[ExI] Homesteading away wildfires

[Stuart LaForge]

Quoting Adrian Tymes: <atymes at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Homesteading away wildfires
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALAdGNStS2VvsVu6MbaHREpTd5KVomxPm7QPCP7UJccuja5MmA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 1:20 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>> What I propose is that the government offer deed of property to any
>> citizen who firescapes and settles some claimed area of designated
>> wilderness land in accordance to environmental standards with the
>> payment of the first year of property taxes for that land.
>>
>> So now, in exchange for doing some manual labor digging and hauling
>> wood formerly homeless people can now homestead and own several acres
>> of wilderness that they can then roam at will, develop as they see
>> fit, or live off the land, so long as they preserve the endangered
>> species there upon.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Most of those who prove incompatible with city life, would also prove
> incompatible with rural life.  Their defect is not city life, but a
> responsible life at all.  They wander wherever they please (and can), glean
> sustenance as best they can, spend money on booze (they freely lie,
> claiming they intend to spend it on food, and do not understand why anyone
> - even those who see them spend it on booze - should not believe them), and
> spare no thought for either other people or their own long term situation.
> They see no reason to clean up after themselves already, so they would see
> no reason to clean up their area if planted out in the wilds.
>
> Most of these people are incapable of learning, having lost or deliberately
> shunned this critical piece of their humanity.  A mental asylum is the only
> suitable housing for these people, but there is not enough space, and
> difficulty getting them there.  If moved out to the wilds, they would be
> incapable of learning to live out there: they would either starve, or
> abandon their property and return to areas with enough people for them to
> beg from.

Then California does not have a homelessness problem, California has  
an insanity problem.

> This is not to say "most homeless".  A fair bit - likely the majority - of
> homeless are compatible with city life, and would be quite capable of
> maintaining an apartment were they to be furnished with one.  (Indeed, they
> are sufficiently adapted to city life that what you propose would be a
> hardship worse than they already deal with, though some might take it up.)
> But you're talking here about those homeless who are not.

I know I brought up the homeless, but the offer should hold for any  
U.S. citizens who are not already homeowners so, for example, renters  
would qualify. The wildfires are the primary issue for me at any rate.  
Giving citizens ownership, in exchange for stewardship, of government  
lands in the face of neglect (and possibly legal negligence) by the  
government.

Also Native Americans should get preferential status for homesteading  
due to their ancestral connection to the land.

Stuart LaForge