally owned property is an example of "the tragedy of the commons", which occurs when nobody owns the land they are working.

The tragedy of the commons is usually described as: "When cattle are raised on the public square the farmers let them overgraze it; when cattle are raised on private farms this is never permitted to happen." Ironically, Mari's post is an argument for private ownership of land.

I did mention that. However, assuming that because they purchased the land that they will not clearcut it is also wrong. Mining companies own the land that they strip mine. This does not make them better stewards.

The larger issue is the government using the argument that because the spotted owl protection is costing communities income, federal land should be sold as reparation. There are any number of environmental regulations that have a financial impact. Should we start selling federal land to reimburse utilities for required pollution abatement equipment?

The US government never did give freed slaves their 40 acres, and everyone can agree that the government, through the Fugitive Slave Law was an accomplice to slavery.

If we didn't hand federal land over to former slaves, why should communities affected by spotted owl restrictions be compensated in this fashion?

Of course, if the government does decide to go through with this plan, look for a lawsuit by the descendents of slaves to attach the assets with the justification that the government has started a new precedent and can no longer claim that federal land grants to aggreived parties, even if only in passing along the sale price, are not done.

It would of course help if these descendents registered as Republicans.