Utah demands land surrendered from Fedgov by Dec 31

[ElFenix]

That's because there is no government that purely follows any of those economic systems. It's always some mish mash.

Public land control is a tenet of socialist economic policy. End of story. (okay yes, also communist too)

On the contrary, private land control is a tenet of capitalist economic policy.

Are you also going to argue that? (I already politely schooled Bowfinger on it)

we're not arguing about the definition of socialism, we're arguing about whether government land ownership is evidence of it. it's not, because all governments throughout history have owned land. are you going to claim monarchies are socialist?

 

[lozina]

Deeper and deeper (derper and derper?) he digs. I never said land is never tied to the means of production, never suggested anything remotely like it. But land is not inherently part of the means of production. Specifically re. this thread. the government ownership of these lands has zero to do with socialism.

You said:

Socialism is a system where the government owns the means of production, like factories, farms, etc. It has absolutely zero to do with the government owning land. You are simply wrong.

Except you did not realize when you wrote that, that "means of production" actually includes the land, as I have kindly pointed out to you. Now that you have been schooled on the matter, you should be happy. You learned something new today! You have become a better person!

So, you advocate a return to America's glory days, where wealth was far more evenly distributed, unions were strong, the top income tax rate was 90%, money was considered bribery instead of free speech, the federal government actively enforced anti-trust, finance, and utility regulations, etc.? Interesting. I would never have pegged you as so progressive.

You are referring to America in the late 1950's? No, I'm talking more about the mid 19th century when America became the world's top economy. Before the socialists started taking over and introducing income tax, trade unions and a host of socialist policies which turned the country into a welfare state.

By the way, I'm a fan of capitalism. It is probably the most effective economic system man has ever devised. I just recognize capitalism needs to be well-regulated to prevent abuse. I also understand that the government owning western lands isn't socialism.

Good, I'm glad - so we basically agree on something.

But again, you are making the mistake of failing to recognize that public ownership of property is a tenet of socialism. Are you allowed to believe in many capitalist policies but be a proponent of socialist idea of public property? Of course! There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you believe in!

 

[IronWing]

You said:

Except you did not realize when you wrote that, that "means of production" actually includes the land, as I have kindly pointed out to you. Now that you have been schooled on the matter, you should be happy. You learned something new today! You have become a better person!



You are referring to America in the late 1950's? No, I'm talking more about the mid 19th century when America became the world's top economy. Before the socialists started taking over and introducing income tax, trade unions and a host of socialist policies which turned the country into a welfare state.



Good, I'm glad - so we basically agree on something.

But again, you are making the mistake of failing to recognize that public ownership of property is a tenet of socialism. Are you allowed to believe in many capitalist policies but be a proponent of socialist idea of public property? Of course! There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you believe in!

Communists love their children. Do you love your children? If so, does that make you a communist?

 

[lozina]

we're not arguing about the definition of socialism, we're arguing about whether government land ownership is evidence of it. it's not, because all governments throughout history have owned land. are you going to claim monarchies are socialist?

Yes, you are right, every government known to man has owned land. Owning 0.9% of the territory though, is not a big deal, now is it? When you have states where the government owns as much as 90% of the land that's clearly a state practicing a socialist policy on property ownership. Don't you agree?

The government has imposed a socialist policy on property in the Western states. I am in support of the Western states having a more capitalist policy on property ownership.

Apart from that, there are plenty of other socialist policies our government has undertaken over the last century, but that's for another thread.

 

[lozina]

Communists love their children. Do you love your children? If so, does that make you a communist?

I love you, my child. :wub:

 

[bshole]

The government has imposed a socialist policy on property in the Western states. I am in support of the Western states having a more capitalist policy on property ownership.
.

Um.... ok, so what? Calling something socialist is not an active reason to stop it, it is just a label.

Why would giving the land to Utah be a good thing.... SPECIFICALLY. How would it SPECIFICALLY benefit the people of Utah and the nation?

The crux of your argument appears to be that state ownership is better than federal ownership in Utah because federal ownership is socialist. That isn't a meaningful reason to transfer ownership. Here is an example of a meaningful reason: the federal government is being a provable poor steward of the land.

That weak sauce argument "ebil socialism" is not even worthy of debate. It is pathetic, stupid and boring.

 

[dphantom]

What do I get in return for my lost access?

You get nothing but the opportunity to enjoy an enhanced economic environment is yours by ensuring land (wealth potential) is available.

And before we go off on the environment, with appropriate protections in place of course.

 

[lozina]

Um.... ok, so what? Calling something socialist is not an active reason to stop it, it is just a label.

Why would giving the land to Utah be a good thing.... SPECIFICALLY. How would it SPECIFICALLY benefit the people of Utah and the nation?

The crux of your argument appears to be that state ownership is better than federal ownership in Utah because federal ownership is socialist. That isn't a meaningful reason to transfer ownership. Here is an example of a meaningful reason: the federal government is being a provable poor steward of the land.

That weak sauce argument "ebil socialism" is not even worthy of debate. It is pathetic, stupid and boring.

If you were perhaps paying attention you would have noticed that I already stated my reasons why I oppose the land being federal control

This whole side-tracking into the debate on public vs private ownership and socialism vs capitalism came up because someone got butthurt that I said they are socialist for wanting all the land to be public owned, and they had this bizarre notion that public land ownership has nothing to do with socialism

 

[Fern]

Learn the history of your own state. The Feds fought a war and stole that land from the Mexicans fair and square. Your own state constitution recognizes federal ownership, even this latest attempt by Utah to steal the land recognizes that it is federal land. Wishful thinking on your part does not reality make. As cited above, the Constitution gives Congress full authority to regulate or dispose of the public lands as it sees fit. Congress has chosen to keep most of what is left.

Yes Utah wrote their constitution as mandated by the federal gov so they could obtain statehood. I.e., they were forced into it.

However, the Utah Enabling Act ("UEA") passed by US Congress on July 16, 1894 appears to have promises to the state of Utah regrading the land.

The SCOTUS has ruled such acts (UEA) are substantially contracts between private parties and obligations made thereunder are serious and enforceable.

Section 3 of the UEA has been quoted previously (as part of the Utah constitution) but I'll again add it:

"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any indian or indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United states; . . . that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United states or reserved for its use."

The bolded portion has been ignored here. That's not how the courts treats language in a contract. That language has a purpose and the courts will evaluate it in context and in the totality of the contract (or act, in this case).

One's first question may well be why would Utah need, or want, to disavow ownership of its land?

The answer is a common sense one. The UEA envisions the US gov disposing of the land, not retaining it. Therefore clear, undisputed title was necessary. It was understood that purchasers would be reluctant to buy if there was any dispute, currently or arising in the future, between Utah and the fed gov. The portion underlined above was included to solve this problem.

Next question might be why would Utah give up its land to the fed gov for them to sell?

Well, the answer is that the fed gov was supposed to share the proceeds with Utah. See section 9 of the UEA:

sec. 9.
"That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United states subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said state."

So it seems obvious that there was no intention that the federal gov hold the lands in perpetuity. While I saw no date mentioned to fulfill the contract, I think it highly questionable that passage of approx 120 years without doing so can be seen as reasonable. This is perhaps doubly so given the apparent lack of effort to do so on the part of the fed gov.

Here's the law: http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

Here a legal paper regarding it: http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/cacfa/documents/FOSDocuments/UtahLegalOverviewofUT_HB148.pdf

The above bit of research, as brief as it is was more than I ever intended and I'm sure a lot mre need be done. However, this bit suggests to me that this issue shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as kooky, as many here have done.

I think the Western states should be treated as the other states were. That's only fair.

Fern

 

[Zorba]

Snip

I personally read that as the federal government can sell land, and if they do the state can make a claim to it and/or get a cut of the sells. It doesn't say the government will sell the land.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes Utah wrote their constitution as mandated by the federal gov so they could obtain statehood. I.e., they were forced into it.

However, the Utah Enabling Act ("UEA") passed by US Congress on July 16, 1894 appears to have promises to the state of Utah regrading the land.

The SCOTUS has ruled such acts (UEA) are substantially contracts between private parties and obligations made thereunder are serious and enforceable.

Section 3 of the UEA has been quoted previously (as part of the Utah constitution) but I'll again add it:



The bolded portion has been ignored here. That's not how the courts treats language in a contract. That language has a purpose and the courts will evaluate it in context and in the totality of the contract (or act, in this case).

One's first question may well be why would Utah need, or want, to disavow ownership of its land?

The answer is a common sense one. The UEA envisions the US gov disposing of the land, not retaining it. Therefore clear, undisputed title was necessary. It was understood that purchasers would be reluctant to buy if there was any dispute, currently or arising in the future, between Utah and the fed gov. The portion underlined above was included to solve this problem.

Next question might be why would Utah give up its land to the fed gov for them to sell?

Well, the answer is that the fed gov was supposed to share the proceeds with Utah. See section 9 of the UEA:



So it seems obvious that there was no intention that the federal gov hold the lands in perpetuity. While I saw no date mentioned to fulfill the contract, I think it highly questionable that passage of approx 120 years without doing so can be seen as reasonable. This is perhaps doubly so given the apparent lack of effort to do so on the part of the fed gov.

Here's the law: http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

Here a legal paper regarding it: http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/cacfa/documents/FOSDocuments/UtahLegalOverviewofUT_HB148.pdf

The above bit of research, as brief as it is was more than I ever intended and I'm sure a lot mre need be done. However, this bit suggests to me that this issue shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as kooky, as many here have done.

I think the Western states should be treated as the other states were. That's only fair.

Fern

Only a lawyer would make such a convoluted argument. One who's just churning fees & knows he has every chance of a snowball in Hell of winning. Whatever keeps the rubes happy. Lawyers are the original propagandists.

The UEA you cite in no way compels the federal govt to extinguish title. Period. Such an act is clearly understood to be voluntary by the plain reading of the text you bolded.

More likely that somebody else bolded for your copy/pasta.

 

[Fern]

I personally read that as the federal government can sell land, and if they do the state can make a claim to it and/or get a cut of the sells. It doesn't say the government will sell the land.

You give up the land in return for a cut. That is, it's expected to be sold, as was always done previously, and that's how they were to fund their educational system. If there was no expectation of sale, there was no expectation of an educational system.

Also if there was no expectation, there's no reason for sec 9. The federal gov doesn't need any states' permission to sell land it owns.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Only a lawyer would make such a convoluted argument. One who's just churning fees & knows he has every chance of a snowball in Hell of winning. Whatever keeps the rubes happy. Lawyers are the original propagandists.
-snip-

Unless, of course, they are Democratic lawyers opining that the President can unilaterally make laws on matters such as immigration etc.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Unless, of course, they are Democratic lawyers opining that the President can unilaterally make laws on matters such as immigration etc.

Fern

You misspelled "use the powers already granted him under existing federal law enacted by Congress".

The standard for whether or not something is legal/constitutional is not whether or not conservatives dislike it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, are you a closet socialist in denial or do you just not realize that what you believe in is socialism?

Notice how it goes from private ownership in capitalism, to collective ownership [by the people] in socialism then to complete state ownership in communism?


If you'd like, I can rent you a backhoe for you to dig yourself into a hole faster

Dr. Fred's Wordpress blog? Damn, I'm convinced.

 

[Bowfinger]

You get nothing but the opportunity to enjoy an enhanced economic environment is yours by ensuring land (wealth potential) is available. ...

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. If I'm to give up something of value, I expect compensation for it. That wealth potential is great for a select few, but it does nothing for the vast majority of Americans. Perhaps we can talk once the State of Utah offers to cough up a few billion dollars for that valuable land, payable to We, the People.

 

[Fern]

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. If I'm to give up something of value, I expect compensation for it. That wealth potential is great for a select few, but it does nothing for the vast majority of Americans. Perhaps we can talk once the State of Utah offers to cough up a few billion dollars for that valuable land, payable to We, the People.

I'd suggest the same deal the US govt offered them: 5% of the net proceeds of any sale.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Unless, of course, they are Democratic lawyers opining that the President can unilaterally make laws on matters such as immigration etc.

Fern

Divert away, quickly.

And, uhh, nice snip at the part you want to ignore.

 

[Bowfinger]

You said:

Except you did not realize when you wrote that, that "means of production" actually includes the land, as I have kindly pointed out to you. Now that you have been schooled on the matter, you should be happy. You learned something new today! You have become a better person!

Means of production MAY or may not include land. Not all land is part of the means of production, however. You can continue to lie about this as needed (and to delude yourself about schooling anyone), but you will still be wrong.

"Deeper and deeper (derper and derper?) he digs. I never said land is never tied to the means of production, never suggested anything remotely like it. But land is not inherently part of the means of production. Specifically re. this thread. the government ownership of these lands has zero to do with socialism.

"Kudos, though, for your desperate stretch to try to connect the two. It was amazing. You must be quite good at such leaps of illogic. A rational person would have sprained something. Of course no rational person would have worked so hard to ignore all of the clear information provided in those Wikipedia entries. Only someone like you would instead cherry pick such a convoluted set of dots to invent support for your position. As I said before, you are either willfully dishonest or a half-witted clown, incapable of learning anything."

(Just thought I'd repeat that since you silently skipped it. You need to be recognized for all the contortions you're going through to try to make that Wikipedia piece support your nonsensical position.)

You are referring to America in the late 1950's? No, I'm talking more about the mid 19th century when America became the world's top economy. Before the socialists started taking over and introducing income tax, trade unions and a host of socialist policies which turned the country into a welfare state.

Of course you are, because acknowledging that the U.S. became the world superpower in the 50's and 60's would require acknowledging your position is purely self-serving nonsense.

Good, I'm glad - so we basically agree on something.

But again, you are making the mistake of failing to recognize that public ownership of property is a tenet of socialism. Are you allowed to believe in many capitalist policies but be a proponent of socialist idea of public property? Of course! There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you believe in!

But again, you are making the mistake of inventing your own definition of socialism. Not all property is created equal, and not all public land ownership is socialism. That's your right, of course. You can define "down" as "up" and "black" as "white" if that makes you feel better. Just understand your random definitions are irrelevant to those of us in the real world.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'd suggest the same deal the US govt offered them: 5% of the net proceeds of any sale.

Fern

Huh? It's the State of Utah that gets 5%. We, the People, are contractually entitled to 95%. So, once Utah is willing to pay those billions (less 5%) for our property, we can talk.


I'm also going to put this here rather than in a separate post. Re. Section 3, you said:

"The bolded portion has been ignored here. That's not how the courts treats language in a contract. That language has a purpose and the courts will evaluate it in context and in the totality of the contract (or act, in this case)."
​

Contrary to your suggestion, that section does not demonstrate any intent to eventually sell or otherwise transfer title to these lands. Instead, it simply provides direction IF that happens. This is no different than your mortgage or credit card contracts that discuss late payments or default. They do not show you have an intent to default. They instead set the terms if you do default.

 

[brycejones]

Awesome! I think Stew has used this same picture on multiple occasions. Can we look forward to some you-tube videos and rants about trans-humanism next?

 

[Zorba]

Contrary to your suggestion, that section does not demonstrate any intent to eventually sell or otherwise transfer title to these lands. Instead, it simply provides direction IF that happens. This is no different than your mortgage or credit card contracts that discuss late payments or default. They do not show you have an intent to default. They instead set the terms if you do default.

This

 

[lozina]

Means of production MAY or may not include land. Not all land is part of the means of production, however. You can continue to lie about this as needed (and to delude yourself about schooling anyone), but you will still be wrong.

"Deeper and deeper (derper and derper?) he digs. I never said land is never tied to the means of production, never suggested anything remotely like it. But land is not inherently part of the means of production. Specifically re. this thread. the government ownership of these lands has zero to do with socialism.

"May or may not" ? Show me where it says that in the definitions. All I see are "is" includes" "are" - definitive statements. There is no "may or may not" wishy washy term you are dreaming up.

You "may" continue to believe in your own concept all you want. Just don't go telling me that public ownership has nothing to do with socialism. If you support majority of land is owned by the "collective" or public, well that's a socialist idea. Sorry you cannot accept that fact.

Of course you are, because acknowledging that the U.S. became the world superpower in the 50's and 60's would require acknowledging your position is purely self-serving nonsense.

Who's talking about "superpower"? I never used that term. What I am talking about is when the USA became the world's largest economy. You know what happened after the 1950 when socialist policies started to become the norm? Our economy relative to the other great powers began to decline, allowing China, who started to become more and more capitalistic, to overtake us.

But again, you are making the mistake of inventing your own definition of socialism.

Wow, you still don't get it? Yes, I wrote those Wikipedia articles myself, so that I can then directly quote them in this thread to give you a false definition. Only you have the real definition tucked away in your secret library.

 

[brycejones]

Iozina = the new Texashiker?

 

[fskimospy]

Socialism is not a yes/no, it is a continuum. Every country that has ever existed has been somewhat socialistic at a minimum.