Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › National/Public Parks
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) National/Public Parks (Read 3065 times)
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #10 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 10:39pm
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 9:07pm:
What if the highest bidders were big companies. I feel like only the rich could afford this.

That's why 50% go towards Environmental organizations.  Smiley

Also, it's better than having 100% run and managed by the government. Government officials are first incompetent and secondly easily sell themselves out to Big Corporate interests. Thus you see things such as logging rights in Government Parks. Much better would be if we could see half of the parks under proper care and management by non-profits. At the same time there are plenty of resources to take out of many parks. For example, oil in Alaskan parks. Thus it makes sense to have some of the park lands sold off to corporate interests.

This makes a lot more sense than to sell renting rights to log the land, for example. In the case of selling the land they own the property and have incentive to maintain the land - aka practice sustainable logging practices. This means that the land is actually better off than under the current Corporatist-Government control. Where corporations get the benefits from the land whilst taxpayers pay to clean up the mess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #11 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:12pm
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 9:50pm:
Then only the ultra rich would own that land. And that's BS. What about the little guy. Im an outdoorsman but I'm no hippy ree hugger. But my one thing that makes me wary is during the 20's 30's and so on. Big buiness ran rampant with pollution so your saying sell the land to highest bidder some of the most beautiful places in the country. Let them pillage the land for a buck.  So in a true libertarian society if your rich enough you could essentially own half the the countries land with its resources and sell and pillage it. I'm anti war, small government and consider myself financially conservative. But I'm slowly losing faith in calling myself a libertarian. Even though libertarian is a broad term



Just what I thought, the pollution reasoning.


Pollution was rampant in the times you describe because the government failed to enforce a system of laws which upheld property rights. Much pollution was excused because government deemed what was in the "common interest" or "public good" at the time, so corporations were given free passes more often than not. Libertarians don't agree with this.

Another thing, let's say a big corporation purchases a piece of land commonly used for hunting, as you say. If it was profitable do you think that they would continue to allow the use of this land for hunting purposes? This is just a simple example.

The possibilities of privatizing government owned land are endless. The false dichotomy you present is government owning the land and keeping it natural vs. corporate ownership and destruction of the land.


  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zaniard
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 91
Joined: Nov 19th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #12 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:23pm
Print Post  
LibertariCAN wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:12pm:
Just what I thought, the pollution reasoning.


Pollution was rampant in the times you describe because the government failed to enforce a system of laws which upheld property rights. Much pollution was excused because government deemed what was in the "common interest" or "public good" at the time, so corporations were given free passes more often than not. Libertarians don't agree with this.

Another thing, let's say a big corporation purchases a piece of land commonly used for hunting, as you say. If it was profitable do you think that they would continue to allow the use of this land for hunting purposes? This is just a simple example.

The possibilities of privatizing government owned land are endless. The false dichotomy you present is government owning the land and keeping it natural vs. corporate ownership and destruction of the land.




You usually break things down for me in most of my post which I really appreciate. But I feel the financial part of libertarianism is just trading in corrupted tax paid rulers. Into possible corrupt corprate rulers running the country. And that's a subject for another post. I guess I'm just having a hard time grasping a almost completely government free USA. Which sounds good until I start asking myself questions. Which is why I post them on here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #13 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:27pm
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:23pm:
You usually break things down for me in most of my post which I really appreciate. But I feel the financial part of libertarianism is just trading in corrupted tax paid rulers. Into possible corrupt corprate rulers running the country. And that's a subject for another post. I guess I'm just having a hard time grasping a almost completely government free USA. Which sounds good until I start asking myself questions. Which is why I post them on here.

Corrupt Corporate rulers have been running the country for a long time... where have you been?  Huh
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zaniard
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 91
Joined: Nov 19th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #14 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:28pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 10:39pm:
That's why 50% go towards Environmental

This makes a lot more sense than to sell renting rights to log the land, for example. In the case of selling the land they own the property and have incentive to maintain the land - aka practice sustainable logging practices. This means that the land is actually better off than under the current Corporatist-Government control. Where corporations get the benefits from the land whilst taxpayers pay to clean up the mess.
Quote:

Makes sense
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zaniard
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 91
Joined: Nov 19th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #15 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:29pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:27pm:
Corrupt Corporate rulers have been running the country for a long time... where have you been?  Huh



Haha agreed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #16 - Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:29pm
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 11:23pm:
You usually break things down for me in most of my post which I really appreciate. But I feel the financial part of libertarianism is just trading in corrupted tax paid rulers. Into possible corrupt corprate rulers running the country. And that's a subject for another post. I guess I'm just having a hard time grasping a almost completely government free USA. Which sounds good until I start asking myself questions. Which is why I post them on here.


This is a Libertarian forum, not an a anarchist forum. Having said that there are anarchists on here. However, myself, I am not an anarchist, I am a minarchist. Libertarianism does not necessarily mean a USA that is government free.

Having said that, most of the corporate control that you see today in the United States is not the natural results of properly functioning free market. To sum it up, what we are currently seeing is corporatism; a system in which corporations are granted privileged protection from most market forces and are secure from various forms of competition.

Back to the thread's thesis:

As long as the exchange of property is done in a just manner, we can then not point to the results (i.e. who owns the property after) and say that it is "unfair" that X person owns the property; in doing so we are being completely arbitrary. If private property rights are actually enforced properly, much of your problems that you are talking about in terms of pollution will probably not occur.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4256
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #17 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:46am
Print Post  
Zaniard wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 7:25pm:
I was just giving my opinion, don't have to get huffy about it. I don't know where violence plays a role in this question.

But thanks for attacking and not answering the question.

The government doesn't sell cookies to fund itself. Everything the government does requires violence because the government collects its funds through force.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #18 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:41am
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Dec 10th, 2013 at 8:26pm:
Just sell 50% to the highest bidder and give the other 50% to organizations such as the Audobon society. This way everyone wins.  Smiley


The "government" is a political entity and has no Right of Property and government does not Own the Land.

Since it doesn't "own the land" it cannot sell or give it away and any transaction that has every occured where the government has sold or given away land is an illegal transaction based upon the Rights of the Person.

Land belongs to the Earth and no one can actually own land, period. It was not created by the labor of the person and as individuals we cannot claim a property right to anything that was not the result of the labor of the person.

The government holds the land as a "public trust" and has no authority to dispose of it.

I continue to be annoyed with those that ignorantly address "title to land"  based upon the "divine right of kings" where the monarch (government) owned all of the land and all of the people of the land.

Even when the US government "purchased" a territory, such as Alaska from Russia, it don't purchase the "land" but instead purchased "adminstrative authority over the land" and not the land itself.

NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR AN INDIVIDUAL CAN OWN THE LAND!!!!

"Title to Land" is based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" and is not based upon a "Right of Property" established by the Inalienable Rights of the Person. 

What part of that does a "libertarian" fail to understand?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: National/Public Parks
Reply #19 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:41am:
I continue to be annoyed with those that ignorantly address "title to land"  based upon the "divine right of kings" where the monarch (government) owned all of the land and all of the people of the land.

Even when the US government "purchased" a territory, such as Alaska from Russia, it don't purchase the "land" but instead purchased "administrative authority over the land" and not the land itself.

Ok, so let me try to understand this... if it's ok for the Russian Government to sell "administrative authority over the land" to the U.S. Government then why is it not equally acceptable for the United States Government to sell the "administrative authority over the land" to another entity?

Seems to be entirely consistent to me. And you're really arguing over semantics. Owning the land, owning the administrative authority over the land. Same thing ultimately. If I am in charge of the land then I have the ability to give that authority to someone else, after all I am the one in charge of the land. Since it was fine for two governments to sell the authority it should be equally permissible to sell the authority over the land to another entity such as a corporation or non-profit or various individuals each buying a portion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › National/Public Parks
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy