WOULD LIBERTARIANS HAVE CREATED THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM?

39 posts / 0 new

I've been poking around www.archive.org for old reports for national parks that I love and frequent... Acadia National Park in Maine, and Cape Cod National Seashore in Mass. I have to wonder if Libertarians were in control of the government the past century if either park would have been created. I can't imagine a Libertarian being concerned about protecting land for public enjoyment and for future generations. Nor can I see them concerned about protecting unique flora and fauna, physiographic conditions, historical sites and structures for public enjoyment and understanding.

It's outside their realm of permissible thought. Like some broken robot, any consideration of the above would just "not compute".

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Comments

I assume you mean would libertarians have supported the Federal Gov't setting up the National Park System. No. Under the 10th Amendment, park systems would fall to the States. Beyond that I would think it would be preferable to have private parks.

It's just a subsidy to the elite.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north767.html

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:It's just a subsidy to the elite.

Thanks for proving my point. Libertarians are blinded by their own ideology to see everything in terms of the market. Therefore it just "does not compute" that a nation might want to preserve special areas for the people and for future generations.

Of course by their "market" logic, Yosemite would have been destroyed by logging before it could have been preserved. Oh well. Such is the infallibility of the market.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

I assume you mean would libertarians have supported the Federal Gov't setting up the National Park System. No. Under the 10th Amendment, park systems would fall to the States. Beyond that I would think it would be preferable to have private parks.

It's just a subsidy to the elite.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north767.html

And by "elite" he means all of the citizens of the United States which is in direct contradiuction to the word "elite" which implies a small exclusive membership. I have noticed that one of the prerequisites of being a libertarian is that you either have to not know the definition of a lot of words or you have to be willing to shirk off the standard definition for whatever makes what you are saying sound good even if it means using a word in the contradiction to its standard meaning.

Sorta like how Obama is a "socialist" when he is a moderate conservative by all accounts.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

The National Park System saved most of our wonderful scenic spots from the blight of commercial development and "tourist trap" rip-offs. While the grand hotels and ability to get there did attract the luminaries, there were also affordable options that made these parks a great thing.

The idea that the "free market" and private ownership would serve the public interest or make these national treasures available to all but the elite is ludicrous. The logging of Yosemite, and the amusement park, of course.

It has gotten bad enough with the Neocon approach to defunding these parks and renting them out to private contractors for public services.

If Libertarians want to claim Thoreau and Walden Pond, they are going to have to come up with some non-commercial status for parks and public places.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

The problem with the national parks is They should be state parks. The fact they are saving them for the public is good until the federal government shuts down parts of or all of the park to the public.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Parks for the public good, no they do not understand it.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote workingman:The problem with the national parks is They should be state parks. The fact they are saving them for the public is good until the federal government shuts down parts of or all of the park to the public.

With ownership, comes control. And it's not this fantasyland of control by the people that progressives think. It's control by the politicians. Remember, when the weak-kneed Republicans tried to shut down the gov't under Clinton. What did Clinton do? He closed national parks to get the people on his side.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:With ownership, comes control. And it's not this fantasyland of control by the people that progressives think. It's control by the politicians.
So you're now running from your "subsidizing the elite" line to complaining about management? You mean should the People have a vote for every NPS policy? That's absurd. Clinton? Stick to the topic.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote drc2:If Libertarians want to claim Thoreau and Walden Pond, they are going to have to come up with some non-commercial status for parks and public places.

So what's the Libertarian "solution" to creating non-commercial status for parks? It would be to let someone organize a movement to create a legal trust... collect voluntary contributions, then try and buy the land. In the meantime the loggers cut down the 3000 year old giant sequoias.

Oops. They had more "market value" to loggers who worked faster than the do-gooders. That's OK, the ravaged land now in trust will again have these giant trees in a 1000 years or so!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote LysanderSpooner:It's just a subsidy to the elite.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north767.html

The intellectual contortions Libertarians use to justify their ideology are always amusing. The argument here is if the government protects unique natural lands for future generations... we must ignore that reality and instead focus on a side issue... that it might enhance the market value of property near the park… and therefore in the warped thinking of a Libertarian it's a "subsidy" to some and unacceptable!

Of course just about any infrastructure improvement government makes… airports, sea ports, etc can have some affect on market prices of nearby land. If the government plans an interstate highway… the value of the land nearby, especially at interchanges, will probably go up. Location, location, location. So are Libertarians suggesting government should not build airports, sea ports, and highways? Ya, they probably are. But are Libertarians suggesting this would NOT happen if a park, airport, sea port, and highway were built privately?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:So what's the Libertarian "solution" to creating non-commercial status for parks? It would be to let someone organize a movement to create a legal trust... collect voluntary contributions, then try and buy the land. In the meantime the loggers cut down the 3000 year old giant sequoias.

Oops. They had more "market value" to loggers who worked faster than the do-gooders. That's OK, the ravaged land now in trust will again have these giant trees in a 1000 years or so!

And here lies one of the core defects in the ideology of free market fanatics. In their minds everything is economics and all economic realities are defined by what people TODAY think. There's no economic value in 3000 year old trees except to loggers or to someone who wants to create a private park. Do-gooders can try to preserve the trees but it's charity work without economic returns their efforts are at a disadvantage. And in since Libertarians focus only on today, there's no sense of stewardship for future generations unless a private land owner feels that obligation. But people and corporations don't exist forever. Some heir to a do-gooder might easily want to cash in on those 3000 year old trees his parents tried to preserve. In Libertraian Land, future generations just don't matter.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

What about city parks, schools and libraries?

Sure, only the rich should have them, I suppose.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

What about city parks, schools and libraries?

Sure, only the rich should have them, I suppose.

Ya, those are nothing but backdoor subsidies to special interest groups like teachers, joggers, and readers.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Op you mean would libertarians used emminent domain to takevast tracks of land? No they wouldn't.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Quote Commonsense461:

Op you mean would libertarians used emminent domain to takevast tracks of land? No they wouldn't.

Gee, the first National Park was Yellowstone back in 1872. It was already federal land and when reports came back that it was highly unusual and should be preserved, the land was removed from the list of federal lands to be auctioned.

Acadia National Park in Maine is made up almost entirely of donated land.

OK, Einstein... given the above circumstances... what would LIBERTARIANS have done in those two cases if they controlled the federal government?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Op you mean would libertarians used emminent domain to takevast tracks of land? No they wouldn't.

Gee, the first National Park was Yellowstone back in 1872. It was already federal land and when reports came back that it was highly unusual and should be preserved, the land was removed from the list of federal lands to be auctioned.

Acadia National Park in Maine is made up almost entirely of donated land.

OK, Einstein... given the above circumstances... what would LIBERTARIANS have done in those two cases if they controlled the federal government?

Never would have owned the land in the first place and left it up to the states.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Op you mean would libertarians used emminent domain to takevast tracks of land? No they wouldn't.

Gee, the first National Park was Yellowstone back in 1872. It was already federal land and when reports came back that it was highly unusual and should be preserved, the land was removed from the list of federal lands to be auctioned.

Acadia National Park in Maine is made up almost entirely of donated land.

OK, Einstein... given the above circumstances... what would LIBERTARIANS have done in those two cases if they controlled the federal government?

Never would have owned the land in the first place and left it up to the states.

Thanks for another predictably moronic response. Is this another example of your home schooling? When will your mommy start teaching you US history? Or is this the result?

WYOMING WAS A FEDERAL TERRITORY BEFORE IT WAS A STATE! It didn't become a state until 1890... 18 years AFTER Yellowstone was set aside as a national park..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Territory
Wyoming's boundaries weren't even set until 1868 and Yellowstone was set aside from public auction 4 years after the Wyoming Territory was created. The federal government had every right NOT to sell Yellowstone on the auction block. Now do you intend to deal with the question in this thread or just to continue making an ass of yourself?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

(There has been much written about placing edible landscaping in municipal parks and by-ways, where enough space exists to provide a snack for all).

Scientifically, closing off parts of national parks is healthy for preserving their ecosystems. It is humans who degrade natural settings and overcrowding in parks has contributed to many problems.

The National Parks may have been an ideal in the minds of those who appreciate nature, but in reality they were part of International Harvester's plan to Put America on the Road in Airstreams and cars. As highways were built, their people in state road departments awarded contracts and easements for which motels and concessions would be available to the traveler. They even own the vending machines, not to mention traveling and auto insurance.

This way, Internatonal Harvester, International Truck & Engine, and International Paper (owner of roadside forests) win no matter what. Those who don't stay in their sleazy roadside joints will be using an International coach to visit our natural wonders.

As for the elite, they can stay in a Carlyle Group Marriott Suite where who knows what is under their Pacific Coast Feather Company mattresses.. (WA)

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Now do you intend to deal with the question in this thread or just to continue making an ass of yourself?

Seems poor little CS scampered off rather than confront the bankrupcy of his argument. So he's busy trolling another forum.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote leighmf:The National Parks may have been an ideal in the minds of those who appreciate nature, but in reality they were part of International Harvester's plan to Put America on the Road in Airstreams and cars.
Did any of your post past needing to close some park areas to let them heal, make sense? The first national park was created in 1872 and the area was barely surveyed. The idea that these national parks were part of created as part of some International Harvester scheme is... amusing.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Why couldn't the states do yellow stone?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

I'm an ecologist. Glad to give you a chuckle. Does the world make sense? Check your corporate connections and you won't have to ask such shallow, pointless questions. Why be so concerned about what other people believe or think or would have done? What counts now is Tyrant Identification and Extirpation.

FYI, International Harvester in one form or another was here in 1872 along with Standard Oil (Rockefeller, Flagler, et al.). Ask camaroman or some of the car boys.

The mechanical reaper was invented by Cyrus Hall McCormick in 1831.

1855- read about the McCormick-Manny case

The Department of The Interior was run by a Lincoln appointee who was also a lawyer for the Union Pacific. After the assassination he resigned from the Department of the Interior and went back to the RR. The UP had access to every survey made of Americas forests, plains, and mountains, for what it would be worth to them.

The first national parks were made in the west, which was exploited first by the UP.

In 1872 Influential stockholders of Union Pacific RR organized the construction company Crédit Mobilier of America, and under Oakes Ames, a U.S. Representative, made contracts with themselves which depleted the congressional grants and left the railway heavily in debt.

1872 North Western National Bank of Minneapolis founded by local businessmen and William G. Fargo, of Wells Fargo.

1872 Swiss Bank Corp., Basle formed with a number of U.S. correspondents in out of the way towns.

The International Harvester came out of the closet exactly 30 years, or one insurance company charter later. I'd say Aetna, the big lender to farmers, was growing the future International's capital, which included funds of the 1893 UP Bankruptcy and the 1872 Crédit Mobilier.

1902 North American Trust Company formed (merger to form International Harvester Company). George W. Perkins (for JP Morgan), Cyrus H, McCormick, Chas. Deering et al. organized then executed identical agreements to The Standard Trust Company; Perkins and McCormick secured an option for a fifth company which became selling agent.

From there you should go into the newspaper archive around the Great Depression and read the International advertisements and stated goals for getting American tourists on the road.

Who makes the travel coaches today, for viewing our parks in total fuel-inefficient comfort? Check out Elkhart, Indiana.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sure, you've got these great parks and a whole exotic Western space out there, so they build things to travel to them. Both trains and then the highway lobby. The only difference that matters with the park system is that it is NOT privately owned and controlled. Elkhart also makes a lot of musical instruments used in school bands. What does that mean? I am sure a diabolical explanation can be found.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote Pierpont:

It's outside their realm of permissible thought. Like some broken robot, any consideration of the above would just "not compute".

So what? It's what YOU think and do that matters.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You are just determined to cut me down, aren't you drc2?

All "National treasures" have benefited government insiders and their buds. The Biscayne National Monument was sold by Bebe Rebozo, whom you know so much about.

Does the government produce the park rangers uniforms and vehicles? Does the government build the facilities with government employees and wood and concrete and nails manufactured by our government with raw materials owned by the government? Does the government lay the asphalt for the roads, that comes from our own national tarpits?

The instruments of Elkhart, are explained by the Brass Foundrys, Bass to be specific, who had a monopoly on metals used for railroad production and the making of private railroad cars. Fort Wayne also needed a copper monopoly for their production of copper magnet wire.

Bass was the sometimes president of The German American Bank and several others in Fort Wayne. In those days one man could be president of several banks in town

Bass's earliest partnership in Fort Wayne was with Samuel Hanna, Fort Wayne Judge and a Director and Beneficiary of the Union Pacific. Hanna was also a member of The Corporation of Foreign Bondholders in London which facilitated the flow of cash out of the U.S. and the ultimate stripping off of common stockholders in RR bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

The Kryder Company built houses on lands of the Norfolk Western and Union Pacific, sold to them via Samuel Hanna who was replaced in function by John Hough, a later Judge. You may have heard of Hough. Kryders Additions 1, 2, and 3 were platted over Hough's Outlots in Wayne township.

Furthermore, the Fort Wayne interests took over the original musical instrument business of Frank Freimann, Magnavox founder. Before Frank Freimann came to town, the Barrett family of lawyers owned the Packard Piano manufactory.

My half-cousin is a Navistar VP. He is the son of James Bond and Bonds and Barretts have been intermarried with the Barnett bankers for two centuries at least.

Anything else you'd like to try and trip me up on, drc2? If you don't think we are living a diabolical orchestration, you may as well sign up for placement as a houseboy or personal slave now.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote Commonsense461:

Why couldn't the states do yellow stone?

Thanks for proving that all you can do is run from your previous comments and move the goal post. WYOMING WASN'T A STATE. What part of that don't you understand besides everything? WYOMING WAS A FEDERAL TERRITORY. WYOMING WAS ALL FEDERAL LAND though perhaps some was respected as Indian land.

And thanks again for demonstrating that you're perhaps the most ignorant if not downright idiotic, right winger I've ever met… and I've met quite a few. But what can we expect from a 13 year old. In another thread you actually said the Constitution protected NO rights until the Bill of Rights. Now you have a new idiotic theory that though it's the Constitution that gives rise to NEW states... the federal Constitution should be ignored and somehow, magically, these new territories not yet states with their own constitutions, can exert the power to control FEDERAL lands. Not even actual states have that power. Please explain this new legal theory of yours. And let's not forget that usually as a condition of statehood, the federal government was allowed to keep what was ALREADY federal land. THAT'S why there so few National Parks east of the Mississippi. Acadia National Park in Maine was the first and it was made up of donated land.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote leighmf:All "National treasures" have benefited government insiders and their buds. The Biscayne National Monument was sold by Bebe Rebozo, whom you know so much about.
And who benefited from the creation of Yellowstone... our first national park? Wyoming wasn't even a state. There were no rich folks with mansions there hoping to have their property values increased if Yellowtone was set aside.

But Acadia in Maine WAS an enclave for the rich... the Newport of the north. But there's a bizarre Catch 22 in your logic. So if the rich are attracted to Acadia... technically Mt Desert Island, because naturalists and painters made it famous... then it should NOT be preserved because it might increase the land values of the rich already there? In your theory there's NO value in stopping the rich from buying up all this scenic land and developing it for themselves. There NO value in setting it aside for the common person to enjoy it forever?

Sorry, your view is as warped as the Libertarian view that sees everything in terms of "the market" because it has no appreciation of preserving nature itself… unless this is done privately by do-gooders or profit seekers.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Why couldn't the states do yellow stone?

Thanks for proving that all you can do is run from your previous comments and move the goal post. WYOMING WASN'T A STATE. What part of that don't you understand besides everything? WYOMING WAS A FEDERAL TERRITORY. WYOMING WAS ALL FEDERAL LAND though perhaps some was respected as Indian land.

And thanks again for demonstrating that you're perhaps the most ignorant if not downright idiotic, right winger I've ever met… and I've met quite a few. But what can we expect from a 13 year old. In another thread you actually said the Constitution protected NO rights until the Bill of Rights. Now you have a new idiotic theory that though it's the Constitution that gives rise to NEW states... the federal Constitution should be ignored and somehow, magically, these new territories not yet states with their own constitutions, can exert the power to control FEDERAL lands. Not even actual states have that power. Please explain this new legal theory of yours. And let's not forget that usually as a condition of statehood, the federal government was allowed to keep what was ALREADY federal land. THAT'S why there so few National Parks east of the Mississippi. Acadia National Park in Maine was the first and it was made up of donated land.

Thats not the point there are state parks whos to say yellow stone wouldn't have been one of them?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am
Quote leighmf:
Quote Pierpont:

It's outside their realm of permissible thought. Like some broken robot, any consideration of the above would just "not compute".

So what? It's what YOU think and do that matters.

No, PRESERVING NATURAL WONDERS IS ALL THAT MATTERS. I've been to Acadia National Park perhaps 35 times. I can only be thankful that land was preserved and 1: not all bought up by the rich for their exclusive use... 2: logged or mined, or 3: bought up by for-profit hucksters.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote Commonsense461:

Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Why couldn't the states do yellow stone?

Thanks for proving that all you can do is run from your previous comments and move the goal post. WYOMING WASN'T A STATE. What part of that don't you understand besides everything? WYOMING WAS A FEDERAL TERRITORY. WYOMING WAS ALL FEDERAL LAND though perhaps some was respected as Indian land.

And thanks again for demonstrating that you're perhaps the most ignorant if not downright idiotic, right winger I've ever met… and I've met quite a few. But what can we expect from a 13 year old. In another thread you actually said the Constitution protected NO rights until the Bill of Rights. Now you have a new idiotic theory that though it's the Constitution that gives rise to NEW states... the federal Constitution should be ignored and somehow, magically, these new territories not yet states with their own constitutions, can exert the power to control FEDERAL lands. Not even actual states have that power. Please explain this new legal theory of yours. And let's not forget that usually as a condition of statehood, the federal government was allowed to keep what was ALREADY federal land. THAT'S why there so few National Parks east of the Mississippi. Acadia National Park in Maine was the first and it was made up of donated land.

Thats not the point there are state parks whos to say yellow stone wouldn't have been one of them?

OF COURSE IT'S THE POINT!!! So in your Orwellian Right La La Land, the historical and legal context don't matter. We're only to discuss your magical what-ifs? So what-if this: the federal government let Yellowstone be auctioned and 1000 people all bought at auction slices of the land… ALL BEFORE THE STATE OF WYOMING WAS EVEN CREATED. Who then would have preserved it… uh Einstein? THEN if the feds or the state tried to preserve the land YOU'D complain it was seized by eminent domain.

Are there ANY intelligent right wingers out there? Clearly not in this thread.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

Why couldn't the states do yellow stone?

Thanks for proving that all you can do is run from your previous comments and move the goal post. WYOMING WASN'T A STATE. What part of that don't you understand besides everything? WYOMING WAS A FEDERAL TERRITORY. WYOMING WAS ALL FEDERAL LAND though perhaps some was respected as Indian land.

And thanks again for demonstrating that you're perhaps the most ignorant if not downright idiotic, right winger I've ever met… and I've met quite a few. But what can we expect from a 13 year old. In another thread you actually said the Constitution protected NO rights until the Bill of Rights. Now you have a new idiotic theory that though it's the Constitution that gives rise to NEW states... the federal Constitution should be ignored and somehow, magically, these new territories not yet states with their own constitutions, can exert the power to control FEDERAL lands. Not even actual states have that power. Please explain this new legal theory of yours. And let's not forget that usually as a condition of statehood, the federal government was allowed to keep what was ALREADY federal land. THAT'S why there so few National Parks east of the Mississippi. Acadia National Park in Maine was the first and it was made up of donated land.

Thats not the point there are state parks whos to say yellow stone wouldn't have been one of them?

OF COURSE IT'S THE POINT!!! So in your Orwellian Right La La Land, the historical and legal context don't matter. We're only to discuss your magical what-ifs? So what-if this: the federal government let Yellowstone be auctioned and 1000 people all bought at auction slices of the land… ALL BEFORE THE STATE OF WYOMING WAS EVEN CREATED. Who then would have preserved it… uh Einstein? THEN if the feds or the state tried to preserve the land YOU'D complain it was seized by eminent domain.

Are there ANY intelligent right wingers out there? Clearly not in this thread.

So your argument was that libertarians wouldn't have create these parks I argue they would still exist just on the state level.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 8:48 am

If you want to preserve- do the national parks a favor and stay out of them. You can donate money for their well-being. They are too crowded as it is and humans make garbage, exhaust fumes, and erosion. Get your own summer cabin in a nice beauty spot of your own, enjoy your own hummingbirds or your own private beach and let the "preserves" alone.

State parks are better equipped to handle people and there is not such a diversity of wildlife to threaten.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote leighmf:If you want to preserve- do the national parks a favor and stay out of them.
Yes, given the visitorship, the NPS has a job in preserving the parks. That's NOT the issue here, is it? It's about the original CREATION of these parks. And that seems to be something you're against because it MIGHT benefit the rich or some business.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Well thanks for giving me a laugh. It doesn't matter if Libertarians, Presbyterians, Fascists or Men of high ideals created the parks. They're in deep doo doo now.

It was a frivolous question to post "I wonder if Libertarians would have done this?" That is just an opening to rail against a belief group. I'm talking real history and facts and things that we can know for sure.

God, I wonder if the Knights of Pythias laid out Washington, DC. Maybe we wouldn't have K street, Pennsylvania Avenue, or a big statue of Albert Pike on the corner of Indiana Street.

Pierpont says the important thing now is preservation as the world population explodes. So preserve. There's not an ecologist who would disagree with what I have said, and I explained how the park system came about and I hardly think it makes up for the environmental destruction caused by every one of the industrialists who benefited from the reserving of national lands. Don't think they didn't also reserve the right to drill for oil and gas in the parks or in the lands immediately adjacent. Probably those lands would have been park material too, but the RR knew in advance where the geology was most likely to produce oil or natural gas..

They ruin our air, waterways, soil, slaughter animals, create superfund disasters and cover the world with insecticides and other poison on our food.

It would have been nicer to give some decent land to the Native Americans. Instead most were displaced from their highly productive lands and given garbage land and cigarette stands. But Yellowstone was given to the Great White Father and oil and gas companies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/ns/us_news-environment/t/bush-era-energy-drilling-leases-utah-canceled/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/salazar-on-parks-arctic-drilling-and-clean-energy/

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2008/11/18/71943/073/travel/US+Officials+Battle+Over+Oil+Drilling+Near+National+Parks

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/04/oil-exploration-creeping-glacier-national-parks-border9711

So perhaps Libertarians did it under cover of a Government acquisition.

I have walked amidst the drilling rigs in the Big Cypress Reserve. Very few people know or believe they are there because you have to slog through acres of marsh to see them. It is impossible to separate the hydrology of Big Cypress from Everglades National Park- they are part of the same ecosystem.

Further, though Everglades National Park has been slated for rescue for many years, it was there DDT was first discovered in bird eggs in 1970. It is now crawling with pythons, zebra mussels, tilapia, and horrid foreign reptiles that people have turned loose as unwanted pets. Every activity around the park, agriculture and urban sprawl alike pollutes it every day. Over the years what used to be land buffers have been sold off with permission of our State agencies and/or the Army Corps of Engineers.

Still others do not realize that Audubon, champion of bird life, was something like an old man I once knew. He was always bird watching, going to national parks, while enjoying a number of stuffed birds as household decorations and trophies.

In Florida, I have encountered several persons of wealth who have decorated their homes with fabulous collections of rare corals and sea shells, all poached. They actually ask me to admire their collections when they make me sick.

These are matters of more importance than whether or not Libertarians would have favored creation of National Parks. Still, I say they would have because all the developers of the parks were private interests who tend to charge government whatever they can get for a job, That is a Libertarian view.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote leighmf:It was a frivolous question to post "I wonder if Libertarians would have done this?" That is just an opening to rail against a belief group. I'm talking real history and facts and things that we can know for sure.
It was hardly a frivolous topic. This is, after all, A POLITICAL FORUM. I think it's a worthwhile exercise to see how different ideologies would make choices about things we all appreciate... well, apart from people like you apparently. So feel free to consider your posts to the thread frivolous, Perhaps if you'd been more serious, your posts wouldn't be so muddled. I can't tell if you're for the creation of national parks or against it. As for your links further down, it's a side issue. I was talking about the CREATION of national parks. Preserving them is another matter. But I suspect they stand a better chance in public hands than if the these areas never were preserved, and the loggers, miners, land developers, hucksters or the rich got their hands on the land.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

"I was talking about the CREATION of national parks. Preserving them is another matter." Make up your mind. You said the point is Preserving- check out your own comments.

I told you about the creation of National Parks and You said no, the point is preservation. Because you can't follow a timeline and make deductions is your mental deficit, not mine. You are the one who sounds muddled to me.

Unfortunately, those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed...

I did not spend half my life in higher education earning degrees in marine science, botany, biology to be called a person who doesn't care. How much personal sacrifice have YOU made for Nature?

I starve to death working on coastal restoration that is SUPPOSED to take place and never does.

I could have the gravy train and a check every week from a government agency but I don't, because government agencies have more office birthday parties than they do enforcement actions. Every penny ante restoration project circles their desk for two years while the bureaucrats collect weekly checks and benefits. I have worked my fingers to the bones for environmental protection and made tremendous sacrifices-

You have no facts or any data to support what you say. Just a pointless question which is pointless to answer. I have a lifetime of research to move forward and fight for what's left until someone kills me.

Like I said, do the preserves a favor and stay out of them. A bird might drop something on your head next time, you and your phallic little mushrooms.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote leighmf:

"I was talking about the CREATION of national parks. Preserving them is another matter." Make up your mind. You said the point is Preserving- check out your own comments.

What's the title of this thread? Of course to create a national park is the first step in its preservation, but preservation is also an on-going process in and of itself.

As for your response to the question I posed, you wrote:

The National Parks may have been an ideal in the minds of those who appreciate nature, but in reality they were part of International Harvester's plan to Put America on the Road in Airstreams and cars. As highways were built, their people in state road departments awarded contracts and easements for which motels and concessions would be available to the traveler. They even own the vending machines, not to mention traveling and auto insurance.

This way, Internatonal Harvester, International Truck & Engine, and International Paper (owner of roadside forests) win no matter what. Those who don't stay in their sleazy roadside joints will be using an International coach to visit our natural wonders.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person even if your holier than thou game is pretty obnoxious. But I STILL have no idea WTF your point is given many of our best known parks were created BEFORE there was even a national highway system which was started in the mid-20s.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

So your argument was that libertarians wouldn't have create these parks I argue they would still exist just on the state level.

[/quote]

Despite the fact that that is not true. What if it was? I thought we were talking about Libertarianism here. The state of California is bigger than many countries. Are you saying only large countries should be Libertarian, but small countries should not be? That seems so arbitrary it is farce just to debate it.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system