The Inevitable Decentralization of US Federal Public Lands.

by Todd Corsetti

“…abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital.”  Murray Rothbard

Introduction:

There are two societal issues I struggle to resolve through pure Libertarian philosophy, one of which, and primary to me and tens of millions of other Americans, is the decentralization of the massive expanse of US federal public lands.  Decentralization is the key to human freedom, but the eventual decentralization and privatization of public lands, with tens of millions of public land lovers, presents some problems that need to be reasonably addressed in order to move to a freer society. 

Without major and highly unlikely changes, the US government is committing national suicide.  It will eventually destroy the value of the dollar, collapse financially, default, and fragment as all past empires have.  With over a hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, the government is bankrupt.  Similar to a failed company, the assets will be fractured & sold to partially cover the liabilities.  One of the most valuable assets the US federal government maintains is the ~640 million acres of publicly owned federal land, about 28% of total US land mass.

A point to emphasize is that the public land ecosystem regarding boundaries, access, use, and maintenance has been set by the federal government.  People have become deeply accustomed to this ecosystem as a mindset for generations.  Decentralization will be seen as a major take-away, driving human action, and will require very careful progress to avoid rejection and chaos given the widely accepted status quo. 

I see three options on the decentralization of public lands given the inevitable dollar and empire fall. 

1)      Outright Sale of All Public Lands:

It would be fraudulent, criminal and reprehensible to sell public land outright to the highest bidder.  Foreign countries that gained wealth off the backs of its citizens through taxation & theft would be major buyers, and these are the opposite of “voluntary groupings”.  Next would come large corporations and wealthy elites, many of whom amassed fortunes through government subsidies, crony capitalism, regulations, corporatism, and law manipulation, all off the backs of taxpayers.  Outright sale would greatly restrict citizen access to the public lands they use, support, maintain and have funded through forced taxation and volunteerism for the last century.  Imagine Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks sold to wealthy elites, large corporations, or foreign entities; or divided into tens of thousands of small pieces.  This would play havoc with animal migrations, mineral resources, water allocations, access, etc. The status quo for these public treasures has been set in the minds of humanity, and this would be ripe for rejection and chaos.

2)      Division of Public Lands by Liability:

The land could be divvied out based on US owed liabilities to tax payers, and possibly debt & bond holders.  This would again provide unfair advantage to those who profited off the government teat, while small pieces would be distributed to taxpayers.  The corrupt state would decide how to divvy up the land.  Crony-capitalism and rampant federal corruption would guarantee the prime land and largest pieces to the politically favored.  This would again result in rejection and chaos.

3)      Decentralize Ownership to Local Communities:

A possible solution would be to transition public lands to local public cooperatives (co-ops).  A co-op is a cooperative society, business, or enterprise; a voluntary association owned and operated by its members.  These co-ops would be decentralized to local communities by county, region, or other local distributions that would bring the land ownership local. Partial decentralization by State is a consideration but this is still far too centralized for local ownership advantages.  Decentralization to those who live near and really care about the local land and its utilization and maintenance is preferred.  Although not complete decentralization to the individual, it is a giant step in that direction.  It would only address a portion of the US liabilities, that owed to the taxpayers, but it’s best to default in the direction that favors the people that live here, were taxed here and have a major stake in the land.

The land would and should be managed for profit, as does the state, but co-op management would be orders of magnitude improved over central planners.  Local ownership would ensure efficient, effective and environmentally sustainable management over the long term without state corruption.  Local owners, similar to private owners, would steward and manage the sustainable use of the land much more than would distant bureaucrats.  Local co-ops, made up of the local community, would have long term interests in the land value, its maintenance, sustainability, profit, and its longevity to be passed to future generations. 

There are certainly hurdles to overcome. Access and equity distribution concerns would need to be addressed, specifically for regions with little public land vs those with substantial public land.  A compensation or partial sale mechanism would be required for these disparities. Getting a co-op of diverse owners to agree on the best multi-use aspects of the land is also difficult but possible.  Adjacent co-ops would need to interact for the betterment of both parties, as cooperative enterprises.  Mechanisms for cooperation, coordination, and conflict resolution would need to be established.  The starting point for each co-op would be the current boundaries and limitations as transferred from the fed.  These would then be negotiated by the co-ops for all citizen’s mutual benefit. 

Conclusions:

“whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise.”  Murray Rothbard

Decentralizing US public land to local co-ops presents an intriguing alternative to centralized control at the federal or even State level.  Public land co-ops would distribute ownership among those who rely on the land for various purposes, such as agriculture, forestry, or recreation.  Transitioning public land to co-ops would provide individuals with a greater degree of control over their immediate environment. This autonomy would foster a sense of responsibility and accountability, leading to more efficient land management practices.  Co-ops would empower local communities by giving them the authority to make decisions about land use and resource allocation in their neighborhood. Co-op ownership would allow the implementation of market-based mechanisms to allocate resources and distribute benefits. Through competition and voluntary exchange, co-ops could respond to market demands and maximize the economic potential of the land while respecting property rights and environmental stewardship.