Socialism by a landslide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Henry Lamb


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

If put to a vote, Americans would likely reject socialism by a substantial majority.

Those same Americans, however, are voting by a substantial majority to allow governments to acquire more and more land and to tighten the controls on the private lands that remain.

Socialism, classically defined, is "government ownership and/or control of the sources of production." Land is the source of all production. A vote for acquiring more private land by government, or tightening government's control of the remaining private land, is a vote for socialism in America.

Of course, it's not called socialism; it's called "protecting the environment." But it doesn't matter what it is called; the result is the elimination of private property and the transfer of the sources of production to government control. The result is socialism.

Governments already own 900 million acres – 40 percent or more – of the total land area of the United States. Nearly 200 million acres are designated as "wilderness," off-limits to humans. More than 50 bills have been introduced in Congress to expand the wilderness area, and another 50 bills are now being considered to authorize more land acquisition by governments.

States, too, are authorizing land acquisition to "protect" open space, watersheds, shorelines and the environment in general. Not one of the bills is labeled "The Transition to Socialism Act." Nevertheless, each of these bills has the effect of destroying the foundation of freedom in America and effecting the transition to socialism.

Every time private property is acquired by government, tax revenue from that land stops. This forces an increase in the taxes paid by the remaining private property owners. Even worse, the free market is further diminished.

The United Nations believes that government control of all land use is "indispensable." Environmental organizations have convinced the public, Congress and the administration, that the planet is on the brink of biological collapse, and that the only way to ensure a planet for posterity is to stop logging, mining, ranching, driving, boating, snowmobiling, barbequing, eating meat and sweets, and to restore the land to pre-Columbian wilderness and force humans to live in low-rise, high-density, managed "sustainable communities."

This is a socialist agenda. No, thank you – very much!

Instead of plotting to acquire more private property, Congress and state legislatures should be working to divest their massive land inventories. Get government land into private hands – as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution specifies the kinds of assets the government may own; all governments should adhere to this principle.

Government cannot adequately manage the land it owns now. Divestiture could provide a windfall of revenue to build schools, reduce debt or simply refresh the Social Security Trust Fund. Private landowners would happily pay reasonable property taxes. And private owners would undoubtedly "protect" their property far better than the government has protected "public" assets.

The Nature Conservancy and other "conservancy" organizations should be required to pay full taxes on their land holdings. Governments should be prohibited from providing them with grants to acquire private property. Without their government subsidies, their appetite for land acquisitions would likely diminish.

Land – in private ownership – is the foundation of freedom in America. Ownership means the freedom to use the land that is owned. Government control of private land – to "protect" so-called "endangered" species of weeds and bugs – is a feel-good mask that hides the sinister effect of transforming America into a socialist nation.

Socialists have tried throughout the century to establish federal control of land use. This idea has been rejected in the past. Americans have been blinded by the "protect the environment" ruse, and for a generation, have allowed socialism – government land acquisition and control – to guide public policy.

Many, if not most, Americans believe it is perfectly correct for government to own land and to prohibit use of the land to keep it in its pristine condition. Few who hold this belief will declare just how much land is the correct percentage for government to own. Every candidate for public office should be asked to publicly declare just how much land they think the government should own. Voters should make their decisions accordingly.

The rate at which private property is being either acquired by government, or placed under government control, is nothing less than a landslide – a landslide to socialism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Crowdog

I understand the frustration with closing down public lands, and I understand there exists a debate between privately owned vs. publicly owned lands. It seems like this issue is a big concern out West.

Here in Texas, though, we have the opposite end of the spectrum. Practically 90% or more of the land is privately owned (with the exception of Big Bend National Park, which I understand has some good wheeling, but is also about a day's drive away for most Texans). I wish the government, either state or federal, would buy some more land in this state for off-roading, camping, hiking, hunting and fishing. If I want to go deer hunting, I have to drive about 5 hours away and pay thousands of dollars for a private deer lease just to hunt a few days out of the year. If I want to wheel legally I have to drive about 3 hours away to a private ORV park that is only about 1500 acres in size, a tiny fraction of what's available out West in publicly owned lands. Texas still has some semi-dry riverbeds and adjoining shorelines which are considered open and legal to wheel in, but PRIVATE landowners whose property adjoins these rivers are known to call local law enforcement to complain that off-roaders "trespassed" on their property, even though in many instances that is not the case.

Sure, private land ownership is great if you can afford it. If I could afford it, I'd have my own big plot of land to hunt on and off-road in, but like the rest of the bottom 90% of the U.S. population, I'm just an average Joe who lives paycheck by paycheck paying the mortgage and never ending bills. Meanwhile, I have no public land nearby to wheel in or hunt on, at least none that I know of.

As for the tax base going down everytime public land is acquired, I don't know. I'm not a county tax appraiser. But I would think that mining companies, logging companies, cattle ranchers, sheep herders and many other enterprises who make their living off of publicly owned lands probably pay far less in any usage fees than they would in property taxes, maintenance and upkeep if they owned the property. That's just my uneducated guess, though.

Then again, I can also see how jobs and tax revenue can go up when previously undeveloped land (whether private or public) is then developed. But then you get into the whole "urban sprawl" debate, and I know of one popular wheeling spot in South Mississippi that was closed permanently to wheeling when they built a residential development on it.

Now, I'm not trying to say that privately owned lands are bad. Like I said before, I wish I could own a bunch of land myself. Nor am I trying to say that all lands in every state should be publicly owned. Such action would fall under the definition of Communism, of which I'm totally against. I just think that a reasonable balance should be struck between publicly owned lands and privately owned lands. What that balance is, I have no idea. But living in Texas, I am made well aware of what it's like to have very little publicly owned lands to wheel and hunt on.

That's just my humble, uneducated opinion on the matter.

Take care,