Glenn Beck questions the selling of private land to the government

Posted by admin in Uncategorized on Mar 11th, 2010 | View Comments

This is a great topic for discussion. Beck has a problem with people buy landing and selling to the government, taking it out of the private sector potentially in perpetuity. Stu makes the argument that a person who buys land you can sell it to whomever you want whether it be the government or a private citizen. I think they both make great arguments, but I think Beck’s problem should be the government’s policy of buying and keeping the land and not selling it off. I agree with Stu’s argument more and I think the burden of responsibility lies with the government. There would need to be policies set in place to maintain that the government cannot simply buy land with the sole purpose of keeping it out of the private sector needlessly. In other words, the government should have a dang good reason for owning any piece of land. Otherwise the land should be put it up for sale back into the private sector.

Be sure and listen to the whole clip to hear the arguments to their fullest:




  • To quote what I just posted on one of my friends' Facebook accounts:

    Glenn Beck just said that Ted Turner shouldn't be allowed to sell his land to the government! Apparently Glenn Beck doesn't think that private citizens should be allowed to do what they want with their private property. Beck thinks that the government should set up an agency to monitor who people sell land to then no...t let people sell land to the government, and we can have a big government agency to make sure that people have complete control over their land and that they can't control the land in such a way that leads it to be sold to the government.
  • ecosse
    A thought provoking discussion; I support having national parks and such, and I think citizens should be able to sell to whom ever they want, but Beck makes some interesting points that I think need exploring further.

    Can one sell to the Gov? The Gov. is not a person or even a company; it's nothing more than a REPRESENTATION of all of US. So how can you sell or give property to the Gov?

    Like I said, I do believe national parks are good for preservation and cultural purposes. But how much is enough? And if the land "belongs" to the Gov. does it not really belong to Us? Those resources could be tapped without destroying the land and eco-system in many cases and this should be debated further.

    The Fed owning a third of the land just reeks even though I agree with Glenn that a cynical land/power grab may have not been the original intent. It doesn't matter what the original intent was because we need to be concerned with the here and now.
  • keysync
    Gov't has ZERO reason to own land.
    They can't manage anything right.
    In my view ALL land in the USA should be owned by private citizens.
    If the Govt wants a building then they should have to negotiate a lease with the owner of the land.
    remember.. The Gov't is supposed to work for us.
  • ecosse
    I agree with your sentiment keysync but if the Gov. rents from the private sector will they not be paying via revenue from taxes? taxes of course being our money.
  • keysync
    That's correct.
    Just a cost of them doing business.
    If "The People" want to have a big fancy mansion for the president. Then the people should expect to pay for it.
  • jgardner
    Article 1 Section 8. Read this often. Here's one part:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
blog comments powered by Disqus