Comments (1)

I have to believe any organized push-back against the federal government is a good one, just as long as it is through civil disobedience and not combat. The problem I see is that the public thinks the federal government works for the common good and defaults to shunning any defiance. Also, people are hung up on the notion that making a profit is what makes use of public land so horrible. Why is it better that environmentalists and recreationists use the land for their ends than someone bringing something to market? Let us not forget that the land was essentially taken by the government by fiat–by power–not by any notion of civil livelihood–am I correct? Originally, perhaps, the government cooperated with the individual civilians on the land; but, what changed in this case?–what the ranchers wanted to do with the land or what the government wanted to do with the land? Is the federal government just rent-seeking? That alone would be dubious because we cannot know the price of government services–they’re dictated rather than revealed by the market. Look at all the employees for the federal government–they could be making a living in civil life bringing things to market that the individuals that make up the public can enjoy under their own discretion of allocating their resources that they acquired through commerce and austerity. One question about this case I have, however, is: From where and under whose control does the rancher receive his utilities? If the government has control over some of the allocated resources he enjoys, perhaps the engineers who work for the government can acquire that infrastructure through a transition into private hands so that prices can adjust to market values and those who manage those goods best by maintaining profit in their industry would have the access to them. I would love to see some of this “federal land” be developed into “freedom zones”, which takes a lot of thought, I understand. I hate that on a dime, the government can swoop in and evict and then handover resources to entities that have not proven, through the market, that their initiatives are viable. Anyway, there is a lot of integration here that needs to be dissected. All economies have market influence. It is my contention that mixed economies and interventionist economies suffer from the insolvable presence of economic law (Mises?). Sadly, the social trajectory seems to default towards some degree of totalitarianism and then revolution, either through violence or starvation or both (disease, the elements, etc.). Civilization, however, does have the historic knowledge, the ever-present ability to reason and, right now, the technology (media and such) to reverse this trend. Can we get a consensus on this view? Tricia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.