Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
Population layout with Federalism means BLM land sale is 80% disattached / 20% attached issue. If owned by the actual local states then maybe the State govt would be more swayed on holding on to it, because the majority of voters who get a say actually see benefit from it.
typically significantly restricted.
I get your state reps are assholes, but that's not a reason for the federal government to own insane swaths of land forever.
Last, it's called a road easement, I understand your example is from Muzzie-stan, but this isn't feudal Europe, we have solved your access problems retard.
And you think an IMMORTAL, DEATHLESS CONGLOMERATE OWNED BY FOREIGN IMVESTORS would be better off owning the land forever?
You haven't made any case. The land is fine as it is. Any changes to this situation are nothing but negatives for the vast majority of people.
The only argument I ever heard is "the government should own zero land" which is a statement as retarded and meaningless and void of argument as "no human is illegal".
It's some gay libertarian bullshit and libertarians are overwhelmingly traitors as proven over and over again.
What do I give a shit if "muh states" has it?
Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
Population layout with Federalism means BLM land sale is 80% disattached / 20% attached issue. If owned by the actual local states then maybe the State govt would be more swayed on holding on to it, because the majority of voters who get a say actually see benefit from it.
I get your state reps are assholes, but that's not a reason for the federal government to own insane swaths of land forever.
Last, it's called a road easement, I understand your example is from Muzzie-stan, but this isn't feudal Europe, we have solved your access problems retard.
And you think an IMMORTAL, DEATHLESS CONGLOMERATE OWNED BY FOREIGN IMVESTORS would be better off owning the land forever?
You haven't made any case. The land is fine as it is. Any changes to this situation are nothing but negatives for the vast majority of people.
The only argument I ever heard is "the government should own zero land" which is a statement as retarded and meaningless and void of argument as "no human is illegal".
It's some gay libertarian bullshit and libertarians are overwhelmingly traitors as proven over and over again.