- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Montana Libertarian candidate says don't transfer federal lands to the state
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:24 pm
Interesting take, and one I agree with. As awful as the Feds are, I have even less faith in local ability and willingness to protect the enviroment. Sure, local input is necessary, and the Feds often don't do a good job of listening to local concerns. But I'm skeptical of letting State Senator Billy Bob have the final say in whether to relax air quality standards or open a wilderness area to mineral exploration.
LINK
LINK
quote:
Public lands: There’s been talk about whether management of federal lands in Montana should be transferred to the state. Would you support the idea? Why or why not?
I think Glacier National Park ought to remain as it – a national park, not a state park. Same with the Bob Marshall, the Great Bear and other wilderness areas. Quality of the environment is crucial to the future of my district. That being said, I think the sate park and state forest system are pretty good, too. As for USFS and BLM, I’d support more local decision-making. In the case of those in my district, I think we ought to be able to encourage selective logging, fire management and water management over fire-fighting as forest management strategy, to create jobs. I think I’d vote “no” for the state to take over federal lands, because industry knows its cheaper and easier to corrupt Montana politicians than U.S. ones, and our land is our future.
6
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:27 pm to Jim Rockford
There should be no federal or state lands.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:31 pm to Jim Rockford
From what I can read he is at odds with libertarian philosophy. He assumes that private property ownership = destruction. That's a statist position.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:31 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
One can only imagine what Disney could come up with for Yellowstone
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:33 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
well, that's just absurd. and i'm pretty libertarian-ish-esque leaning sometimes.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:34 pm to McLemore
quote:
well, that's just absurd.
Why?
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:34 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
The song does say that this land is your land;
This land is my land.
Didn't sing no state or fed land.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:34 pm to Zach
quote:
From what I can read he is at odds with libertarian philosophy. He assumes that private property ownership = destruction. That's a statist position.
The day Libertarians stop being so inflexibly devoted to ideological purity is the day they actually start getting elected to office.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:36 pm to Zach
quote:Zach can't read, I'm shocked.
From what I can read he is at odds with libertarian philosophy. He assumes that private property ownership = destruction. That's a statist position.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:36 pm to BestBanker
quote:
The song does say that this land is your land; This land is my land. Didn't sing no state or fed land.
Woody was not a fan of private property in general
quote:
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:39 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
The day Libertarians stop being so inflexibly devoted to ideological purity is the day they actually start getting elected to office.
This is so humorous, Jim. I've been explaining libertarian philosophy on message boards since 1997. And you would not believe how many posters said "Zach, you're not a REAL libertarian because you don't believe in 'x' policy."
Now, I'm being blasted for being toooo libertarian. I just can't win.
Bottom line... If you sell Yellowstone Park to Donald Trump tomorrow he is not going to blow it up just for fun. He's going to preserve it. That's what happens in a free market.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:41 pm to Iosh
quote:
Zach can't read, I'm shocked.
Iosh, the big boys are having a discussion. Why don't you go play with your toys?
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:43 pm to Zach
quote:
Bottom line... If you sell Yellowstone Park to Donald Trump tomorrow he is not going to blow it up just for fun. He's going to preserve it. That's what happens in a free market.
He probably won't blow it up. OTOH, his vision of a wilderness experience will probably be significanly different than John Muir's. I'll bet it looks something like a rustic Vegas strip.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:46 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Montana Libertarian candidate says don't transfer federal lands to the state
Both the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate for that seat are also on record as being opposed to transferring public lands to the state.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:46 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
because industry knows its cheaper and easier to corrupt Montana politicians than U.S. ones, and our land is our future.
A Libertarian who thinks this is bad? Might get kicked out of the Party for that.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:47 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
:facepalm:
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:53 pm to a want
An emoticon that didn't work is not a response to an assertion.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:32 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
Great. We'll hand them all out as reparations to the blacks. Good idea!
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:38 pm to SpidermanTUba
So we can screw the indians yet again? 
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:43 pm to udtiger
quote:
There should be no federal or state lands.
Both the constitution and the courts disagree with you.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News