Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

[Mustang]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

 

[Rotagilla]

No.
We aren't selling the national parks.



If you just HAVE to do away with something, though, the IRS would be a good place to start.

 

[Kosh]

I see the new far left talking points are showing up..

Then again the far left OP continues to show that they do not understand the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Drill Baby....DRILL

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to pay for a Statue of Liberty

Time to sell her off to the highest bidder

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"...pave paradise, put up an parking lot..."

 

[Mustang]

No.
We aren't selling the national parks.



If you just HAVE to do away with something, though, the IRS would be a good place to start.

Why not? That's hundreds of billions of dollars worth of land, not to mention the trillions of dollars worth of natural resources. We could pay down the debt, AND allow the forces of free market capitalism to allocate those resources in such a way that everyone would benefit from it. And all this could be accomplished in a way that honors the original intent of the founding fathers.

 

[Kosh]

Yep the far left propaganda thread not based on any reality, just far left programmed religious talking points.

Just goes to show the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Each and every post they make proves that.

 

[S.J.]

Better rethink this, Mustang. If we did away with the national park service, Obama wouldn't be able to shut it down and blame Republicans for it.

 

[Mustang]

Yep the far left propaganda thread not based on any reality, just far left programmed religious talking points.

Just goes to show the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Each and every post they make proves that.

Why do you hate capitalism?

 

[Rotagilla]

No.
We aren't selling the national parks.



If you just HAVE to do away with something, though, the IRS would be a good place to start.

Why not? That's hundreds of billions of dollars worth of land, not to mention the trillions of dollars worth of natural resources. We could pay down the debt, AND allow the forces of free market capitalism to allocate those resources in such a way that everyone would benefit from it. And all this could be accomplished in a way that honors the original intent of the founding fathers.

yeah..sure..whatever you say.

 

[rightwinger]

We should sell off all our parks to pay off the $17 trillion debt

We can't afford them

 

[Mustang]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to pay for a Statue of Liberty

Time to sell her off to the highest bidder

The price of copper is pretty darn high these days. I think that's even why pennies are now made mostly out of zinc.

 

[Nosmo King]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

The National Parks system is one of America's best ideas. In Europe, the nobility owns the great national wonders. Here, the people own them.

Selling off our national treasures is not only short sighted, but one of your worst ideas.

 

[hipeter924]

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

No, it wouldn't raise enough (even if you sold them all you wouldn't make trillions), and to be honest the national parks were built up to be places where people can visit and get away from the daily grind. Also enough mining is already going on elsewhere, and I doubt again that if you mined all the national parks that you would make trillions of dollars. You would be looking at a few billion from the sale, which would be squandered by bureaucrats in Washington, and America would never see a cent.

 

[mdk]

No. I don't think it is wise to despoil our natural wonders for the sake of paying off the debt. These national treasures belong to all Americans, past, present, and future. Lets reign in the debt by cutting the budget across the board. There should be no sacred cows when cutting the deficit.

 

[Kosh]

Yep the far left propaganda thread not based on any reality, just far left programmed religious talking points.

Just goes to show the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Each and every post they make proves that.

Why do you hate capitalism?

Another far left programmed talking point, proving once again the far left does not understand the Constitution..

 

[Mustang]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

The National Parks system is one of America's best ideas. In Europe, the nobility owns the great national wonders. Here, the people own them.

Selling off our national treasures is not only short sighted, but one of your worst ideas.

How could it be a good idea? It was a LIBERAL idea!!! What's more, it prohibited free market capitalism from exploiting our natural resources as God intended when he gave us dominion over the Earth, and it gave the federal gov't unenumerated powers over the states to use their land within their borders as they saw fit.

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to pay for a Statue of Liberty

Time to sell her off to the highest bidder

The price of copper is pretty darn high these days. I think that's even why pennies are now made mostly out of zinc.

Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite

Should bring a good dollar

 

[Nosmo King]

Where in the US Constitution is there the specific authority for the Federal Gov't to put land off limits to private ownership AND to take it away from the States?

Maybe what's worse from an economic standpoint is the fact that market-based economics has not been permitted to wisely exploit the natural resources of these areas as our capitalist system is set up to do.

There's the land, of course, with great vistas for anyone willing to pay market-based prices for those views for their vacation homes. Also, hotels and restaurants could be built so everyone could enjoy these areas in comfort.

There's also timber, ore, and quite likely oil and natural gas as well as coal that could be mined in order to lower the price we pay for energy while providing less expensive building materials. Then, of course, there are plenty of canyons that could be dammed up to provide drinking water and water for irrigating crops or for other business purposes, thereby lessening the price for water.

And naturally, some of the more pristine areas that are currently parks could be sold to private businesses and run for profit much like a privately owned health club sells memberships or offers a per fee usage charge for anyone who wants to visit a certain number of times.

Right now, there are 59 national parks. That does not include national monuments, national forests, and other gov't set asides which were put in place by presidents and their pens through the Antiquities Act and other highly questionable practices not specifically outlined in our Constitution.

So, should the US sell off the national parks not only to raise money in order to lower the national debt, but also to reduce the size and scope of gov't, AND to honor the original intent of the founders and the constitution, AND to allow market forces to allocate these resources in a manner that is far more efficient than any centralized gov't could possibly do?

I'll even post a question so everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) can go on the record to say whether or not America should do away with the National Park Service. Hell, maybe we could get rid of the Department of Interior while we're at it.

Please offer any comments to explain your vote if you choose to cast a vote either for or against the idea.

The National Parks system is one of America's best ideas. In Europe, the nobility owns the great national wonders. Here, the people own them.

Selling off our national treasures is not only short sighted, but one of your worst ideas.

How could it be a good idea? It was a LIBERAL idea!!! What's more, it prohibited free market capitalism from exploiting our natural resources as God intended when he gave us dominion over the Earth, and it gave the federal gov't unenumerated powers over the states to use their land within their borders as they saw fit.

You see no need to preserve nature? Would you mine Yellowstone and drill for oil in Yosemite?

And constitutionally, the National Parks fit in quite nicely. They certainly promote the general welfare.