No government is supposed to own and run "parks" on behalf of the collective and the founders of the country did not endorse that collectivist notion.

The Federal government was authorized to acquire land for specific, limited purposes within a state subject to the state legislature's approval of the ceding of territory. The Constitution does not say that states are supposed to own the land or the Federal government may acquire land from a state. The role of the state is jurisdiction over territory within state borders, not state ownership.

He didn't run. He's protesting Megan Kelly's personal attacks on him as a 'moderator' in the name of journalism, in particular with her early Democrat left 'war on women' question, which in addition was inane and irrelevant, but he doesn't realize that.

Fox took the bait and issued snide comments in retaliation. They are now feuding. Fox is supposed to be reporting the news, not making it and battling with candidates, and Trump is supposed to be articulating principles and positions, not engaging in school yard tactics for feuding.

Trumps statements are almost always sloppy and wandering in his lack of justification and incongruities tacked together for emotional appeal on one 'talking point' after another, but he was very clear that he wants permanent Federal control of the 'public lands' and that he thinks centralized national control is the only way to properly regard the land -- except of course for his own casinos and resorts for which he exploits government eminent domain power to take what he wants.

The vaguely written Commerce clause and the power of eminent domain were major sources of damage. Neither were intended to be exploited the way they are today.

Government jurisdiction over land, whether by a state or the national government, is not land "ownership". In the original 13 states, which extended much farther to the west than they do today, there was no Federal territory within those states. The Federal government did not "start with 100% of everything". It was a federation of the states. Territory acknowledged or subsequently ceded to the country not within a state was held for private settlement and then eventual new statehood. The early Progressive movement in the late 19th century reversed that under the intellectual influence of European statism, which resulted in permanent control by the Federal government over unclaimed land.

Ayn Rand did not "thrive on hero worship of her followers". She was interested in spreading rational ideas rationally accepted and spread by individuals to influence the culture. She never wanted groupie "followers", let alone "worshipers".

We don't need another "administrator" of statism.

The land and natural resources should be private property. That is how "who decides what lands should be used in which ways" -- the use to which land is put is decided by the owners of the land. The battle over which level of government will control the land for what pressure groups is a false alternative.

There is no justification for states "competing" with different forms of statism. The goal is protection of the rights of the individual, not government "competition". The optional realms in implementations of procedures and codification of civil rights does not mean that the rights of the individual are optional for whatever states want to "compete" with something else.

The states are not supposed to own the land. The Federal government is authorized to acquire land for its own necessary purposes under limited functions authorized by the Constitution. That those functions do not include land socialism, including natural resources or preservationism, does not mean the "states should own the land". The Article 1 Section 8 requirement for approval by the state legislature (not the governor) of what land the Federal government may acquire within a state is an issue of jurisdiction and the ceding of territory by a state, not statist land ownership. "Consent of the legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" means jurisdiction over any land within a state boundary, not state ownership.

I don't qualify as an Objectivist, and several of you have told me so passionately. I just like much of the way Rand thinks, and I use present tense because great thought never dies.
Bureau of Land Management, a part of the Department of the Interior are not ninth or tenth Amendment issues. This is a Article I issue; Interior was the first great extension of Federal Power, illegally created in 1840 when early big money interests in railroad and mineral/mining & Real Estate Marketing issues pressured Congress to find a way to control the Wild Indians. The ensuing sixty years would catalog one of the greatest genocides ever committed by man.
The entire finagle is an Unconstitutional swindle by congress purportedly allowed by the "Commerce Clause" which regulates Interstate Commerce. Obviously, Land within a single state should not be covered, in spite of BLM's claims, said land is within one state and not interstate in any way.
BLM was created in 1946 by Harry S Truman a Progressive Democrat, a follower of the equally Progressive Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom believed that 'We the People' were too stupid to manage ourselves. They often made decisions to solidify their own political power. BLM was formed by merging the General Land Office, created in 1812 to assume control of "Public" lands that the Federal Government had no title to, and the Grazing Service Agency which sold grazing rights to land the Federal Government never held title to. The biggest land swindle in history taking place over 204 years now allows BLM to control more than 700,000,000 acres of "Public Land" allegedly, "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." The only trouble to that whole idea is that the Federal Government never held legal title to any of those lands.

Yes, "perhaps not". Trump has endorsed the same statist themes as Cackles, including a national socialist takeover of health care (Cackles Care). His inconsistencies are being noticed by some, but no one is pressing him to explain why the changes now, for the current campaign, hoping that they only mean that he has become their Man on a White Horse, so don't rock the boat by asking too many questions. Such is the nature of following the Pied Piper on a White Horse.

What are they counting on? Trump is a salesman in search of a "deal", a very big deal putting himself in control of the country. He has even called his own campaign a "deal", and is playing us for it as part of the shell game dealing. He is a demagogue without principles, pandering to any side of any hot button issue in accordance with whomever he is talking to at the moment, currently mostly conservatives in the Republican primary.

But have you noticed that as he moves to what he thinks is his role in the general election he openly boasts how well he "gets along" with Pelosi and Reid, and insists the same for Hillary before he was running against her? He thinks it's in his favor that he can and would make "deals" with them, and the rest of the radical progressives, on anything, with no limits under any principle, over what he would give up for what at the expense of whose rights. The victims are simply denounced -- as he did while proclaiming "eminent domain is wonderful" -- as "holdouts" obstructing "the deal".

This guy differs from previous statists from Nixon to Teddy Roosevelt, mostly in his open disregard for any principles except for a Pragmatist anything goes for any "deal". It is the complete abdication of principle as such.

Mark Levin on 1/25/16 aired the Trump interview promoting nationalist land control http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/markle... begin 00:15:18.

"Here we go to another fundamental issue. Why is it that if the Federal government runs something, it'll be protected and pristine and so forth and so on, but somehow the states are incapable of it? Is that what the 10th amendment's all about? Is that what federalism's all about? Now the Federal government should own all this land because only the Federal government can keep this land properly? ... I never give up liberty."

Notice the jarring jump from state control to "I never give up liberty". The liberty of the individual requires private property rights, not living under control of the land by state government instead of the national government, but this is all too typical of the conservative ideology of "states' rights" statism.

As for Trump, his demands for the most centralized national form of control because "we have to be great stewards of this land" is typical of his own strong arm statist nationalism and anti-private property fascism. Just as with his "eminent domain is wonderful" pronouncements and his trashing private property owners who have dared to oppose both him and the infamous Kelo decision that he loudly endorses, he is no defender of the protection of the rights of the individual with power of government strictly limited to authorized functions. He is not only a full-fledged anything goes nationalist statist to "make us great", but is more openly brazen than even Obama in shouting it to the corners of the earth while denouncing his victims in the most vicious terms.

Trump also panders to whatever group he is campaigning for in search of a "deal". The interview promoting massive Federal lands was for a hunting and fishing lobby that typically pushes for more Federal acquisition, including eminent domain.

But it was only 3 weeks ago that he published an op-ed in the in the Nevada Reno Gazette-Journal decrying "faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy" and "arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making" -- because Federal ownership in Nevada is so controversial. But he didn't say what he would do about it other than vague calls for "leadership" to "make us great" and a tangent on "immigration". Readers here on the gg forum will notice that he said nothing about private property rights in a free society, only calling to give him the power under incoherent pragmatism opposed to principle on principle. His only rudder is power for himself to be "great". http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voic...

Governmental jurisdiction by the states in realms within which the national government has no authority under the Constitution does not mean ownership of the land. Socialist land 'ownership' is not "reserved for the states" under the Constitution or anything else.

The point is not for him to win outright but to get his message to a larger population. He made over 1% last time. Americans need to know alternatives exist.

If every objectivist, their children and their dog voted for Johnson, he still wouldn't stand a chance. I doubt if he'd be able to make it over 1%.

The most telling thing is that if he runs away from Megan Kelly, what's he going to do when he's "treated unfairly" by the big boys?

Many criminals could use your logic as a defense.

There is a decent, qualified candidate, and if we all support him, the electorate may have a real choice: Gary Johnson, Libertarian. See www.garyjohnson2016.com

Trump paid them off to get them off his back as I understand what he said. He wanted to build and they said "no".

Rearden as well as Dagny paid public officials off so they would get out of their way I dont see anything wrong with that. I dont think the public officials are in the right to extract money so as to let people do what they should be allowed to do in a free society.