Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness. They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect). I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed? What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness. They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect). I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed? What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
stay off the kings land
I've noticed some of the posts stating that the land "belongs" to the wildlife. But from a biblical standpoint man was supposed to take dominion over the earth as well as the animals. Men have been settling the untamed lands of the world since Adam and Eve made their entrance. LOL
That is one problem with the government taking up so much land. They can tell you to keep off of it.I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness. They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect). I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed? What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
Some people just want the government off their backs.
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
Some people just want the government off their backs.
Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
Some people just want the government off their backs.
Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have? The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point. They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population. It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
Some people just want the government off their backs.
Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have? The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point. They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population. It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
Now you're talking about societal change, that's a different kettle of fish.
For the individual though it creates very perverse incentives to have limited government with respect to obligation and expansive government with respect to rights. This is just liberalism under a different light. Don't pay taxes but expect library service or emergency rescue.
I think that it's important for every society to have some form of escape hatch for people who don't want to live in civilization and deal with all the requirements of civilization. This would be a pressure release value, like on a pressure cooker, to insure that worse things don't come about because people are feeling trapped and oppressed.
The Mountain Man route could be such an escape hatch because people would have to be pretty fed up with society in order to chuck everything. And chucking everything has to be a condition. No fishing get-aways, hunting lodges, etc.
There's so much wilderness that is available. Section off 100 square mile areas and allow one cabin there. No property rights, just right of use. No electricity, no plumbing, no roads. Make it like the guy on the PBS program "Alone in the Wilderness." This also means no schools, no Medicaid, no foodstamps, etc. No taxes = no benefits.
Some people just want the government off their backs.
Which is what I'm saying, there needs to be a way for people to get government off their backs but we also need to prevent free riders. Government off their backs also means to heli-evac, no public schools for the kids, no emergency medical treatment, no library borrowing privileges, etc. No government on your back means no government to help you in your daily life.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we have limited government, like we used to have? The founding fathers neglected to put it the one safeguard to stop the Big Government types that have brought us to this point. They should have indexed the size of government to the size of the population. It would have prevented dictators like Obama from growing government so big that the people can't control it anymore.
I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness. They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect). I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed? What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
I just finished watching a wilderness show where a man and wife spent almost a year living in the Idaho wilderness. They were trekking through a huge National Forest in which homesteading has been completely outlawed (except for a sprinkling of back-woods homes that were "grandfathered in" prior to the law taking affect). I was thinking that I would like to live in a place like that but will never have the opportunity because it's "against the law."
What do you think about the idea of allowing homesteading in such places as long as no roads, electricity, plumbing, shopping centers, gas stations, or any other reflections of "civilization" are allowed? What if a person just wants to live off of the land and take what he needs to survive without the luxuries of urban sprawl?
What's RIGHT with that or what's WRONG with that?
You can do whatever you want if you buy your own land. Taxpayers money goes to maintain that land. Seeing you guys all strung out running around naked in the woods like madmen might freak out hikers.
