So, what are you saying? If a gun doesn't Always keep its owner safe, then obviously guns should not be available for people?
If freedom can't be imagined into every detail that your mind can conjure, then freedom is stupid?
You sit and stew on stuff trying to stump me? For what? You WANT more governmental control?.

I want some places kept pristine...
...and some should be publicly owned and open to all...

Let's keep the Grand Canyon out of Trump's clammy hands...

We don't need a dollar sign on everything...

Don't know... But I can say that shortly after the Constitution was written, the feds did buy land from France: the Louisiana Purchase. That's a bit different, but it's still buying land. Back in the day, we had large amounds of public land before statehood. Remember the great cattle drives of yore? Remember when the cowboys cut fences and waged war against farmers? Private property can have its drawbacks.

The idea is that giving people all the land and letting them lock it up leaves people nowhere to roam. They're locked up in their own homes. You know what happens when the roads get privatized? Toll roads. Do you want to have to pay money simply to travel? I don't mean hotel fees or food. I mean, You can't even move without having to pay someone [b]not to be trespassed.[/b]

In the end, the government is whatever the people want it to be, right? Wouldn't you pay a little tax money for some public space you can go without stepping on toes? Not all of this has to be federal land, either. Some of it can be owned by states or local communities.

Perhaps early American government got away with buying land from other nations under the premise of making treaties (I'd guess). The government is here to serve us. Would public resources be one way the government serve us?

On your post: What does public land have to do with trading freedom for security? Who knows, maybe it gives us more freedom? Are you going to be arrested for trespassing on true public land? (Not talking about government use "keep off" land). Isn't that more freedom? The funny thing is that when you make everything privatized and libertarian, you do give the individual liberties.... THAT individual. Everyone else gets the shaft. Everyone else gets liberties taken away pertaining to that particular circumstance.

It comes down to this, JOG, do you really want to have to pay someone for the priviledge, not right, as it's no longer a right once everything is private property, to merely step outside your own house? Do you want to have to constantly negotiate with people everywhere you go? Yeah, you're kinda free not to then, but wouldn't you rather pay a little tax to the government to keep roads and public parks and forests open to you? Hey, you can even be free to pay the taxes. One example is something like a gas tax, where you only pay if you drive. That's like paying an automatic toll, right? Now should the government be entrusted with this, or should it get split up amongst thousands of private road companies and recreational land owners?

The idea is fee-less travel. Anybody can come or go without getting trapped. Say you have a homeless person. How is he going to pay road fees to walk across the countryside? Not very free, is it?

If you've noted, as I was writing, I seem to have come up with an idea for letting private companies emulate the government's job of keeping up "public"  property, but is it the best idea?