Here I am

Do away with private land ownership?

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Anyone watching WRESTLEMANIA...

I'm bummed, had to put the rottie down today.

This freaky cat from the mitten thinks it would be better if the government owned all land so he could ride his 4 wheeler whereever he pleased without asking those pesky land owners permission.

Thoughts? Opinions? Doubts? Fears?
 
Originally posted by lgibson

Where can your ride on Govt. land?



all of our land you can here. Though there is legislation to stop it in certain areas. Doing away with private land ownership is ridiculous.
 
That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, up here in the North East if it's government owned or controlled there is a good chance you can't even ride a mountain bike on it. I think it's better to give incentives to landowners like in Maine where if your land is open to public hunting you get an extra chance at a doe permit. You can still require permission first but it helps keep land open for public use.
 
I think for starters you otta give your house to the goverment, so they can let any homeless people who are to lazy to work share it with you. If it becomes crowded you will be the first to leave. Let us know how it works.
 
Govt land here in Central FL is being closed by hundreds of acres at a time... . I wish it was PRIVATE land so I could lease it from the owner.
 
Whats the Difference???

I recently had the occasion to read my deed. Here in Montgomery County PA proceeds from any mineral found on my property would go to the local, state, and federal government. In other words, they own all of the mineral rights and if i discovered that I was living on a potential oil field I would gain no profit from recovering this resource. All I do is live here, park my Dodge here, and pay a hefty mortgage and large sums of money in taxes on my little piece of paradise.

If I was out back one day shooten at some food and up from the ground came a bubbelin crude, some one else would get to move to Beverly Hills. :(
 
Seems logical. we can unfence this country and bring back the buffalo herds, govt cowboys can ride the range hearding livestock to new areas of pasture. While we stare in longing from the new mandatory highrise population centers that tower into the sky, hoping to feel the fresh breese and the sound of a joyful ATV racing across the baren prairie. ATV' ers, the chosen few who are allowed unfettered access to this great land. hehe
 
heheheh!





Mineral rights-on the other hand we own the mineral rights under some PA Game Commission property.



They don't like that one bit.
 
Re: Whats the Difference???

Originally posted by PaulCreamer

I recently had the occasion to read my deed. Here in Montgomery County PA proceeds from any mineral found on my property would go to the local, state, and federal government. In other words, they own all of the mineral rights and if i discovered that I was living on a potential oil field I would gain no profit from recovering this resource. All I do is live here, park my Dodge here, and pay a hefty mortgage and large sums of money in taxes on my little piece of paradise.

If I was out back one day shooten at some food and up from the ground came a bubbelin crude, some one else would get to move to Beverly Hills. :(



do you live in a city, in a sub division. If so that is why. That land is zoned as such. Buying sums of acres outside of city control is the answer.
 
Strangely enough, doing away with private ownership of land is EXACTLY one of the basic beliefs and agendas of the United Nations... Goes right long with doing away with the right of private ownership of firearms to PROTECT yourself from those who would attempt to take away your property...



I'll hafta see if I still have that UN document on file...
 
Re: Re: Whats the Difference???

Originally posted by Rman

do you live in a city, in a sub division. If so that is why. That land is zoned as such. Buying sums of acres outside of city control is the answer.





My family owns several hundered acres in northern Michigan, in the middle of nowhere, and we don't own the mineral rights either. A few years ago the state came in, and cut several 200'x200' areas in our land(mature trees) for natural gas wells. We didn't have a say in it, even though its been in the family for 40 years, they can simply do what they want, when they want. They put in 4 natural gas wells, yet we're not allowed to use it, we are stuck with fuel oil.





Rob
 
Here's a small exerpt of the UN document and position paper I referred to above - chilling reading!



===============



The UN and property rights

To the framers of the U. S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The inalienable right to own -- and control the use of -- private property is perhaps the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.

Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao - all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The UN, without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.



The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:





"Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable... . "

The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations, including the United states. Here are some of those recommendations:



"Recommendation A. 1



(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population... over the national territory.



(c)(v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.



Recommendation D. 1



(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of... achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.



(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.



(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements... .



Recommendation D. 2



(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.



(b) Change in the use of land... should be subject to public control and regulation.



(c) Such control may be exercised through:



(i) Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of control of land-use changes in particular;



(ii) Direct intervention, e. g. the creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, compensated expropriation and/or pre-emption, acquisition of development rights, conditioned leasing of public and communal land, formation of public and mixed development enterprises;



(iii) Legal controls, e. g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries, development building and local permits, assembly and replotting.



Recommendation D. 3



(a) Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community but also as a powerful tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the public at large the benefits of the unearned increase in land values.



(b) The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.

==========



There's LOTS more on the subject - do a search on "United Nations private land ownership"...



And don't forget - Kerry has stated HIS view our military should be directly under UN control - maybe that way, they can be used to chase our people off their own land - for the "good of all society"... ... ...
 
Last edited:
Rob,

Check this out:

By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.



For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.



Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.
 
Gene, why are you stating your above post directly at me?



What I said was... ..... I like Michigan since we have plenty of public land, and most of which I can walk, ride, drive, camp, hunt, and fish on, perfectly legal like.



Then you turn it around (what a shock) and start a thread, based solely on your bizzare imagination, and not even remotely close to even be considered part of, or any of, the statement I made.





Don't you go back to work soon?



Rob
 
Originally posted by Rman

all of our land you can here. Though there is legislation to stop it in certain areas. Doing away with private land ownership is ridiculous.



Most of Utah is BLM land. It is public land that is managed by the govt. It is owned by all of us. When I think of govt. land I think of National parks and the like.
 
Yosemite is government land - so is the Grand Canyon, to name a couple... How much do you think the government controls THEIR use and access by the public?
 
Back
Top