Why is this allowed? If we are a nation of states, why is the federal government to own so much land in the states? Shouldn't all this land be turned over to the state it is in, which can turn around and sell it to those who will best develop it into something of economic value? Can a state really call itself a state if so much of its land is controlled by an entity on the other side of the continent?
>>55485051
Damn that's like a quater of their land at least
>>55485051
Think that's wild: Look at Nevada
>>55485364
Fun fact: 80% of Montana is federal land and ditto for 56% of Maryland
>>55485364
Nevada is like 90% Federal land.
Nom Nom Nom.
>>55485051
>"economically" develop national forests
fuck off.
>>55485566
Trees are a renewable resource. Even the federal government understands that and allows logging in federal forests but why should the feds be making a profit off what should be private land?
Whats wrong with federal land? I like hiking in national parks. Feels good to be out in the wilderness and enjoy God's creation.
>>55485708
God did not create federal land, the state did. And it is certainly not a god.
>>55485708
The individual states did not come together to form a federal government so you could feel good about yourself. Want some land to walk around on? Buy or rent it.
>>55485894
Its not just so I can feel good, millions of people visit these places. Are you suggesting we get rid of national parks? What would the purpose of doing that be? I just don't see any reason to get rid of them.
>>55486171
I'm suggesting the federal government doesn't need to control 84.5% of Nevada. Is 84.5% of Nevada a federal park? And why can't states run their own parks? Or private companies? Oh wait, they do, the federal government is an unnecessary competitor. Leave it to the states and private companies. No reason for the feds to do it except fags like you who want things they like massively subsidized.
Back in the day, states would've sent in their militias to remove the feds from their land. Today, California is signing more and more land over to the feds at an alarming rate.
>>55486295
What about for military and strategical zoning?
Are you going to let states control nuclear missiles? ... Do you really want Californians to have nukes?
>>55485051
Let it go, mang. State rights/small government has been a losing battle since the end of the Civil War.
Why doesn't the federal government adversely possess land in eastern states so that the disparity in land ownership levels out? It's bullshit that eastern states own almost all of the west, but the western states have no ownership claims in the east.
>>55486295
In Nevada's case quite a lot of that is military installations. However the rest I don't see an actual problem with the federal government administering some park land. Although I wouldn't have a problem if the state government administered them instead. Only point I disagree with you is on handing it over to private companies.
>>55485456
Maryland is nowhere near that high.
>>55486171
Are you suggesting state parks don't exist? I live right across the water from one.
There are a lot of state parks. The state of Florida is littered with them
Why do national parks need to exist? The states can decide if a park is necessary, or if the land should be sold to be developed economically.
>>55486475
what's wrong with that, we'd probably launch em at the moon because they're too "dangerous" to store
The state gets paid money for that land so if you have a small population like Montana it's advantageous. It can be used by anyone, and is too expensive for most of those states to maintain. That's also part of why red states take in more federal money than they pay in taxes. Most people here are perfectly happy with it.
>>55486793
>sell the land
No.
>develop the land
It is.
