67 replies to this topic

[JohnF]

Preserving land for it's inherent beauty has not always been a commodity - not at all. It is recent!

Who said anything about the preservation of land? My point is, and it is supported in your comment, that the beauty inherent in nature is a commodity. That its relative position in individual and societal value scale has changed over time is important. To believe that it is fixed where it is today would be in error. Given enough economic/political pressure I suspect houses in Many Glacier (a place I personally value the absence of houses) a distinct possibility.

... supported and lobbied for ... So, capitalism ...

A side note: I don't want to distract too much from the discussion but what you describe here is not, strictly speaking, capitalism. I sometimes can be a stickler for semantics, I apologize, but you are promoting the socialist propagandist adaptation of the term; ultimately used as an argument of class warfare to break social stratification; the very thing socialism creates.

But hey, that's a good segue... [near the bottom]

What have I traded? Paying for entry, paying for camping, paying to be able to hike in large tracts of land that are not broken up by fences and vacation homes. I am paying to keep these spaces mostly wild.

Ok, let's work this a little deeper because I don't think you fully see the system and your comment below; "that's how our brand ..." leads me to believe that you accept the current system fully. I will argue that you trade the very principle of liberty. Someone has drawn a circle on a map and convinced you that they will "preserve it for your purpose" and you have given to their exploitation. I will answer to the agenda question below.

That's capitalism for you.

Not capitalism, but I accept where you are going with it.

I don't think we need to pay for preservation, I may not like it,

Of course we do. All natural resources are resources in an economic sense and must be distributed amongst all of our economic wants. Whether we "pay" with by pulling from our wealth or "pay" with lost opportunity we still must choose to use that resource for that purpose. It is an economic certainty.

but that's how our brand of democracy works right now.

You say you haven't been given an opportunity to make a choice? I don't understand what choice you want, and I think you need to define it and your agenda, if you expect reasoned discourse. Do you want mostly private land like Europe? Do you want more land opened to varied uses and development with no rules and protections? Surely you must realize that every choice has implications. What are you willing to trade?

Fair enough.

I lumped this together as my answer to the call of agenda is that our brand of democracy is flawed. Liberty is a new idea in the history of ideas and I wish to push the refurbishment activities more towards liberty and away from socialism. I believe that greatest advancements in social standards of living have played out in times of history when societies were the most free and that socialism, lacking a price mechanism, cannot achieve the efficiency without the very unlikely event of a leader that just happens to have perfect instinct as to the proper distribution of resources. My motivation is self-interest. My design is to better my standard of living. Yes, I said my. But I believe that my actions towards this self-interest will, through the invisible hand, better the standard of living of those around me. This is in distinct contrast to use exploitation to better my standard of living as that would improve my lot at the expense of yours.

I have so much more I can say about this. Most people believe they are pro-liberty but are unaware that their actions are anti-liberty. Mostly this is a combination of being rationally ignorant [you can google that] and having grown in a world given a standard that promotes itself such that rational ignorance is proper. If you were pro-liberty than the idea of taxation would be as vile to you as the idea of slavery. Either self-ownership exists or it does not. Either personal property exists or it does not. Our society is at a point between and fleshing this out.

What do I want? Public debate. Conscience thought. The choice, private and public, that free market capitalism provides. And not socialism...

The following link is pure propaganda in support of my agenda click through only if you care to see a bit about the philosophy of liberty.

Now I can answer Frank: I don't know exactly. I have confidence that there is enough economic support that if many of these places were "owned" by people in this forum then their use would be no different. Liberalism, the classic kind - called libertarianism today, is in its infancy and is an idea with edges. How natural resources fit is one of these; left arguing that these things are owned by all and there should be some sort of system of consent towards their use, and right arguing first come first served. There are argument between. To the left I argue that owned by all is owned by none and breaks the principle of ownership. To the right; this does not promote efficiency. I need more debate.

Hmm, well that's probaby large enough...

[highz]

I think you have misinterpreted some of my statements, but I don't care to follow up on that. Instead -

Let's start with the fundamental definition on the link you provided: that liberty is based on self-ownership. The flash video then transfers that to property ownership and automatically assumes that the operative word is "ownership". In other words, liberty is somehow tied to property ownership. I would argue that this is flawed and the operative word is actually "self". Liberty is formed in your concept of "self". In fact, as soon as property enters the picture, a government of some type must necessarily form to resolve disputes around the distribution of property. Even just two people trying to agree on a trade becomes a form of government. Thus property actually creates separation from self.

But, we are straying from the purpose of this thread when we (you and I) play tautological games. This thread has a practical purpose to do what we think is best as a group (our local government, eh?) within the larger existing government. If you want a revolution in consciousness based on your chosen line of logic, go for it, but I don't think this thread or forum is actually the place for it. I choose to no longer contribute to hijacking the original purpose of this thread, and apologies to DD for having engaged in a hijack.

[JohnF]

Thus property actually creates separation from self.

Thank you for viewing the flash. I don't see all of what you did in that. What I get is that the idea of private property and liberty are predicated on the principle of self-ownership. Certainly, such a proposition as a foundational part of a personal or social moral is a choice. There is nothing in nature that says it is so.

Liberty is not anacharism. These are different concepts and I am not an anacharist. Your argument for government and its purpose align with my own.

But, we are straying from the purpose of this thread when we (you and I) play tautological games. This thread has a practical purpose to do what we think is best as a group (our local government, eh?) within the larger existing government. If you want a revolution in consciousness based on your chosen line of logic, go for it, but I don't think this thread or forum is actually the place for it. I choose to no longer contribute to hijacking the original purpose of this thread, and apologies to DD for having engaged in a hijack.

I disagree, but okay. Let's get back to DD's plea. The National Park Service is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are job maximizing political entities that never have enough money, enough employees, or operate with economic efficiency. The political system is comprised of four actors. (Main actors and now I am spouting public choice theory) Voters, politicians, bureaucracies, and lobbyists. The politician is vote maximizing. When faced with the opportunity to spend $1M and given the choice spending it $1000 for 1000 voter or $1 to 1M voters they will always choose to spend on 1000. Why? Because the $1M converts more directly to votes this way since it is more likely a person will be impressed by $1000 than $1. Politician spending condenses to the few. When faces with funding a $1M project the choice switches. Why? Because voters are less likely to pull votes when coerced out of $1 than $1000. The political machine improves the lot of a few at the expense of the many. Want to look like the few? Condense into a large lobby group. The larger the better. Direct taxes to the bureaucracy of your choice.

The National Park Service is operating perfectly. It does exactly what a bureaucracy is supposed to do. To "change the math", as in DDs plea, all we need to do is build a lobby larger than the Military–industrial complex. I said I support DDs effort in building this lobby. But I think the problem isn't in the math, but rather, in the system.

If this isn't the place for this kind of discussion then there is no place for this kind of discussion.

[chnlisle]

Where are The Fisherman & K.C. when you need them?

[highz]

Where are The Fisherman & K.C. when you need them?

At least we have you.

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

Who said anything about the preservation of land? My point is, and it is supported in your comment, that the beauty inherent in nature is a commodity. That its relative position in individual and societal value scale has changed over time is important. To believe that it is fixed where it is today would be in error. Given enough economic/political pressure I suspect houses in Many Glacier (a place I personally value the absence of houses) a distinct possibility.


A side note: I don't want to distract too much from the discussion but what you describe here is not, strictly speaking, capitalism. I sometimes can be a stickler for semantics, I apologize, but you are promoting the socialist propagandist adaptation of the term; ultimately used as an argument of class warfare to break social stratification; the very thing socialism creates.

But hey, that's a good segue... [near the bottom]



Ok, let's work this a little deeper because I don't think you fully see the system and your comment below; "that's how our brand ..." leads me to believe that you accept the current system fully. I will argue that you trade the very principle of liberty. Someone has drawn a circle on a map and convinced you that they will "preserve it for your purpose" and you have given to their exploitation. I will answer to the agenda question below.


Not capitalism, but I accept where you are going with it.



Of course we do. All natural resources are resources in an economic sense and must be distributed amongst all of our economic wants. Whether we "pay" with by pulling from our wealth or "pay" with lost opportunity we still must choose to use that resource for that purpose. It is an economic certainty.



Fair enough.

I lumped this together as my answer to the call of agenda is that our brand of democracy is flawed. Liberty is a new idea in the history of ideas and I wish to push the refurbishment activities more towards liberty and away from socialism. I believe that greatest advancements in social standards of living have played out in times of history when societies were the most free and that socialism, lacking a price mechanism, cannot achieve the efficiency without the very unlikely event of a leader that just happens to have perfect instinct as to the proper distribution of resources. My motivation is self-interest. My design is to better my standard of living. Yes, I said my. But I believe that my actions towards this self-interest will, through the invisible hand, better the standard of living of those around me. This is in distinct contrast to use exploitation to better my standard of living as that would improve my lot at the expense of yours.

I have so much more I can say about this. Most people believe they are pro-liberty but are unaware that their actions are anti-liberty. Mostly this is a combination of being rationally ignorant [you can google that] and having grown in a world given a standard that promotes itself such that rational ignorance is proper. If you were pro-liberty than the idea of taxation would be as vile to you as the idea of slavery. Either self-ownership exists or it does not. Either personal property exists or it does not. Our society is at a point between and fleshing this out.

What do I want? Public debate. Conscience thought. The choice, private and public, that free market capitalism provides. And not socialism...

The following link is pure propaganda in support of my agenda click through only if you care to see a bit about the philosophy of liberty.

Now I can answer Frank: I don't know exactly. I have confidence that there is enough economic support that if many of these places were "owned" by people in this forum then their use would be no different. Liberalism, the classic kind - called libertarianism today, is in its infancy and is an idea with edges. How natural resources fit is one of these; left arguing that these things are owned by all and there should be some sort of system of consent towards their use, and right arguing first come first served. There are argument between. To the left I argue that owned by all is owned by none and breaks the principle of ownership. To the right; this does not promote efficiency. I need more debate.

Hmm, well that's probaby large enough...

JohnF.Please don't take this the wrong way but....I find reading most of your comments as difficult to understand as George Will.May be you should get out and enjoy the "Public areas" while we still have them before they get mined, cut, flooded,ect! Frank

[Hittheroad]

It seems time to recognize that sooner or later we will be selling all our parks to the Chinese who will then decide who can use them and at what price. Actually, the Chinese already have our money they just haven't yet told us what they will demand for it.
So the key is to get out and use the parks now before it is too late. Load up the camper and get moving.

[JohnF]

JohnF.Please don't take this the wrong way but...

Don't worry. I am thick


uh...
... skinned.

May be you should get out and enjoy the "Public areas"

Yes, yes.