We say whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. I would add that taking away our public lands, especially our federal public lands, whether by transferring ownership or reducing access, is also for fighting. There's also the gun metaphor. Many of us feel like they can take our public lands when they pry our cold, dead fingers off of them. Yes, many voted for "that guy" because they wanted change. Many were, unfortunately, blissfully low-information regarding what change with "that guy" would look like (he's already backed away from saying he would lower prices, which may have been the most common objective many voters thought they were voting for). And most of them sure as heck weren't endorsing getting rid of public lands, in what form that might take, when they voted for him (or others in his party).
I can't think of anything more depressing than the loss of the public lands. John puts it mildly in observing that there will not be widely-shared benefits if the public lands are privatized.
I will simply observe here that those parts of the US that do not have extensive areas of public lands spend 100s of millions of dollars every year trying to re-establish a little room to roam. And that of course is the point. Oligarchs can take the land, then charge the folks who used to enjoy it, to buy it back.
The perspectives here are well-framed, and therefore very helpful in forming a foundation for this important and imminent discourse. Thank you.
We say whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. I would add that taking away our public lands, especially our federal public lands, whether by transferring ownership or reducing access, is also for fighting. There's also the gun metaphor. Many of us feel like they can take our public lands when they pry our cold, dead fingers off of them. Yes, many voted for "that guy" because they wanted change. Many were, unfortunately, blissfully low-information regarding what change with "that guy" would look like (he's already backed away from saying he would lower prices, which may have been the most common objective many voters thought they were voting for). And most of them sure as heck weren't endorsing getting rid of public lands, in what form that might take, when they voted for him (or others in his party).
Thank you for presenting a clear and rational analysis of public vs. private land ownership. (And for the shout-out in the afterword!)
I can't think of anything more depressing than the loss of the public lands. John puts it mildly in observing that there will not be widely-shared benefits if the public lands are privatized.
I will simply observe here that those parts of the US that do not have extensive areas of public lands spend 100s of millions of dollars every year trying to re-establish a little room to roam. And that of course is the point. Oligarchs can take the land, then charge the folks who used to enjoy it, to buy it back.
Thank you for writing this John! And for the book, too.