About 524 million acres

The size of the Louisiana Purchase was 524 million acres.  Most of this land is now privately owned.  It would be hard to argue that America would be as prosperous and powerful today, if this “Breadbasket of the world” was managed by federal bureaucrats.  Because this land is managed by private owners and corporate interests, America has been a significant exporter of food and has been able to feed its people with abundance with few minor exceptions.  When you have a country that is geographically capital rich in its ability to feed its people, this frees its population to engage in other industrious activities like building microchips, aircraft carriers, and entitlement programs.  You would think that with such a clear historical example of the virtues of private ownership of land, that the federal government would have continued this trend during the rest of the Westward expansion.  With the exception of Texas, this hasn’t been the case for the rest of the West.

Go West, Paradise is there...

The Louisiana Purchase was a massive acquisition for the United States Government.  However, the federal government’s current land holdings, mostly in the West, dwarf the Louisiana Purchase in size.  The federal government currently controls 623 million acres.  In Martin L. Gross’ book, National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream from A to Z, he discusses the negative impact that the federal mismanagement of these lands has on the respective states.  He mentions a current real estate boom in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where solar energy companies are trying to develop solar energy plants as a response to generous subsidies from Washington.  The Bureau of Land Management, however, halted this development to wait for environmental impact studies.  We can only hope that these environmental impact studies are conducted with the same scientific rigor and discipline as the University of East Anglia’s climatology department.  Needless to say, what this travesty reveals is that the reason our country isn’t energy dependent isn’t because we don’t have the technology and resources to make it happen.  We are dependent on foreign oil imports because our lands with the most energy resources are located in the West on lands owned by the federal government.  One of the primary reasons we are dependent on foreign debt imports, is because our capital rich and resource rich geography is being severely mismanaged.  Anyone with basic knowledge of finance knows that if your overextended with your credit, then it is time to start liquidating assets.  It would be a great idea for the U.S. to sell its massive holdings of Western land to private American enterprises, individuals and State Governments as a means of reducing our national debt.  However, in order for a change of this magnitude to happen, we need leaders who recognize this opportunity.  My friend, Michael S. Lee, is considering running for the Senate in Utah to replace Bob Bennett.  He has this to say about the constitutionality of the federal government holding such a large portion of western land:

In light of the text and history of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, there is a valid basis for questioning whether federal land should be exempt from taxation by the host State where, as is often the case, the host State’s legislature has not given Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over that land. While a broader power could be (and has been) inferred from Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2—which authorizes Congress to “dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States”—that provision says nothing about exclusive legislative jurisdiction. For that reason, in order to read Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 as giving Congress boundless discretion over federal land (i.e., as authorizing Congress to act as a sovereign with respect to land acquired by the federal government within a State, but without the consent of that State’s legislature), one must essentially ignore the “legislative consent” language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The best way to reconcile Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 with Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 is to conclude that (1) the former authorizes Congress to control federal land as a sovereign—such that Congress may dictate that federal land is exempt from all taxation and regulation by the host State—but only if the host State’s legislature has consented to such an arrangement, while (2) the latter authorizes Congress to control federal land to the extent permitted by the generally applicable laws of the host State—such that Congress may not prohibit the host State from taxing and regulating federal land to the same degree that it taxes and regulates private property—but does not require Congress to obtain the consent of the host State’s legislature.

In many instances, the host State would gladly give the consent described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, authorizing Congress to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over certain federal lands. In Utah, for example, I suspect that the legislature might freely give such consent with respect to the land comprising Hill Air Force Base, the Utah Testing and Training Range, and Zion’s National Park. But in other instances, Utah’s legislature would be reluctant to give such consent, recognizing that—because the federal government owns nearly 70% of the land in the State—the State would suffer (as it does now) if all federal lands were exempt from taxation. There are a number of factors that the legislature would want them to consider in deciding whether to relinquish control over the various parcels of federal land. But the important point is that this decision would belong—and consistent with the text and history of the Constitution, should belong—to the legislature of the host State, and not to Congress.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976), essentially ignoring (and effectively obliterating) the important textual distinction between the power granted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that granted by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. That decision needs to be revisited, given how severely it undermines the legitimate, sovereign, and constitutionally protected interests of States—especially those in which the federal government owns a significant amount of land. It may well be that Congress (rather than the Supreme Court) is in the best position to undo the injustice brought about by Kleppe v. New Mexico. Congress could do so by enacting a law providing that, absent the consent of the host State’s legislature, the federal government owns land within a State on the same footing as any other property owner within that State, and not as a sovereign exempt from taxation and regulation.

I know that it is a radical idea to be electing people to Congress that have knowledge of the Constitution.  I will close by quoting what Martin Gross thinks we should do:

Because Washington has shown that it cannot manage these lands in the best interests of either the states or the nation, citizens should demand the return of all mineral rights, including oil and gas, back from Washington to the states.  They can then develop them properly by calling on commercial leaseholds, which will bring the states enormous royalties.

This is only fair because the rights were taken away from the former territories years ago, when they were too weak to fight Washington.

As a result of such arrogant federal mismanagement, debate should start on the final objective.  We should return all federal land – except for national parks – to the states so that they, and the American people can reap the harvest of our own good earth.

For instance, Vogel’s title, and therefore you could argue the central argument of the article, is based on the erroneous belief in the idea that history is a linear, positivist project.  Of course, movements that obsessively focus on civil rights and social justice need the idea of a linear historical narrative.  When your ideas and beliefs are based on a linear historical narrative where society is continuously learning from past experience, then your understanding of history becomes teleological.  A teleological historical narrative is essential for a movement such as the gay rights movement, because it gives them an overarching purpose to be working towards.  This understanding of history also enables you to negatively label those who stand in the way of your teleological destiny as historically ignorant.  It therefore isn’t surprising that of all the articles that I have read about the gay rights protests that have followed the passage of Proposition 8 have emphasized the belief of the gay rights movement that the LDS church is on the “wrong side of history.”

The problem with these ignorant statements from the gay rights community is that there is no empirical evidence that history is exclusively linear, and therefore to say you are on the right side of history and another group is not is a statement that doesn’t mean anything.  History is a messy thing.  There seems to be just as much evidence that history is cyclical as there is evidence that it is linear.  History is also dynamic.  In other words, history is a construct or invention of those who create it, and history changes as new groups reinvent their own historical narratives.  Ultimately this all raises the question, “if the LDS Church is on the wrong side of history with Proposition 8, who is to say that the gay rights movement is on the right side of history?’

Where religious traditionalists used the socially enlightened means of a democratic vote to advance their ideas, the gay rights movement is joining the historical ranks of some of the world’s worst social movements.  Therefore, they are demonstrating that history will indeed repeat itself in its true cyclical fashion.   If history proves anything it is that your whole idea of history can be wrong.  Having a flawed understanding of history is a lot more dangerous than being on any arbitrarial side of history.