[280 / 20 / ?]
Quoted By: >>1344565 >>1344568 >>1344573 >>1344575 >>1344617 >>1344627 >>1344730 >>1344781 >>1344794 >>1344795 >>1344828 >>1344858 >>1344866 >>1345845 >>1345919 >>1346127 >>1347314 >>1347356 >>1347359 >>1347365 >>1347570 >>1347765 >>1352991 >>1353093 >>1353827 >>1354954
So who else is conflicted on public land? On the one hand, it disgusts me that the Federal government owns so much land. Take for instance Nevada, where they own 84.5% of the land. I want to buy land in NV, and it is prohibitively expensive BECAUSE the federal government claimed it and artificially limited the supply.
On the other, I love getting /out/ and state governments in 2/3 of the states I get /out/ in ban dispersed camping on state lands. In most states, I have found National Forest and BLM land to be the superior land managers because of this, as well as regulations regarding alcohol and firearms (which are usually restricted or outright banned on most state lands).
I'm conflicted by it. I don't think the Federal government should be allowed to squat on as much land as they do, however I do not trust state governments to control it.
Thoughts? Preferably from conservatives, I know the liberal scum here are happy to have such a massive federal government, you socialists have your reasons and I understand them.
On the other, I love getting /out/ and state governments in 2/3 of the states I get /out/ in ban dispersed camping on state lands. In most states, I have found National Forest and BLM land to be the superior land managers because of this, as well as regulations regarding alcohol and firearms (which are usually restricted or outright banned on most state lands).
I'm conflicted by it. I don't think the Federal government should be allowed to squat on as much land as they do, however I do not trust state governments to control it.
Thoughts? Preferably from conservatives, I know the liberal scum here are happy to have such a massive federal government, you socialists have your reasons and I understand them.
