The federal government holds in trust roughly two acres per person in the United States. That's your per capita share of wilderness held in trust by the US government.

Base upon this "objective standard" the land the federal government holds in trust for the American people isn't very much at all.

If we want an example of an objective standard where too much land is owned let's look at this number.

If all of the private land in the continental United States was allocated on a per capita basis then it equals about 6 acres per person. Anyone that owns more than 6 acres owns too much land based upon an objective standard.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

It's questionable if homeowners actually own the land under their houses... when one must apply to the Bureau of Land Management to petition for that ownership, who do you think it belongs to meanwhile?

Holds 'in trust'..... until when? When can a citizen have what is held 'in trust' for them?

__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....

Private land was bought (or stolen and bought/traded) long ago. U.S. Citizens at large don't have legit claim to private lands. so your comparison is not objective. unless you want the gov't to steal all land from private owners to be redistributed. ... you know communism.
which is not the form of Gov't or economics we practice exactly in the U.S. shiva.
just FYI dude. But if you're into that fine I'll take my share of whatever property you own as a start... if you're in good faith with the universal ownership thing. your example may truly inspire others.
Unless of course you just want the gov't to take from everyone else 1st... by force of law backed by armed LEOs and soldiers or sumthin.
sheesh.

By contrast the current public lands are still technically, and without further communist gov't coercion, legally in the hands of all the people.


But the objectively speaking i referred to is in contrast to privately held and/or state land as clearly shown in the map of the west.
Alaska and Nevada being objectively among the clearest examples of TOO MUCH federal land. much of that has even been made legally OFF limits to the public or any public uses. Even though it's "held in trust" for?? whom? what??

again let the people of the states decide what use... if any... they want for the lands. That's what free people do in a democratic republic. Rather than have gov't minders tell them they know better so they'll decide OR corrupt fed officials selling them off quietly behind the people's backs for their own and cronies benefits.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Not a word about the long history of the Federal government selling public lands to finance its operations. Instead, its hyperbole about greedy developers and cronies gobbling up public lands.

Your solution is to transfer the land from Federal government to state government control where the state taxpayers will pay for maintenance and improvements in the so-called public interest before its sold to rich developers and political cronies. Why not sell off a good portion of the Federal public lands to private parties placing the land on state property tax rolls and use the funds to retire a portion or perhaps all of the national debt? Contrary to the knee jerk hysteria it's not some radical give away to the greedy rich, it is tapping the same fund raising source the Federal government used for more than a hundred years before the income tax redistribution scheme.

The knee jerk reaction is on the part of editorialists writing headlines about administration officials being caught red handed in a public plan. And, on you insisting on personalizing differences in policy as an attack. The Resistance is the ultimate polarizing force in the current political environment not just because of their opposition to Trump but because they insist on the old Maoist slogan "you are either part of the solution or part of the problem" it's go along with the attacks 110% or you are one of the deplorables.

__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.

I'll go with John Locke (and native Americans) that established how a person establishes a Right to Use the land but never owns the land. You cannot own something that you didn't create with your labor. You can establish a right to use something based upon your labor.

Of course our laws of property are not based upon the Natural Right "Of Property" that Locke established in his Second Treatise of Civil Government so this becomes a philosophical issue.

The distribution of a Trust occurs when the Trust ends.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

The Right of Property only exists for the person and the government does not have and cannot establish a Right of Property. The government can only hold land in trust for the People of the United States. The fact that our government, in the past, sold land that it didn't own, is a violation of the unalienable rights of the people.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

This takes us into a historical argument because our nation and our government was established to protect the unalienable (natural) rights of the person as noted in the Declaration of Independence and the First Principles of Government that was the basis for the US Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence: Full text
America’s First Principles https://constitution.findlaw.com/

Many things changed with the creation of the United States but the one thing that didn't change were our laws of property that had historically been based upon the Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine "title" (explicit or implied) established ownership of property.

For those that study "natural rights" John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government is the "Bible" in the establishing the foundation for natural rights. Locke addresses the Natural Right "Of Property" in Chapter 5. Noticeable in Locke's writing is his statement that the only thing a person owns are themselves. Locke establishes how the "right to possess" is established and that the possession is the "right to use" what is possessed. Locke states a person can make property their own to use but never refers to a person owning property because the only thing they own is themselves. Locke also uses the word "title" but in Locke's writing the "title" is the recognition the "right to possess for use" and does not grant ownership.

Under Locke if, for example, you establish a "right to possess" land for use by farming that land you would hold "title" to use the land. You only hold title based upon what you're actively using the land for. If you "stop farming" (using) the land then you lose title to the land. You can only hold title to the land that you can personally use.

Ownership allows a person to possess that which they don't have a right to possess.

Those with power and wealth that controlled the government of the United States did not want the economic institution of ownership to be replaced with the natural right of property because they would lose their wealth and power. They retained the laws of property that were originally based upon the Right of Conquest under the Divine Right of the Kings.

This is referred to as "conservatism" because the existing economic institutions were retained instead of changing those institutions to meet the criteria of the new government. Conservatism has retained these institutions as it relates to property so we still have people that "possess that which they have no right to possess" based upon title of ownership.

http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

It's a great discussion that Americans should engage in because it contradicts what most people believe the "right of property is" because our rights of property are not based upon a natural/unalienable right. Maybe some day they will be but the transition would be difficult. In one sense it's like the transition we're going to have to make when labor becomes obsolete because capitalism is based upon labor. How will anyone earn a living when robots and artificial intelligence replace human labor?

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

long history of...?
The History of Federal gov't seling land?
you mean like in the 1700s and 1800s? the situation is a bit different today don't your think? But Seems to me the feds responsibility and work there there has been a mixed bag.
MOre recently the Fed's have stepped up the abuse of eminent domain and Not very long ago ,2005 Kelo, the SCOTUS ruling made it easier for the the feds, and U.S. gov't at every level, to take private land from one private person and give it to others... cronies.

Selling it off to private corps without a thought. Look if my concern was just money, i'd say the feds should NEVER sell it and simply lease portions to private companies at high prices and share the profits with the state to eliminate all debt.

But seem to me if we're talking about eliminating the nat'l debt we might want to ask the Pentagon where 9 trillion+ dollars went over the past decades that they can't account for.

But here's my main point. the Feds are to far removed from the people.
and it's "the people's" land. putting it in states hands give the local people most effected the final say in what goes or not.

And "maintenance" is not a big issue. I know of some locals that have tried to repair and clear "federal" access ways at local or personal expense only to be stopped by the feds for "illegally" doing what the feds should have.



what?
OK so does that mean that you have to go to the other extreme and assume that anyone that disagrees with Trump ONLY does it becasue they are part of the group you describe?
AZ you've claimed, on more than one occasion, that the REAL reason for my policy disagreements with Trump is just animosity against Trump?
Does that mean that If I'm not 110% with Trump that it make me "the resistance" in your eyes?
Both sides seem to have folks that like the old Maoist slogan "you are either part of the solution or part of the problem" or the GWBush version "You're either with us or against us..."

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16