US National Park Faces Sale

[Marenco]

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 August 2010 23.13 BST

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/8/6/1281132762207/Grand-Teton-national-park-006.jpg


Grand Teton national park in Wyoming. Photograph: Getty Images
Some might call it blackmail. The governor of Wyoming calls it desperation.

Governor Dave Freudenthal is threatening to sell off a chunk of one of America's most beautiful national parks unless the Obama administration comes up with more money to pay for education in the financially beleaguered state.

He says he will auction land valued at $125m (£80m) in the Grand Teton national park, one of the country's most stunning wildernesses. Part of the park was donated by John Rockefeller Jr.

Other parts belong to the state government including two parcels of land of about 550 hectares (1,360 acres) designated as school trust lands to be "managed for maximum profit" to generate funds for education in Wyoming.

At present Wyoming raises only about $3,000 a year from the land by leasing it to a cattle rancher. Officials have menacingly suggested that the property might make a nice site for a ski lodge.

Freudenthal recently wrote to the interior department asking the federal government to trade the park land for mineral royalties. "If the federal government won't dance with us, we will go look for another partner," said Freudenthal. "The purpose is to force the federal government to come to the table."

Washington says it is negotiating, but Freudenthal says the issue has dragged on for a decade. "The way the federal government has treated us to date is that we are like the people who own the land, but they figure there isn't anything else they can do with it," he said.

Previous negotiations led Washington to offer 800,000 acres of federal land in a swap but state officials rejected it as "trash land" not worth nearly as much as their "prime, in-park real estate".

"I admit we aren't as bright as those boys on the Potomac," said Freudenthal. "But this ain't our first county fair."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park

[Golding]

Looks quite nice. It'll be interesting to see what a private business would do with it.

[Koz]

If I had a few hundred million laying around I'd buy it and have a hell of a hunting ranch for guided elk and mule deer, fishing in the summer too.

[Southron]

Unfortunate.

[Yieu]

It appears as though he has no intention on selling the land, but is just using it as a bluff in order to get some more tax money from D.C. The way the article was written at least, it gives this impression.

[Razmear]

"Officials have menacingly suggested that the property might make a nice site for a ski lodge."

Skiing is menacing??? There are ski slopes in national parks in NH. Seems like a reasonable way to make some revenue by leasing it to a ski resort. As long as they don't sell it off to a strip mining company for some quick cash I don't see a problem with the state doing what it likes with the land.

[noxagol]

I'd buy it and make a wilderness resort. Nothing too big, more of a rustic feel.

[RedLightning]

The title is very misleading. A small portion of land inside a National Park that is owned by a state govt is for sale...Though by the sound of it it's a bluff.

[johnrocks]

Call me a "libertarian/constitutionalist hypocrite until the day I draw my last breath for all I care but I love our National Parks.

[Matt Collins]

"Officials have menacingly suggested that the property might make a nice site for a ski lodge."

Skiing is menacing??? It is to the envirofascists. :mad:

[Matt Collins]

The national parks and other government land should be auctioned off as soon as possible. Well first they should be offered to be transferred to the State governments.


http://dailybail.com/storage/federal%20land.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1267 642693515

[Matt Collins]

Call me a "libertarian/constitutionalist hypocrite until the day I draw my last breath for all I care but I love our National Parks.That's because you haven't thought it out all the way through.
Check this out: http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=8

[thomas-in-ky]

http://dailybail.com/storage/federal%20land.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1267 642693515

wow. never knew that much of the West was not private.

[puppetmaster]

sell it.

[Matt Collins]

wow. never knew that much of the West was not private.It's no coincidence that the states with the biggest amount of federal ownership were admitted to the Union just after the invasion of the Confederacy (OR and CA are the exceptions, but not by much). Federalism was flipped upside down after that time period and the federal government decided that it was more supreme than the States (a falsity). Then the concept of Manifest Destiny began to come into play :mad:

[Fredom101]

Harry Browne had the idea of privatizing all parks back in 1996 when he was running for pres, and the media laughed at him.
Now, there may not be a choice. I for one, as a libertarian anarchist, would love to see these parks sold off and out of the hands of government.

[Southron]

wow. never knew that much of the West was not private.

That's why the property is so expensive out west.

[YumYum]

Harry Browne had the idea of privatizing all parks back in 1996 when he was running for pres, and the media laughed at him.
Now, there may not be a choice. I for one, as a libertarian anarchist, would love to see these parks sold off and out of the hands of government.

Chances are, if all land was privatized, the average citizen would not have access to get back into the wilderness areas.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Im sorry but there should be land set aside that isnt plundered for profit. Our country is beautiful and there should be land set aside for us all to share and enjoy.

[YumYum]

Im sorry but there should be land set aside that isnt plundered for profit. Our country is beautiful and there should be land set aside for us all to share and enjoy.

I agree. Once they screw it up its messed up forever. I've camped in the wilderness areas and the trash in the hunting camps that is left behind is alarming. The grizzlies are the best police. People tend to keep their camps clean if they don't want to be eaten by grizzly bears.

[silverhandorder]

Chances are, if all land was privatized, the average citizen would not have access to get back into the wilderness areas.

You don't know of what you speak. Land costs very little in upstate NY and there are many hunters that own land together. It does not take a genius to buy land and sell visiting rights like many camp grounds already do.

If you were even remotely right then we would see the difference between west and east US. We don't people find a ton of space where to kick back in the east.

[Southron]

Im sorry but there should be land set aside that isnt plundered for profit. Our country is beautiful and there should be land set aside for us all to share and enjoy.

Don't you think it's unfair to those people who live there to have to pay inflated prices for land because the feds own half the states

[YumYum]

You don't know of what you speak. Land costs very little in upstate NY and there are many hunters that own land together. It does not take a genius to buy land and sell visiting rights like many camp grounds already do.

If you were even remotely right then we would see the difference between west and east US. We don't people find a ton of space where to kick back in the east.

I have lived in both Paradise Valley, Montana (my parents owned a 500 acre ranch surrounded by wilderness), and in Wyoming, where I have camped many times in the Wind River Mountains. People in those states laugh at the wannabe cowboys from back East who are totally clueless. If you didn't have public roads that cut through ranches that cost millions of dollars, you would not be able to get back into the pristine camping areas in the mountains. Those millionaires don't want your money to allow you to cross their ranches; they want you to stay the fuck out!

[silverhandorder]

I have lived in both Paradise Valley, Montana (my parents owned a 500 acre ranch surrounded by wilderness), and in Wyoming, where I have camped many times in the Wind River Mountains. People in those states laugh at the wannabe cowboys from back East who are totally clueless. If you didn't have public roads that cut through ranches that cost millions of dollars, you would not be able to get back into the pristine camping areas in the mountains. Those millionaires don't want your money to allow you to cross their ranches; they want you to stay the fuck out!

That is your own narrow view. Go upstate NY there are tons of campground spots that are begging for your money.

[michaelwise]

I agree. Once they screw it up its messed up forever. I've camped in the wilderness areas and the trash in the hunting camps that is left behind is alarming. The grizzlies are the best police. People tend to keep their camps clean if they don't want to be eaten by grizzly bears.Not forever and not that hard to restore. Just plant trees and add water. Once it is used up for profit, it can be turned back over to nature just like Detroit.

YouTube - ‪A Tour Of Detroit's Ghetto‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6WKMNmFsxM&feature=related)

[YumYum]

That is your own narrow view. Go upstate NY there are tons of campground spots that are begging for your money.

Dude! I don't want to go to "Upstate New York", just as I don't want to go camping in East Los Angeles. There is no comparison between the beauty in the west compared to the east. You need to venture out of New York and visit the west; such places as the Sunlight Basin, Paradise Valley, Glacier and various areas in the Wind River Range. If it wasn't for public access enforced by our government, the closest you easterners would come to those beautiful areas would be by flying over and looking down with binoculars.

Upstate New York. Give me a break!! :p

[cbc58]

At present Wyoming raises only about $3,000 a year from the land by leasing it to a cattle rancher.

I'll give them 4k yr.

[silverhandorder]

Dude! I don't want to go to "Upstate New York", just as I don't want to go camping in East Los Angeles. There is no comparison between the beauty in the west compared to the east. You need to venture out of New York and visit the west; such places as the Sunlight Basin, Paradise Valley, Glacier and various areas in the Wind River Range. If it wasn't for public access enforced by our government, the closest you easterners would come to those beautiful areas would be by flying over and looking down with binoculars.

Upstate New York. Give me a break!! :p

No point being your claim that avg joe won't get a spot to enjoy nature is false. Your own selfish wants is for a large chunk of land to be inaccessible. You have no sound argument as to why that should be.

[YumYum]

At present Wyoming raises only about $3,000 a year from the land by leasing it to a cattle rancher.

I'll give them 4k yr.

Your right, the lease amount should be adjusted. Government land leases were mostly tied to the private land many years ago, and the value of the land is determined by the government by how many cows it can hold; not by its beauty. Also, the lease is tied to the ranch and is not transferable. Ranchers in the west sometimes lease government land for next to nothing; land that would otherwise bring $100,000 an acre on the open market.

[RedLightning]

I think gov't ownership of public lands in the west is pretty low on my list of things to be concerned with.

Because of the present way we our laws are set up it would be impossible to privitize the National Parks at this time. I think some day it would be great if there were large private wild areas managed by private interests I think that time isn't here yet.

[YumYum]

No point being your claim that avg joe won't get a spot to enjoy nature is false. Your own selfish wants is for a large chunk of land to be inaccessible. You have no sound argument as to why that should be.

I never said I wanted land to be "inaccessible". Where did you get that? In fact, I want just the opposite. I don't know what you are saying. I want you easterners who watch the National Geographic channel to go and see real beauty in its untouched, pristine condition. I will say it again: In the western Rockies, where I have lived, if there were not public access roads into the beautiful areas to camp and fish, your "average joe" easterners would never get to go camping in the pristine areas and see mama grizzly and her cubs.

Those millionaire ranchers don't give a shit about your money; they don't want you or anybody else trespassing across their land. They will shoot your ass if you don't first get their permission. And the only way you will get their permission is if you know them or you have a friend that knows them. Why do you argue with me? I am giving you a first hand, eye witness account into how it really works in the real world out west.

Please don't compare New York with areas like Cook City, Montana, or the Sunlight Basin.

[YumYum]

I think gov't ownership of public lands in the west is pretty low on my list of things to be concerned with.

Because of the present way we our laws are set up it would be impossible to privitize the National Parks at this time. I think some day it would be great if there were large private wild areas managed by private interests I think that time isn't here yet.

They have dude ranches with beautiful surroundings for people from back east to come visit. You can spend anywhere from a $1,500- $10,000 a week per person.

[silverhandorder]

I never said I wanted land to be "inaccessible". Where did you get that? In fact, I want just the opposite. I don't know what you are saying. I want you easterners who watch the National Geographic channel to go and see real beauty in its untouched, pristine condition. I will say it again: In the western Rockies, where I have lived, if there were not public access roads into the beautiful areas to camp and fish, your "average joe" easterners would never get to go camping in the pristine areas and see mama grizzly and her cubs.

Those millionaire ranchers don't give a shit about your money; they don't want you or anybody else trespassing across their land. They will shoot your ass if you don't first get their permission. And the only way you will get their permission is if you know them or you have a friend that knows them. Why do you argue with me? I am giving you a first hand, eye witness account into how it really works in the real world out west.

Please don't compare New York with areas like Cook City, Montana, or the Sunlight Basin.
What is so special about where you live? New York wilderness is just as beautiful as anything you see around you. Point being is that even though NY has only 5% under federal control people still can access nature.

Your problem is that you would keep me from buying some land in your state because of your prejudice towards the market economy.

You know what if all national parks get leveled and people start taking resources out of them I say that is a good thing. This means we care more about being rich then some sight seeing that is all over US.

Your problem is that you can't accept the market vote so you go and reach for the gun.

[libertybrewcity]

Wyoming should sell some of it and see what happens. If the land is kept nice and corporations don't trash it, they should sell the rest or run the national park as a state park instead. I bet they could make some money from hunting and fishing licenses, guided tours, camp grounds, or a ski resort etc.

[RedLightning]

They have dude ranches with beautiful surroundings for people from back east to come visit. You can spend anywhere from a $1,500- $10,000 a week per person.

I myself would prefer to spend some quality time in a National Forest for "free". One of the reasons I still support National Forests and Parks. Also not going to lie, I'll probably be employeed by one when I graduate from school...hey every one has some hypocracy.

[Matt Collins]

Because of the present way we our laws are set up it would be impossible to privitize the National Parks at this time.
NO!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:



The Supreme Law Of The Land (the Constitution) does not permit the federal government to own nature preserves, forests, parks, recreation areas etc :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Im sorry but there should be land set aside that isnt plundered for profit. Our country is beautiful and there should be land set aside for us all to share and enjoy.


I agree. Once they screw it up its messed up forever.

“If national parks were sold to conservation groups, they'd get much better care than they do now. Government hasn't been a very good steward to our parks, contrary to popular opinion.

“For example, earlier in its history, Yellowstone employees were encouraged to kill wolf, fox, lynx, marten and fisher because visitors enjoyed watching the deer, elk, longhorn sheep, etc. that these species preyed upon. The expanding population of hoofed mammals destroyed the shrubs and berries that fed the bear population. As a result, bears began to invade camp sites, so park rangers had to start removing them. Now wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone.

“Yellowstone may yet be saved, but other parks under bureaucratic stewardship haven't fared so well. Ravena Park in Seattle was established by a couple who wanted to protect the giant Douglas firs that grew in that area. Up to 10,000 a day came to visit and attend the nature lectures, walk the trails and admire the majestic trees. The city eventually bought the park and made it public. Within 15 years, all the Douglas firs were gone. The bureaucrats overseeing the park could only profit by selling trees as cordwood, so that's what they did.

“These stories are not unique. People act in the their own selfish interests. When they own a property, they profit most by caring for it. When they simply have bureaucratic oversight, they profit most from exploiting it.

“A libertarian government recognizes this pattern and privatizes the environment. The owners profit when they protect it and lose when they don't. When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves.”



SOURCE:
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=8

[libertybrewcity]

“If national parks were sold to conservation groups, they'd get much better care than they do now. Government hasn't been a very good steward to our parks, contrary to popular opinion.

“For example, earlier in its history, Yellowstone employees were encouraged to kill wolf, fox, lynx, marten and fisher because visitors enjoyed watching the deer, elk, longhorn sheep, etc. that these species preyed upon. The expanding population of hoofed mammals destroyed the shrubs and berries that fed the bear population. As a result, bears began to invade camp sites, so park rangers had to start removing them. Now wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone.

“Yellowstone may yet be saved, but other parks under bureaucratic stewardship haven't fared so well. Ravena Park in Seattle was established by a couple who wanted to protect the giant Douglas firs that grew in that area. Up to 10,000 a day came to visit and attend the nature lectures, walk the trails and admire the majestic trees. The city eventually bought the park and made it public. Within 15 years, all the Douglas firs were gone. The bureaucrats overseeing the park could only profit by selling trees as cordwood, so that's what they did.

“These stories are not unique. People act in the their own selfish interests. When they own a property, they profit most by caring for it. When they simply have bureaucratic oversight, they profit most from exploiting it.

“A libertarian government recognizes this pattern and privatizes the environment. The owners profit when they protect it and lose when they don't. When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves.”



SOURCE:
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=8

Interesting source. One, I don't know much about conservation groups but I wonder if any could afford the 125 million dollar price tag Frudanthal had on the Tetons NP. I am sure some NP in the US would be valued at much more than that. And, if they had to be undervalued so the groups could afford them, would the state or government still make the sale?

The evidence for privatized national parks is overwhelming as long as the "right" people own them, such as conservation organizations.

[silverhandorder]

Not really the same business man if he can generate a profit from people simply camping will also be a good steward of environment. Buffalo are not extinct today because people eat them. Parks will not be extinct if people like to visit them.

[tjeffersonsghost]

[FONT=Arial][I]“

“A libertarian government recognizes this pattern and privatizes the environment. The owners profit when they protect it and lose when they don't. When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves.”



Matt

That sounds just great in theory but in reality corporations will destroy an area with no regard to loss of life or health of environment if it increases their profits. I can list hundreds of cases where private corporations knew people were getting killed from their environmental destruction and hid it because it affected their profits. We have a case down here in S Florida where a whole area is in a cancer cluster because the well water has been destroyed by local industry.

It wasnt but 40 years ago our major areas looked exactly like what Beijing looks like today. The reason it doesnt is because of the government. The reason why Yellowstone isnt some massive housing development or home to a manufacturing plant is because of government. The reason why we can throw a match in a river without the river catching on fire is government.

Now the sad thing is over the past 15 to 20 years or so the government has been quite complicit with big business. They have not been investigating many of these companies killing people (like the case down here for example) and the environment and really they have just washed their hands of regulation that is unless you are a big donor.

But to claim that private industry is looking our for the interests of us all when it comes to the environment is not only overlooking history but even today. Once again how are private corporations taking care of the environment in China? Or even better how would you like the yellowstone mountain tops to look like this

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2007/09/gallery_mountain_top_mining/above2.jpg

No thanks, Id like to keep some area of natural beauty that we can all share without a power plant, housing development, or any other manufacturing company looking to exploit the environment for profit.

[YumYum]

^^^^Great post! I couldn't have said it better.

[Brian Defferding]

Matt

That sounds just great in theory but in reality corporations will destroy an area with no regard to loss of life or health of environment if it increases their profits. I can list hundreds of cases where private corporations knew people were getting killed from their environmental destruction and hid it because it affected their profits. We have a case down here in S Florida where a whole area is in a cancer cluster because the well water has been destroyed by local industry.

It wasnt but 40 years ago our major areas looked exactly like what Beijing looks like today. The reason it doesnt is because of the government. The reason why Yellowstone isnt some massive housing development or home to a manufacturing plant is because of government. The reason why we can throw a match in a river without the river catching on fire is government.

Now the sad thing is over the past 15 to 20 years or so the government has been quite complicit with big business. They have not been investigating many of these companies killing people (like the case down here for example) and the environment and really they have just washed their hands of regulation that is unless you are a big donor.

But to claim that private industry is looking our for the interests of us all when it comes to the environment is not only overlooking history but even today. Once again how are private corporations taking care of the environment in China? Or even better how would you like the yellowstone mountain tops to look like this

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2007/09/gallery_mountain_top_mining/above2.jpg

No thanks, Id like to keep some area of natural beauty that we can all share without a power plant, housing development, or any other manufacturing company looking to exploit the environment for profit.

Just because that area could become private (which in reality it won't because as it's been stated, this is a bluff the state is giving to the feds - how can federally owned land be sold by the states, anyhow?) doesn't mean it would end up like that.

If people want to keep the natural beauty, then you work with other environmentalists to fundraise and buy the land. You raise awareness, you work within your community and the nation to keep the land from being paved/chipped off. It's all about the belief and effort in voluntary action.

If private industry is polluting, of course, that's where it should be up for the state and court system to penalize the culprits and protect other private property. The penalties, in my opinion, should be severe for those the courts deem responsible. Severe negligence at the cost of other people's land ought to mean jail time, not just restitution payments.

[james1906]

Call me a "libertarian/constitutionalist hypocrite until the day I draw my last breath for all I care but I love our National Parks.

Most people love them. I have an annual pass. It's something that should be a matter of state and local governments.

If the worst thing fedgov did was protecting scenic areas without Constitutional authority, our country would be a better place.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

You don't know of what you speak. Land costs very little in upstate NY and there are many hunters that own land together. It does not take a genius to buy land and sell visiting rights like many camp grounds already do.

If you were even remotely right then we would see the difference between west and east US. We don't people find a ton of space where to kick back in the east.

Uhhhh, NY state owns tons of land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Preserve_(New_York) and is largely responsible for it not looking like NJ.

[Pauls' Revere]

Was this part of the collateral put up for the bailout money our government borrowed from The FED?

[tjeffersonsghost]

If people want to keep the natural beauty, then you work with other environmentalists to fundraise and buy the land. You raise awareness, you work within your community and the nation to keep the land from being paved/chipped off. It's all about the belief and effort in voluntary action.



Sounds great but it would cost at least $11 billion dollars to buy Yellowstone alone (3550 sq miles, 640 sq acres per mile $5k per acre). Imagine doing that for all of the Federal Parks and state parks. Because there isnt a whole lot of profit in the conservation business it would be hard to compete with big oil, big natural gas, big coal, big housing, etc. Sadly our nation has been convinced that if you want to take care of the environment you are a hippy pussey. Profit is en vogue now and environmental exploitation is just collateral damage.

As a business owner Im all for profit and Im far from an enviro nut but I understand that just like with everything else in this universe there has to be a balance. Right now in my opinion we are not in balance when it comes to our environment and earth. It's hard to fight big business and their big money when it comes to raising awareness when you are working on a limited budget.

[Brian Defferding]

Sounds great but it would cost at least $11 billion dollars to buy Yellowstone alone (3550 sq miles, 640 sq acres per mile $5k per acre). Imagine doing that for all of the Federal Parks and state parks. Because there isnt a whole lot of profit in the conservation business it would be hard to compete with big oil, big natural gas, big coal, big housing, etc. Sadly our nation has been convinced that if you want to take care of the environment you are a hippy pussey. Profit is en vogue now and environmental exploitation is just collateral damage.

As a business owner Im all for profit and Im far from an enviro nut but I understand that just like with everything else in this universe there has to be a balance. Right now in my opinion we are not in balance when it comes to our environment and earth. It's hard to fight big business and their big money when it comes to raising awareness when you are working on a limited budget.

I understand where you are coming from, and I think the reason why it's hard to fight big business and big polluters is because the government does not do its proper role in protecting property, and there needs to be some reform in how the polluting culprits should be punished. Again, I think the penalties should be more severe.

As for selling Yellowstone, I don't think a single buyer would be able to buy the whole land in one fell swoop. My opinion, if Yellowstone was turned over to the states, and the state were to sell the land to private owners, I think a proper course of action would be to sell the land off into blocks, cut them off into sections and sell them individually. Chances are, a big business probably won't be able to take the whole area, which would limit their power in what they could do to it. Again, that's just me.

What if the Audoban Society owned Yellowstone? I love the Audoban Society. Both them and the Sierra Club might be able to swing in a huge purchase of the land. Hell, I would be happy to donate to both of them if I knew the money would be used to purchase Yellowstone land. You would agree with me there, right?

[noxagol]

And this debate is exactly why public land is a bad bad idea.

[Matt Collins]

And this debate is exactly why public land is a bad bad idea.My thoughts exactly :)

[Matt Collins]

As a business owner Im all for profit and Im far from an enviro nut but I understand that just like with everything else in this universe there has to be a balance. Right now in my opinion we are not in balance when it comes to our environment and earth. It's hard to fight big business and their big money when it comes to raising awareness when you are working on a limited budget.


Today, the biggest polluter of all -- the U.S. military -- gets away with murder -- literally. When courts found the military liable for illness and death after careless nuclear testing in Utah, the government claimed sovereign immunity and refused to pay damages. In a libertarian society, no one would be immune from the consequences of their actions -- especially not a government charged with protecting us.

Libertarians believe that people and governments should right their wrongs by restoring, as much as possible, what they've damaged. Today, instead of making polluters pay, our government makes the taxpayers shoulder the burden. Sometimes it requires whoever buys a polluted property to bear the cost of the clean-up. If polluters don't pay for the damage they do, why should they stop polluting?

Since government is the biggest polluter of all, putting government in charge of stopping pollution is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

"Restitution isn't just a remedy -- it's the most effective deterrent known. Thus, few individuals or business executives would dare to pollute with the threat of lifetime liability hanging over their heads.

"Obviously, for people to collect restitution for any crime, they need to prove their case against the person(s) who caused harm. You wouldn't want it any other way -- especially if someone accused YOU!

"In a libertarian society, the delaying tactics that corporations use today would be considerably less successful, because courts would be more efficient and less burdened with 'victimless' crimes.

Final note: One of the things that confuses some libertarians is that one of the functions of a limited government is to protect property rights via restitution. Regulation does more harm than good by shifting resources away from victims and towards policing. Arguing that restitution, as both a preventive and curative, should be substituted for regulation is generally more reassuring to people than just saying that government has no role - and it is accurate from a libertarian standpoint of government limited to protection of people and property. Hope this helps!

SOURCE:
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=8

[Matt Collins]

That sounds just great in theory but in reality corporations will destroy an area with no regard to loss of life or health of environment if it increases their profits. I can list hundreds of cases where private corporations knew people were getting killed from their environmental destruction and hid it because it affected their profits. We have a case down here in S Florida where a whole area is in a cancer cluster because the well water has been destroyed by local industry.Causing damange or harm to someone else shouldn't be allowed of course.


It wasnt but 40 years ago our major areas looked exactly like what Beijing looks like today. The reason it doesnt is because of the government. The reason why Yellowstone isnt some massive housing development or home to a manufacturing plant is because of government. The reason why we can throw a match in a river without the river catching on fire is government.

Now the sad thing is over the past 15 to 20 years or so the government has been quite complicit with big business. They have not been investigating many of these companies killing people (like the case down here for example) and the environment and really they have just washed their hands of regulation that is unless you are a big donor. Are you sure you're on the right forum :rolleyes:

Do you believe in private property rights or not? :confused:


No thanks, Id like to keep some area of natural beauty that we can all share without a power plant, housing development, or any other manufacturing company looking to exploit the environment for profit.Then start a Chip-In or join the Sierra Club. But I shouldn't be forced to pay for it at gunpoint.

[puppetmaster]

Matt

That sounds just great in theory but in reality corporations will destroy an area with no regard to loss of life or health of environment if it increases their profits. I can list hundreds of cases where private corporations knew people were getting killed from their environmental destruction and hid it because it affected their profits. We have a case down here in S Florida where a whole area is in a cancer cluster because the well water has been destroyed by local industry.

It wasnt but 40 years ago our major areas looked exactly like what Beijing looks like today. The reason it doesnt is because of the government. The reason why Yellowstone isnt some massive housing development or home to a manufacturing plant is because of government. The reason why we can throw a match in a river without the river catching on fire is government.

Now the sad thing is over the past 15 to 20 years or so the government has been quite complicit with big business. They have not been investigating many of these companies killing people (like the case down here for example) and the environment and really they have just washed their hands of regulation that is unless you are a big donor.

But to claim that private industry is looking our for the interests of us all when it comes to the environment is not only overlooking history but even today. Once again how are private corporations taking care of the environment in China? Or even better how would you like the yellowstone mountain tops to look like this

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2007/09/gallery_mountain_top_mining/above2.jpg

No thanks, Id like to keep some area of natural beauty that we can all share without a power plant, housing development, or any other manufacturing company looking to exploit the environment for profit.
the PRIVATE land around yellowstone is just as beautiful......weird the government had nothing to do with that.....

[libertybrewcity]

Reading the comments above, I agree that national parks should be privatized, but since our government obviously does not enforce private property and individual rights I don't think now is the right time to do it. Once the government can show that they stand with the people and not with corporations and big business, I think then would be a better time for privatization of national parks.

[libertybrewcity]

the PRIVATE land around yellowstone is just as beautiful......weird the government had nothing to do with that.....

Wait till they start selling whole mountains filled with coal and forests with oil underneath.

[nate895]

Call me a "libertarian/constitutionalist hypocrite until the day I draw my last breath for all I care but I love our National Parks.

They are also my favorite unconstitutional program.

[libertybrewcity]

They are also my favorite unconstitutional program.

But they would be no more with the current state of property rights and enforcements.

[BenIsForRon]

Not forever and not that hard to restore. Just plant trees and add water. Once it is used up for profit, it can be turned back over to nature just like Detroit.


You're way wrong. You would likely permanently alter the ecosystem, and when you replant trees you would have an entirely different set of animals centuries down the line. Mostly deer and squirrels, the animals best able to survive amongst human-altered landscapes.

I don't care what we have to do, I don't want one fucking mine opened up in those mountains.

[YumYum]

the PRIVATE land around yellowstone is just as beautiful......weird the government had nothing to do with that.....

That is not true, the government has a lot to do with it. There is a very powerful group called the Greater Yellowstone Coalition whose members are very rich land owners and movie stars. They control everything that takes place outside of Yellowstone, including mining, logging, industry, and anything else that could have an impact on the greater Yellowstone area. They control the government up there, and if it wasn't for their clout, the Greater Yellowstone area would look like western Washington. They manipulate the government to do what they want.

The BLM wanted to clear-cut an area in Paradise Valley, MT, and they were taking bids from loggers. The GYC shut that down instantly.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Some of you guys act like libertarianism is a religion. If government is so bad, just advocate for dismantling of the state and go straight for anarchism. If it weren't for the environmental conservation movements most of this country would be one giant strip mall. I'll give you one reason 100% freedom-libertarianism won't work: People are fucking DUMB.


Only a nation of unenlightened halfwits could've taken this beautiful place and turned it into what it is today -- A Shopping Mall. A BIG FUCKING SHOPPING MALL.

YouTube - ‪George Carlin on Fat People‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRQvK2-iqQ)

[YumYum]

I understand where you are coming from, and I think the reason why it's hard to fight big business and big polluters is because the government does not do its proper role in protecting property, and there needs to be some reform in how the polluting culprits should be punished. Again, I think the penalties should be more severe.

As for selling Yellowstone, I don't think a single buyer would be able to buy the whole land in one fell swoop. My opinion, if Yellowstone was turned over to the states, and the state were to sell the land to private owners, I think a proper course of action would be to sell the land off into blocks, cut them off into sections and sell them individually. Chances are, a big business probably won't be able to take the whole area, which would limit their power in what they could do to it. Again, that's just me.

What if the Audoban Society owned Yellowstone? I love the Audoban Society. Both them and the Sierra Club might be able to swing in a huge purchase of the land. Hell, I would be happy to donate to both of them if I knew the money would be used to purchase Yellowstone land. You would agree with me there, right?

What if Audoban and the Siearra Club don't have the money? If Yellowstone were broken up into blocks and sold off it would ruin the delicate eco-system. Yellowstone is sitting on a fortune in gold and if it was privatized the owners would strip mine that Park for the billions in gold.

Condos, casinos/hotels, convenience stores, shopping malls, fast food joints, dude ranches, amusement parks, snow mobile races and the list goes on and on of what would happen if it was broken up and sold. It would pain me to see the Golden Arches next to Ole' Faithful.

I don't know of any pristine land that is privately owned in the Rockies that is open to the public that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to visit. The Nature Conservancy owns a beautiful 7700 acre ranch outside of Lander, Wy. They don't allow the public into that ranch. Yes, they preserve its beauty, but nobody is allowed to enjoy it. Public Lands afford American citizens who don't have much money to enjoy nature at its best.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Are you sure you're on the right forum :rolleyes:

Do you believe in private property rights or not? :confused:



I believe in property rights. I just don't believe everything should be privatized. Im not an anarchist like some on here, I do feel government does need to play some role in our lives, just not a big roll. Once again, profit is not the end all be all, profit can corrupt and as history and modern times have shown people will do anything for a profit. Some things should be left alone so we can all enjoy it.

I also saw your click on the nuclear waste in which I totally agree its bad what the government did. I still don't think by far it makes the government the biggest polluter. Massive pollution and environmental destruction came long before nuclear power. Also thanks for making my case for why nuclear is not the end all be all. The waste has to go somewhere and personally I don't want it in my backyard.

[Matt Collins]

I don't care what we have to do, I don't want one fucking mine opened up in those mountains.
But you don't own the mountains. It's not your property. Until it is your property you cannot dictate what happens to it :rolleyes:

Apparently you seem to be a socialist :(

[tjeffersonsghost]

But you don't own the mountains. It's not your property. Until it is your property you cannot dictate what happens to it :rolleyes:

Apparently you seem to be a socialist :(

And neither does the private sector and his point is we want to keep it that way. Has nothing to do with Socialism. Once again not every RP supporter is an all out anarchist I think there is a roll for the government and a roll for the private sector.

Anarchists pipe dream is very similar to some liberal socialist pipe dream. It doesnt take into consideration human nature. Extremism in any direction is not good and that goes for all out socialist government control of everything from cradle to grave or all out anarchy where there is no government no rule of law. I tell all the socialists if they like it take a look at Venezuela and tell me how they like it. I tell the anarchists to pay a visit to Somalia and tell me how they like it. Once again extremism in any form is not good. Just because you dont believe in anarchy doesnt make you a socialist.

[Brian Defferding]

What if Audoban and the Siearra Club don't have the money? If Yellowstone were broken up into blocks and sold off it would ruin the delicate eco-system. Yellowstone is sitting on a fortune in gold and if it was privatized the owners would strip mine that Park for the billions in gold.

Condos, casinos/hotels, convenience stores, shopping malls, fast food joints, dude ranches, amusement parks, snow mobile races and the list goes on and on of what would happen if it was broken up and sold. It would pain me to see the Golden Arches next to Ole' Faithful.

I don't know of any pristine land that is privately owned in the Rockies that is open to the public that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to visit. The Nature Conservancy owns a beautiful 7700 acre ranch outside of Lander, Wy. They don't allow the public into that ranch. Yes, they preserve its beauty, but nobody is allowed to enjoy it. Public Lands afford American citizens who don't have much money to enjoy nature at its best.

I hear you. But as our nation's population increases, the need for more land will likely grow too. Eventually it will come to pass that some of that land will be needed one way or another. Especially if that land has some valuable natural resources (not talking about oil or coal either).

I do trust the Audoban Society would care for park land very well and would not sell them off for commercial use though.

[Southron]

And neither does the private sector and his point is we want to keep it that way. Has nothing to do with Socialism. Once again not every RP supporter is an all out anarchist I think there is a roll for the government and a roll for the private sector.

Anarchists pipe dream is very similar to some liberal socialist pipe dream. It doesnt take into consideration human nature. Extremism in any direction is not good and that goes for all out socialist government control of everything from cradle to grave or all out anarchy where there is no government no rule of law. I tell all the socialists if they like it take a look at Venezuela and tell me how they like it. I tell the anarchists to pay a visit to Somalia and tell me how they like it. Once again extremism in any form is not good. Just because you dont believe in anarchy doesnt make you a socialist.

The federal government owns HALF or close to that of many of these states. Half!

Are you ok with making these into resort states because the average person can't afford property?

[Ricky201]

Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

--------------

This is the part where I probably should say "taking from what I'm reading on this forum, most of you support the first plank of the Communist Manifesto." Instead I will say ask a question. How much of land in your opinion should be controlled by the State? Who should decide how much land should be controlled by the State? Since the State, in your opinion, does such a good job at protecting the land you claim should be made "public", than why not make it all public?

[Ricky201]

And neither does the private sector and his point is we want to keep it that way. Has nothing to do with Socialism. Once again not every RP supporter is an all out anarchist I think there is a roll for the government and a roll for the private sector.

Anarchists pipe dream is very similar to some liberal socialist pipe dream. It doesnt take into consideration human nature. Extremism in any direction is not good and that goes for all out socialist government control of everything from cradle to grave or all out anarchy where there is no government no rule of law. I tell all the socialists if they like it take a look at Venezuela and tell me how they like it. I tell the anarchists to pay a visit to Somalia and tell me how they like it. Once again extremism in any form is not good. Just because you dont believe in anarchy doesnt make you a socialist.

Yes, let's make an example out of Somalia, a land where they're still recovering from one the worst dictatorships in modern history. Yet, you ignore the fact that communications, standard of living, life span, immunization rates, quality of certain foods, education, quality and availability of water, and infant mortality rate have all significantly improve with the absence of the State. If the UN or the US did not meddle with things in Somalia, than you would most likely see the most developed country in Africa give or take a couple decades. And most socialists WOULD like Venezuela.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Yes, let's make an example out of Somalia, a land where they're still recovering from one the worst dictatorships in modern history. Yet, you ignore the fact that communications, standard of living, life span, immunization rates, quality of certain foods, education, quality and availability of water, and infant mortality rate have all significantly improve with the absence of the State. If the UN or the US did not meddle with things in Somalia, than you would most likely see the most developed country in Africa give or take a couple decades. And most socialists WOULD like Venezuela.

Hahaha so let me get this straight, you want our country to be set up like Somalia's? First off I just want to point a few things out to you. The Somali civil war broke out in early 1991. The US and UN didnt send anyone in till nearly 2 years later. This was after 300k were killed. Now I personally dont think the US should of went in at all, but to blame the mass death and war of rivaling factions on the US is just absurd.

From 1991 till 2004 you had no government just waring factions vying for power. Because when you have no government no law that is what happens, just because there is no government doesnt mean human nature ceases to exist and human nature tells me that some people are power hungry. These power hungry people will kill and exploit whoever to get that power. Who knows how many died because of the civil war but it wasnt till 2004 some sort of government was instituted. From 2004 till now you have seen big improvements but still no where near the point to where I want our country to be like.

Once again just because you get rid of government doesnt mean you get rid of human nature.

[puppetmaster]

That is not true, the government has a lot to do with it. There is a very powerful group called the Greater Yellowstone Coalition whose members are very rich land owners and movie stars. They control everything that takes place outside of Yellowstone, including mining, logging, industry, and anything else that could have an impact on the greater Yellowstone area. They control the government up there, and if it wasn't for their clout, the Greater Yellowstone area would look like western Washington. They manipulate the government to do what they want.

The BLM wanted to clear-cut an area in Paradise Valley, MT, and they were taking bids from loggers. The GYC shut that down instantly.


And yet its still private property......
my parents own a farm next to Glacier national park....and I have lived up that way many years of my life.....on a very nice piece of private property. Some people think that the gov is our only savior. Do you realize that out gov is owned by corporations. That there are many government owned pieces of land that are super-fund sites?.......

[puppetmaster]

That is not true, the government has a lot to do with it. There is a very powerful group called the Greater Yellowstone Coalition whose members are very rich land owners and movie stars. They control everything that takes place outside of Yellowstone, including mining, logging, industry, and anything else that could have an impact on the greater Yellowstone area. They control the government up there, and if it wasn't for their clout, the Greater Yellowstone area would look like western Washington. They manipulate the government to do what they want.

The BLM wanted to clear-cut an area in Paradise Valley, MT, and they were taking bids from loggers. The GYC shut that down instantly.

wait a min...are you saying the government can mismanage land, and PRIVATE land owners protected it..... say it ain't so:eek:

[libertybrewcity]

Yes, let's make an example out of Somalia, a land where they're still recovering from one the worst dictatorships in modern history. Yet, you ignore the fact that communications, standard of living, life span, immunization rates, quality of certain foods, education, quality and availability of water, and infant mortality rate have all significantly improve with the absence of the State. If the UN or the US did not meddle with things in Somalia, than you would most likely see the most developed country in Africa give or take a couple decades. And most socialists WOULD like Venezuela.

Source?

[YumYum]

And yet its still private property......
my parents own a farm next to Glacier national park....and I have lived up that way many years of my life.....on a very nice piece of private property. Some people think that the gov is our only savior. Do you realize that out gov is owned by corporations. That there are many government owned pieces of land that are super-fund sites?.......

So, do your parents let anybody that wants to camp on their property?

How come your parents never opened it up to the public?

What I am saying is that if all pristine public lands were privatized, there would not be a place for the average citizen to enjoy such locations, and if there was not public access, there would be no way to get back into the great camping and fishing spots.

[puppetmaster]

So, do your parents let anybody that wants to camp on their property?

How come your parents never opened it up to the public?

What I am saying is that if all pristine public lands were privatized, there would not be a place for the average citizen to enjoy such locations, and if there was not public access, there would be no way to get back into the great camping and fishing spots.

why,? because it is private property...it has great camping spots and great fishing holes but that does not mean it belongs to the public just because they want it.

so are you an advocate for certain things public, like schools, land, and buildings?

[YumYum]

why,? because it is private property...it has great camping spots and great fishing holes but that does not mean it belongs to the public just because they want it.

You just made my point. My involvement on this thread started with my comment about losing public access to rivers and trial-heads to camping grounds. Seeing that your parents won't let me go across their land or camp on their land, I have to say that I would like things to remain as they are until The Great Collapse.


so are you an advocate for certain things public, like schools, land, and buildings?

At this late point in the game it doesn't matter. I am waiting for the collapse of everything as has been predicted by 90% of the people on this forum. Before that happens, I want to go catch me a few cutthroat trout.

[Matt Collins]

They are also my favorite unconstitutional program.Mine too, along with NASA. I do believe that NASA should be folded under national defense but both of them (NASA and the NPS) need to go away ASAP!


Look, I am an Eagle Scout. I have spent a lot of time in Yellowstone. I love the mountains, I love camping, hiking, and long walks on the beach. I love nature, the environment, the ecosystem, and the national parks. I want to see this all preserved not just because I enjoy it but because I think it's the right thing to do and I would like future generations to be able to enjoy it too.



But the government is not the best way to do it!



.

[Matt Collins]

What I am saying is that if all pristine public lands were privatized, there would not be a place for the average citizen to enjoy such locations, and if there was not public access, there would be no way to get back into the great camping and fishing spots.And you fail to realize that people who own the land will often times allow people to visit in order to make a profit. Ever heard of commercial campgrounds? How about group lodges or hunting junkets? :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

And neither does the private sector and his point is we want to keep it that way. Has nothing to do with Socialism. Once again not every RP supporter is an all out anarchist I think there is a roll for the government and a roll for the private sector.

Anarchists pipe dream is very similar to some liberal socialist pipe dream. It doesnt take into consideration human nature. Extremism in any direction is not good and that goes for all out socialist government control of everything from cradle to grave or all out anarchy where there is no government no rule of law. I tell all the socialists if they like it take a look at Venezuela and tell me how they like it. I tell the anarchists to pay a visit to Somalia and tell me how they like it. Once again extremism in any form is not good. Just because you dont believe in anarchy doesnt make you a socialist.I am not an anarchist, I am a libertarian.

Government has 3 functions:
- secure individual rights
- uphold contracts
- provide justice.


How exactly does a national park system fit into any of those 3 purposes of government? :confused: :rolleyes:

Government must be as minimal as possible but not so minimal that it can't carry out it's 3 most basic functions.

And you are sounding like a centrist / socialist / Marxist. Either you want less government (and logically more liberty) or you want more government (and logically less liberty). Which is it?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - Barry Goldwater Jr

[Matt Collins]

I still don't think by far it makes the government the biggest polluter. Massive pollution and environmental destruction came long before nuclear power. Also thanks for making my case for why nuclear is not the end all be all. The waste has to go somewhere and personally I don't want it in my backyard.Government is the single largest entity in the US and they pollute more than any other single entity. Nuclear is the best power source currently available until solar becomes more efficient. And I fully believe that it won't be too much longer before the technology will exist to do away with nuclear waste making it a non-issue.

[Matt Collins]

If it weren't for the environmental conservation movements most of this country would be one giant strip mall. You are drinking the liberal / enviro-facist kool aid :rolleyes:

Try thinking for yourself every once in a while.

[BenIsForRon]

Most of the private nature conservancies also support government intervention to protect the environment. There is a reason for that. Both government and the private sector can play a role in preservation. You need all hands on deck when fighting the bankers and industrialists.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Government is the single largest entity in the US and they pollute more than any other single entity. Nuclear is the best power source currently available until solar becomes more efficient. And I fully believe that it won't be too much longer before the technology will exist to do away with nuclear waste making it a non-issue.

So the government is the biggest polluter. You have facts to back that up? Also because you consider our best source of energy nuclear you should probably leave out anything nuclear they pollute with because you feel it is a necessary evil (I don't).

Here are the facts and a look into any history book will show this to be true. Our rivers used to be so bad that you couldnt even stick a match in them because you ran the risk of the river catching on fire. In fact many rivers did indeed catch on fire because the pollution was so bad. One of these rivers is talked about and photos are shown here

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html

The passage of the clean water act helped to get many of our lakes and waterways that looked like the above to look good. It wasnt private corporations who cleaned it up, it wasnt volunteer private citizens doing it it was the government using the law to do it. Im sorry but I kinda like the idea that I can go swim in many of the lakes that used to be polluted to the hilt.

On top of that pick any major metropolitan area even as little as 40 years ago and you couldnt even open your window because the air pollution was so bad. With the passage of the various clean air acts you can now breath in many of these big cities.

These are just the facts man you want to see who doesnt have clean water or clean air acts?

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Linfen-China-Pollution.jpg

http://ettf.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/gd4058921beijing-china-a-chin-7482.jpg

The above is what much of China looks like right now. Where are the volunteers to clean it up? What China looks like now is what our countries air and rivers looked like as little as 40 years ago.

In fact that documentary "America The Story of Us" points out quite well what cities like NYC used to look like till the government instituted cleaning services. Once again there were no volunteers to clean it up, it took the government.

You can talk theory all you want but there is a difference between theory and reality.

[puppetmaster]

You just made my point. My involvement on this thread started with my comment about losing public access to rivers and trial-heads to camping grounds. Seeing that your parents won't let me go across their land or camp on their land, I have to say that I would like things to remain as they are until The Great Collapse.



At this late point in the game it doesn't matter. I am waiting for the collapse of everything as has been predicted by 90% of the people on this forum. Before that happens, I want to go catch me a few cutthroat trout.


gone fishin':D

[YumYum]

gone fishin':D

Don't rub it in. :p

[silverhandorder]

Most of the private nature conservancies also support government intervention to protect the environment. There is a reason for that. Both government and the private sector can play a role in preservation. You need all hands on deck when fighting the bankers and industrialists.

They can be good at preserving parks while holding flawed political views. They also bitch and moan for years then realize government will do nothing and do something them selves without changing their political views.


So the government is the biggest polluter. You have facts to back that up? Also because you consider our best source of energy nuclear you should probably leave out anything nuclear they pollute with because you feel it is a necessary evil (I don't).

Here are the facts and a look into any history book will show this to be true. Our rivers used to be so bad that you couldnt even stick a match in them because you ran the risk of the river catching on fire. In fact many rivers did indeed catch on fire because the pollution was so bad. One of these rivers is talked about and photos are shown here

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html

The passage of the clean water act helped to get many of our lakes and waterways that looked like the above to look good. It wasnt private corporations who cleaned it up, it wasnt volunteer private citizens doing it it was the government using the law to do it. Im sorry but I kinda like the idea that I can go swim in many of the lakes that used to be polluted to the hilt.

On top of that pick any major metropolitan area even as little as 40 years ago and you couldnt even open your window because the air pollution was so bad. With the passage of the various clean air acts you can now breath in many of these big cities.

These are just the facts man you want to see who doesnt have clean water or clean air acts?

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Linfen-China-Pollution.jpg

http://ettf.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/gd4058921beijing-china-a-chin-7482.jpg

The above is what much of China looks like right now. Where are the volunteers to clean it up? What China looks like now is what our countries air and rivers looked like as little as 40 years ago.

In fact that documentary "America The Story of Us" points out quite well what cities like NYC used to look like till the government instituted cleaning services. Once again there were no volunteers to clean it up, it took the government.

You can talk theory all you want but there is a difference between theory and reality.
You got all the info you need yet you come to the wrong conclusions. When America was as poor as China just like China they did not give a shit about the environment and concentrated in raising their living standards to an acceptable level. If we are to remove regulations today, demand for cleaner environment is not going to disappear. It will still be there. The only difference is that now instead of government achieving these goals with a sledge hammer the private sector will do it with an array of many different tools fine tuned to societies expectations.

Statists always have a knack at comparing unlike things.

[heavenlyboy34]

Unfortunate.

nah. It's very fortunate. It will be that much less of a drain on taxpayers. :cool:

[Matt Collins]

Here are the facts and a look into any history book will show this to be true. Our rivers used to be so bad that you couldnt even stick a match in them because you ran the risk of the river catching on fire. In fact many rivers did indeed catch on fire because the pollution was so bad. One of these rivers is talked about and photos are shown here

The passage of the clean water act helped to get many of our lakes and waterways that looked like the above to look good. It wasnt private corporations who cleaned it up, it wasnt volunteer private citizens doing it it was the government using the law to do it. Im sorry but I kinda like the idea that I can go swim in many of the lakes that used to be polluted to the hilt.

On top of that pick any major metropolitan area even as little as 40 years ago and you couldnt even open your window because the air pollution was so bad. With the passage of the various clean air acts you can now breath in many of these big cities.
Of course things are better now than they used to be.


But can you tell me where the federal government is authorized in the Constitution to set up pollution controls?

On the state level I absolutely think that the government should prohibit anyone, personal or business, from polluting their neighbor's land. Government's job is to secure individual rights, and polluting someone's land or air definitely infringes upon their rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

They can be good at preserving parks while holding flawed political views. They also bitch and moan for years then realize government will do nothing and do something them selves without changing their political views.


You got all the info you need yet you come to the wrong conclusions. When America was as poor as China just like China they did not give a shit about the environment and concentrated in raising their living standards to an acceptable level. If we are to remove regulations today, demand for cleaner environment is not going to disappear. It will still be there. The only difference is that now instead of government achieving these goals with a sledge hammer the private sector will do it with an array of many different tools fine tuned to societies expectations.

Statists always have a knack at comparing unlike things.

+a zillion! :cool:

[ChaosControl]

Ultimately I tend to think that there shouldn't be federal parks, they should be state parks. I don't think the federal government should own land, only the states.

Why should the guy in Florida have any say over any land up here in Washington or vice versa?

Just another way the Feds can hold the states hostage.

[Southron]

nah. It's very fortunate. It will be that much less of a drain on taxpayers. :cool:

It would preferably be sold or given to citizens at discounted prices.

Private land ownership is crucial to a free society. The more who own land, the better.

I would hate to see it sold to corporations for pennies on the dollar.

[libertybrewcity]

Of course things are better now than they used to be.


But can you tell me where the federal government is authorized in the Constitution to set up pollution controls?

On the state level I absolutely think that the government should prohibit anyone, personal or business, from polluting their neighbor's land. Government's job is to secure individual rights, and polluting someone's land or air definitely infringes upon their rights.

Wouldn't this be the biggest job crusher of all? How many industries would stay in the United States if they couldn't pollute. Industries need to pollute in order to make everything from cars to plastic to clothes. Almost everything uses oil or is made of oil or petroleum.

One problem with selling national parks is this. A mining company could tear down a mountain or mountain range without polluting or touching a neighbors property. Goodbye national park.

I would like to see state control their own land and keep the federal government out of it. States could sell pieces of land for money to those willing to maintain its natural beauty. Or, even if they didn't a state would run a park more efficiently than the federal government anyways. Or even county by county. Just as the federal government doesn't know what's best for land on the state level, many states probably don't know what is best for land on the local level.

[silverhandorder]

Wouldn't this be the biggest job crusher of all? How many industries would stay in the United States if they couldn't pollute. Industries need to pollute in order to make everything from cars to plastic to clothes. Almost everything uses oil or is made of oil or petroleum.

One problem with selling national parks is this. A mining company could tear down a mountain or mountain range without polluting or touching a neighbors property. Goodbye national park.

I would like to see state control their own land and keep the federal government out of it. States could sell pieces of land for money to those willing to maintain its natural beauty. Or, even if they didn't a state would run a park more efficiently than the federal government anyways. Or even county by county. Just as the federal government doesn't know what's best for land on the state level, many states probably don't know what is best for land on the local level.

Not really. The reason why we have jobs is because we have capital which makes us many times more productive then China. Right now this relationship is changing to where we are the ones who will be without capital.

For example out liberal opponents often want to protect the environment but only to a degree as long as business gets to still function. They don't like to discuss the second part because it shows them to be of the same mind as us and the only difference is that they would prefer for this matter to be decided by a political vote. We on other hand want to leave the vote in the market.

[heavenlyboy34]

It would preferably be sold or given to citizens at discounted prices.

Private land ownership is crucial to a free society. The more who own land, the better.

I would hate to see it sold to corporations for pennies on the dollar.

Agreed. :)

[libertybrewcity]

Not really. The reason why we have jobs is because we have capital which makes us many times more productive then China. Right now this relationship is changing to where we are the ones who will be without capital.

For example out liberal opponents often want to protect the environment but only to a degree as long as business gets to still function. They don't like to discuss the second part because it shows them to be of the same mind as us and the only difference is that they would prefer for this matter to be decided by a political vote. We on other hand want to leave the vote in the market.

But China clearly doesn't enforce private property rights. If they did, corporations would move elsewhere because they would be forced to not pollute any land surrounding theirs. That would destroy industry throughout Beijing and the majority of industrial China.

[silverhandorder]

But China clearly doesn't enforce private property rights. If they did, corporations would move elsewhere because they would be forced to not pollute any land surrounding theirs. That would destroy industry throughout Beijing and the majority of industrial China.

Or maybe the Chinese consumers would rather have pollution and not be dirt poor. Usually government is a good reflection of societies mood. If Chinese really minded pollution then the Chinese government would take steps to limit it.

edit: Unless you mean the courts defending property from being polluted. You are right but this is a bit complex for me. I would imagine people who did not mind pollution would congregate in polluted cities and other would move to areas that are less polluted.

What happened in US is that the courts upheld private property from pollution and we circumvented them by passing EPA.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

or maybe the chinese consumers would rather have pollution and not be dirt poor. usually government is a good reflection of societies mood. If chinese really minded pollution then the chinese government would take steps to limit it.

edit: Unless you mean the courts defending property from being polluted. You are right but this is a bit complex for me. I would imagine people who did not mind pollution would congregate in polluted cities and other would move to areas that are less polluted.

What happened in us is that the courts upheld private property from pollution and we circumvented them by passing epa.

hahaahhahahahha!!!!

[crazyfacedjenkins]

You are drinking the liberal / enviro-facist kool aid :rolleyes:

Try thinking for yourself every once in a while.


Of course things are better now than they used to be.


But can you tell me where the federal government is authorized in the Constitution to set up pollution controls?

On the state level I absolutely think that the government should prohibit anyone, personal or business, from polluting their neighbor's land. Government's job is to secure individual rights, and polluting someone's land or air definitely infringes upon their rights.

The irony. Oh no, the almighty "founding fathers" could never be wrong. Try thinking for yourself every once in a while. These are the same unelected, wealthy, land & slave owners who are telling us they want to be free. Give me a break, they can be wrong. Ever heard of amendments, you do realize they are constitutional?

[silverhandorder]

Whats so funny? Just started following politics or crawled out of Marx's grave?

[YumYum]

hahaahhahahahha!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! I love it! :D

[Matt Collins]

The irony. Oh no, the almighty "founding fathers" could never be wrong. They were wrong on many things, slavery being one of them. I never said they were infallible.


Ever heard of amendments, you do realize they are constitutional?Sure thing. Do you see an amendment that permits the federal government to have national parks or manage the environment? I don't. And until then, it is clearly unconstitutional (with the exception that if two states are in conflict etc). :rolleyes:

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Whats so funny? Just started following politics or crawled out of Marx's grave?

I think Ron Paul is as good as a congressman as we can get. I campaigned for him during the 2008 primary, donated during the 2 big money bombs and even went door-to-door visiting thousands of homes. What I saw (the sheer stupidity of people) made me realize there is no hope for raw, unadulterated, pure libertarianism in this country.

That said, the government has fucked up bad in so many areas it's unbelievable, but I will give credit where credit is due. If there weren't national parks and national forest, there would be no sizable wilderness land left. It would be one big strip mall. Open your fucking eyes and see the walmarts. You might like that trash, but I despise it.

[YumYum]

I get the feeling that the majority of people who want all land to be privatized have never seen the breathtaking beauty of some of our pristine public lands. Public lands allow the average American to enjoy such splendid beauty that they otherwise would never experience.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Yeah, I'm going to agree with you on that. Also, they may not be very familiar with the history on many of these precious locations and how they were seconds from being raped by prospectors. Maybe I'm wrong, seclusion and appreciation for natural beauty might not be their thing. Americans do love their strip malls...

[tjeffersonsghost]

I think Ron Paul is as good as a congressman as we can get. I campaigned for him during the 2008 primary, donated during the 2 big money bombs and even went door-to-door visiting thousands of homes. What I saw (the sheer stupidity of people) made me realize there is no hope for raw, unadulterated, pure libertarianism in this country.

That said, the government has fucked up bad in so many areas it's unbelievable, but I will give credit where credit is due. If there weren't national parks and national forest, there would be no sizable wilderness land left. It would be one big strip mall. Open your fucking eyes and see the walmarts. You might like that trash, but I despise it.

Correct it would be a strip mall, housing development, or resource skimmer. I recommend people take a trip to a place like Yellowstone before they make a decision on whether to privatize it.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I get the feeling that the majority of people who want all land to be privatized have never seen the breathtaking beauty of some of our pristine public lands. Public lands allow the average American to enjoy such splendid beauty that they otherwise would never experience.

Exactly, What he said^

[noxagol]

I think some people need to look up Ducks Unlimited.

[Brian Defferding]

Again, if the land were in the hands of good non-profit environmental groups, I do not think it would turn into your Joni Mitchell scenario. And they would charge visitation rights like national parks do.