FW: Public lands in a libertarian society

53 views
Skip to first unread message

lnc-public_forward

unread,
Aug 1, 2026, 5:55:21 PM (3 days ago) Aug 1
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
 
From: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 9:55:10 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: Public lands in a libertarian society

Forwarding to the public list at Starchild's request.


In Liberty,

Amanda
Vice Chair, National Libertarian Party
From: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2026 16:05
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Cc: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Public lands in a libertarian society
 
One point Bryce made below that I haven’t seen addressed in the ensuing thread is the idea that “federal land should be returned to the private sector”.

This sounds straightforward at first blush, which is presumably why it went unremarked. Clearly the U.S. federal government controls a huge amount of land – far, far in excess of what it is allowed to control under the Constitution. This must indeed be rectified.

However it must also be pointed out that while these lands were once in the Voluntary Sector (free of government control), most of them have never been private property. All land on earth was of course originally public, and most of the great tracts of wilderness in North America were never legitimately homesteaded, but simply (and wrongfully) seized by government.

Among the State’s most consequential and under-recognized usurpations has been its colonization of the concept of “public”, by equating that word with government funding and government control. To counteract this, I believe we need to reclaim the historical concept of the Commons – to defend the existence of a category of land which everyone has equal rights to access and use, but which is not owned or controlled by government, except perhaps to uphold individual rights thereon and to adjudicate conflicts over use by competing interests.

To avoid the famous “tragedy of the commons”, such use must follow the sensible limit prescribed by John Locke: That use of public resources is legitimate only within the limits of leaving “as much and as good” to others. Conveniently in this regard, modern uses of public lands tend to be less extractive in most cases than has historically been true – people typically want to visit and enjoy nature, take photos, engage in outdoor recreation, etc., rather than practicing extractive, exclusive, or depleting uses of land such as mining, farming, or over-grazing.

People are also much more aware now than in the past of the importance of ecosystems and the environmental protection needed to guarantee their health and sustainability, and not simply allowing public lands to be polluted or despoiled. This suggests that better management of these lands today can be achieved not only via privatization, but via removing government controls so that individuals and groups – including of course indigenous tribal groups which historically followed such practices – are empowered to maintain and improve public lands on their own initiative, without the impediments of bureaucracy.

A libertarian society needs both private and public lands, because without any public spaces, there are effectively no rights. No right to free speech, self defense, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, etc. In a fully privatized world in which the strong property rights our platform demands were upheld, you would be God on your own property, while anywhere else your freedom would be subject to the whims of other property owners. If such a situation were ever to come about – a possibility that seems even more remote than achieving anarchy – I do not think it would be a desirable state of affairs from the point of view of individual rights and individual liberty.

Thus the challenge for libertarians and the LP when it comes to land use is to roll back State power and assert the right to private land ownership with strong property rights, without inadvertently disempowering individuals in the process. To do this, we need a libertarian concept of public that challenges, and differentiates itself from, the dominant statist conception.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))


From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 09:39:00
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>; Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
Mr. Flores I would be happy to bring the conversation back to what you're talking about

There actually is no formal contract between the US and the tribes, Obama made a proclamation on the matter and every single president since that proclamation has changed the size of the monument

I think a generalized statement about how federal land should be returned to the private sector rather than any one particular group would be more appropriate if you really felt like it needed to be commented on at all

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 9:32 AM Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org> wrote:
Mr. Thon,

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the traditional practices of my ancestors, as nothing you described is anything that is practiced or held as a belief. The irony of suggesting I research something you've displayed here you don't even want to understand is...interesting.

You speak of "reality" but don't seem willing to acknowledge that most dues paying members don't agree with your take on this and are overwhelmingly supportive of this email/post.

To everyone who joined this thread, welcome!

Tribes also struggle to define the "economy" we practice. Some have called it "traditional" economy. I've heard it described as anarcho-communism, Libertarian-Socialist, voluntaryism, and yes, voluntary mutualism. There are over 570 recognized tribes and nearly 400 more that aren't recognized, each with distinct beliefs and practices. I don't fault anyone for reaching for a description they think describes it best. I go back and forth myself the more I embrace my traditional culture. The words we're using to describe it didn't exist when it started. 

This email and post were supposed to be about indigenous rights and executive overreach. Instead, it turned into some "gotcha" where the factions piled on to take their jabs. Even Mr. Martin proclaims "told ya so" like some profound blow or some grand revelation has been made. The people who claim it isn't factional trip over themselves demonstrating otherwise every time something like this happens. What was a post that was overwhelmingly well received publicly, was stripped down to one word nobody in here agrees on the definition of and used to sow division. 

There's a lot of work to be done to advance liberty for indigenous people. I feel the weight of that every day. We have real opportunities where Libertarian principles align.

Purity tests, constant factionalism, reaching immediately for division before understanding, and really, most of the behavior in this email chain...does absolutely none of that. 

Egogahan,

Alex Flores
Region 9 Representative
Libertarian National Committee 
1-800-ELECT-US
From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 19:32:20
To: Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org>
Cc: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
Madam Vice Chair,

Respectfully, that is not, nor has it ever been, what mutualism means, and considering that reality you can't exactly fault people for questioning it

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 9:26 PM Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org> wrote:
No, Ms. Feintech. In fact, above I explained that "mutual aid" was NOT as valid a term given what was being referenced.

I am saying that Alex and I accurately referred to mutualism—voluntary and consensual effort toward a shared goal—as a value in agreement with Libertarianism while writing about the Indigenous right to steward their land; and a group of individuals decided to feign outrage over pretending that I had clandestinely endorsed the Labor Theory of Value. 


In Liberty,

Amanda
Vice Chair, National Libertarian Party
From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 21:07
To: brycethon0 <bryce...@gmail.com>; Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
Madam Vice Chair Griffiths, are you saying that you mistakenly utilized the term mutualism without fully understanding the implications to the party and our platform and instead was affirming the application of mutual aid? 


Sonja Feintech
LNC Region 1 Alt
From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 19:47:32
To: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
No, there is no positive feedback to give, the entire email is very leftist coded and was entirely unnecessary

Government contracts are inherently cohesive so a government contract with tribes in the first place is not libertarian, violating it doesn't make it less libertarian

The consent of the people being a prerequisite for legitimate authority is not the foundation of Libertarianism, if the people consented to be governed by a Marxist regime it would still be illegitimate, and if you wish to be technical, the people consented to be governed by Trump and I very much doubt you would argue that his tenure is legitimate.

Perhaps you need to hit the books again and be more informed

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:15 PM Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org> wrote:
Mr. Thon,

You seem to have skipped the part where I said to let me know if you have anything of value to add. You opinion of what is or isn't against the platform isn't one of those things. 

Be well.

Egogahan,

Alex Flores
Region 9 Representative
Libertarian National Committee 
1-800-ELECT-US
From: Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 16:08:09
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: (Reply from Alex Flores) New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
I would be fine with this conversation being slapped on the public list

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:06 PM Bryce Thon <bryce...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Flores,

I could not care less which specific individual was attached to the email, it could've been Mr. Martin and Mr. Bost and I would've taken issue

Mutualism goes against libertarian philosophy and on a party level it goes against the Statement of Principles, anybody, no matter who, claiming the party endorses that world view deserves to be admonished

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 5:56 PM Amanda Griffiths <amanda.g...@lp.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Thon,

Mr. Flores has informed me that he mistakenly left your email address off of his response and has advised that it be forwarded to you. Please find the Region 9 Representative's reply below.


In Mutual Liberty,

Amanda
Vice Chair, National Libertarian Party

From: Alex Flores <alex....@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2026 17:49
To: LP Info <in...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
Dagotee Mr. Thon,

Did you have anything positive to say about the rest of the contents of the letter? Or, did you only screen it to find something to complain about because Ms. Griffiths name was attached to it?

Do you do anything productive for the party? Or is it just constant complaints in the spirit of the factionalism you claim to be against?

Considering how incredibly wrong your take is on immigration and just about every take I've ever heard from you and your interpretation of the platform, I'll give this about as much consideration as I do anything else you've had to say. Let me know if you have anything of value to add.

Until then, be well, Bryce. Hopefully you find something positive to put all of this energy torwards. There are much bigger threats to the party than the voluntary mutualism my ancestors have practiced for over a thousand years.



Egogahan,

Alex Flores
Region 9 Representative
Libertarian National Committee 
1-800-ELECT-US
From: in...@lp.org <in...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2026 15:29:56
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: New message from Contact the LNC - Contact the Entire LNC
 
The following message has been submitted via the Contact the LNC webform.

Bryce Thon (bryce...@gmail.com) writes:

Hello again, just emailing you all to express disappointment in our Vice Chair's clear lack of understanding of libertarian philosophy or even the party's platform.

The Libertarian Party does not support mutualism and sending out an email saying the party does, even as a footnote of the email, is an absolute embarrassment.

Please do better to understand at the bare minimum the party platform, but preferably the philosophy as a whole before you say something as a representative of the party that drastically wrong again.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.​

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages