2 thoughts on “Armed group occupying refuge clash with environmentalists”

  1. According to the U.S. Constitution, the only land the federal government can have is only for military purposes, bought from a state, with the permission of that legislature. The comment of our land under federal control for any other use is not lawful.

  2. Moreover, to @John Minich’s point, above, the very concept of “public property” is actually an oxymoron, since “ownership” means having the exclusive right to use something, and two or more people can’t have that at the same time.

    Followed to its logical conclusion, even the public ownership espoused in the otherwise mostly liberty-defending Constitution is a justification for all the horrors of Communism, because once you grant the premise of “public ownership”, the rest follows.

    Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism > How Interventionism Works
    https://mises.org/library/middle-road-policy-leads-socialism#3
    [1950]

    “How Interventionism Works …

    “… The interventionists emphasize that they plan to retain private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship and market exchange. But, they go on to say, it is peremptory to prevent these capitalist institutions from spreading havoc and unfairly exploiting the majority of people. It is the duty of government to restrain, by orders and prohibitions, the greed of the propertied classes lest their acquisitiveness harm the poorer classes. Unhampered or laissez-faire capitalism is an evil. But in order to eliminate its evils, there is no need to abolish capitalism entirely. It is possible to improve the capitalist system by government interference with the actions of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. Such government regulation and regimentation of business is the only method to keep off totalitarian socialism and to salvage those features of capitalism which are worth preserving. On the ground of this philosophy, the interventionists advocate a galaxy of various measures. Let us pick out one of them, the very popular scheme of price control.

    “How Price Control Leads to Socialism …

    “… The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. …

    “… There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. This, or course, is contrary to the intentions of the government. …

    “… Now, the government is faced with an alternative. It can abrogate its decree and refrain from any further endeavors to control the price of milk. But if it insists upon its intention to keep the price of milk below the rate the unhampered market would have determined and wants nonetheless to avoid a drop in the supply of milk, it must try to eliminate the causes that render the marginal producers’ business unremunerative. It must add to the first decree concerning only the price of milk a second decree fixing the prices of the factors of production …

    “… Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers’ goods and of all factors of production — both human, i.e., labor, and material — and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages.”

Comments are closed.