|
Freedom and Ownership Thereof
There was a time, in the America we once knew, that freedom and what that constituted was a foregone conclusion.
Freedom is one of those terms that we may not be able to define in its entirety, but we know what it is, and is not, when we see it. And we no longer have that freedom. Not anything close to it. Not anything that remotely resembles it.
One example of that is the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the perversion that it has become. This link will take you to the actual language of that Bill. http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
The Antiquites Act, like most that start out with good intentions has been perverted beyond all recognition. It has morphed into an all encompassing Act that can be wielded by a single individual to accomplish what the entlre Congress cannot accomplish without serious debate and compromise.
That Act reads in part as follows: "Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected".
What does that mean and what does it actually do? An excellent question, and one that may not be what you want to hear the answer to, or the ramifications that it covers.
The Act originally covered only those things with Historic, Pre-Historic and Scientific interest. Permits to explore them were to be granted only for the benefit of "reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions".
It has now become a tool to be used by the Statists to lock up and prevent development of large, very large, tracts of land. Not for the benefit of the people or institutions, but for the Government.
The President now intends to lock up another 15 Million acres under his sole authority. Is this land that has some Historical, Pre-Historical or Scientific landmarks, structurs or other objects of historic or scientific interest? No, not really, because what it encompasses is really land and its underlying structures that can be used to develop energy. He is not the first President that has mis-used his powers in this fashion.
President Carter, during his failed Presidency, used this authority to lock up more than 50 Million acres, most notably in Alaska and on land that contains some of the most productive energy producing lands in the Nation. In fact, every President other than President Nixon has used, and mis-used this power.
Almost all of this land has been located in the West. Certainly in terms of acreage, the vast bulk of this land has been in the West. The Act itelf is implemented via regulation and its interaction with other Bills. All of that is to say that once again the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. Does that mean that the Bill itself is unconstitutional? No, it was passed and signed into law. Does it mean that the regulatory framework is to blame? No, all bills must have an execution strategy and regulation is one way to get there. What it does mean is that Freedom and Liberty have taken a backseat once again to Statist inclinations.
Is there a way out of this mess? Of course there is. One of the ways would be to actually sell off the Federal Lands in the several States. That would be a net good. If that money was used to reduce the National debt and it was put into production, the benefits would be enormous. A capital infusion to reduce debt and ongoing production to be taxed, at some reasonable rate, which would reduce the need to futher increase taxes at the personal level.
But the more important question is would it increase Freedom and Liberty.
If we believe that leaving money in the private sector is more beneficial than giving it to the Federal Government to parcel out as it sees fit to do, then yes, it would be more beneficial. If we believe that the private sector is more apt to make decisions regarding investment and production in a rational manner, with its benefits flowing to the investing public, then certainly we can see the good that can flow from those decisions.
But if we believe the Statists, that no good can come other than through their ministrations, that decisions must be made to enhance and enforce Social Justice and equality of results, rather than equality of opportunity and the results thereof, then we are on the right course.
Just don't call it Freedom and Liberty. |
