Re[2]: [at-l] Re: Getting OT: Gov ain't good or bad

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (icw39)]

Woah, Weary!  I am no-one's apologist here, but consider the following:

1)  There is a reasonably good argument that goes like this:  If a park is =
owned by the government, one's incentive to trash it is higher than it woul=
d be if one directly and privately owned, say, a 10% property interest in t=
he parklands . . . put another way, the tragedy of the commons potentially =
is best solved by having everyone have a private ownership interest in the =
commons, and the tendency to destroy the commons might actually be tied to =
the fact that it is seen as "publicly owned."

2)  Before you have a cow and think I am advocating privatization of our na=
tional parks, have a seat and take a swig of egg nog and read on! :)

3)  My point is simply that the line of reasoning mentioned in #1 above des=
erves some serious thought . . . I think even most private property rights =
supporters agree that national parks and trails are a very, very good thing=
 . . . but it is critical that we imbue as much of a specific, direct sense=
 of ownership of those national treasures in as large a number of people as=
 possible - just having the government say "this is good for you" will NEVE=
R work in the long, long run if the majority o of the people do not feel a =
real sense of involvement, value and ownership.

4)  I think many times the problem with ideas that some would call "sociali=
stic" is that there is a hidden premise that the average person cannot be c=
onvinved by voluntary means to do and support good things.  I reject that n=
otion completely, almost to the point that I would say if the world is such=
 that we are compelled to legislate goodness in order to achieve it, then a=
ll is lost!

5)  Your wonderful commitment to land trusts bears some internal soul searc=
hing . . . land trusts are one of the most anti-socialist concepts I can th=
ink of . . . land trusts are founded in the concept of VOLUNTARY, ARMS-LENG=
TH PRIVATE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS!!  What makes the land trust concept so wo=
nderful is precisely the fact that it relies on private property law, and m=
arkets to create permanent, voluntary, win-win conservation.  Land trusts a=
lso perform the incredibly important function of giving a large number of p=
eople that sense of direct ownership in preserved lands . . . in a post man=
y, many months ago I commented upon the feelings that went through me as I =
walked the Roan Highlands portions of the AT, knowing that I had given sign=
ificant support to the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, a local =
land trust that focuses its efforts on acquiring lands and easements in thi=
s area. [shameless plug - their web site can be found at: http://www.appala=
chian.org/ ]

Anyhow, I think sometimes the debate over this versus that system confuses =
and polarizes . . . I think we all agree that the greater sense of ownershi=
p we all have for "the last great places" - the better off we all are . . .=
 using that definition, I am a genuine private property advocate! :)

thru-thinker

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net>
Reply-To: "Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net>
Date:  Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:55:15 -0500

>I guess it depends on how you measure quality of life. This nation is in t=
he
>middle of the pack among industrial nations in such matters as longevity, =
and
>infant mortality. And ranks among the bottom in overall health care. We ha=
ve a
>system where the wealthy can get the best care in the world, but where mos=
t
>ordinary people so  unfortunate as get sick have to struggle with medical =
bills
>and skimp on medical care.
>
>It's probably easier to become fabulously wealthy in this country. But the=
 bulk
>of human beings, here and elsewhere work for a wage and struggle week by w=
eek to
>get along, support their families and have a little time left for leisure.
>
>Most working people in this country do not "keep most of their earnings." =
Every
>penny that comes in each week is expended each week on those things our cu=
lture
>thinks are necessities. Now, as in Thoreau's time, most lives are spent in=
 quiet
>desperation.
>
>I like money, but I like other things too much to have ever accumulated ve=
ry
>much of it. Trails and the pursuit and the preservation of wildness are my
>current passion, but somehow trails and wildness have escaped the market
>economy. Only governments and an occasional non-profit organization provid=
e
>places for humans to enjoy the woods and mountains.
>
>The logical extension of Bryan's arguments are that things like the Appala=
chian
>Trail and public parks and forests are socialist and should be banned. My =
query
>to those who say we have enough public recreational lands is simple. Which=
 park
>do you propose we sell? And if the answer is none, to tell me by what mech=
anism
>did we happen to hit upon the exact amount needed for now and into the fut=
ure.
>
>Weary
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>>From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
>Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
>Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
>Change your options or unsubscribe:
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>Stay on topic!
>