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.

What are you doing?

Cataloging our hot buttons by political philosophy so you can know better how to manipulate us in the future?

No, not your manipulation.

Your handlers.

It's funny you should ask that question since I've witnessed both conservatives and liberals quite frequently being manipulated by people who seem to know exactly how to push their respective buttons in order to get them to vote the way they want. After a few election cycles, you can almost set your watch by the way certain issues are trotted out in order to spark outrage, or fear. Then, almost on cue, a certain number of people will unenthusiastically head to the polls to vote for the lesser of two evils.

In contrast, my proposed solution to the current problems with our Representatives is to vote them ALL out of office. Unfortunately, that kind of result would require a movement to accomplish it, and most people are either too apathetic about the process, or they're too involved in their own day to day lives (and with silly things like Dancing with the Stars) to even bother getting involved with something that has more significance in their lives.

 

[MaryL]

No. Why ask all the other bullshit? I am AM conservative Republican.

 

[Rotagilla]

In the top ten of pure troll threads this has got to make the top 5. If we let private industry within 5 feet of Yellowstone it will be ruined forever simply to make a dollar. Leave some places unspoiled and away from corporate interests as they would purposely and willingly spoil it. A good many middle class and working poor save their money to take their families for a trip to our parks. Why ruin it for them?

You don't think capitalists could do a better job than the gov't at preserving the parks

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.

How convenient of you to forget the existence of the term "commerce" mentioned several times in the Constitution.

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 parks should be turned over to the states.
All federal land save for military installations and other essential federal operations should be returned to the states.

What do you mean by "...returned to the states"? Are there National Parks and properties that once belonged to the individual states that the we confiscated from them?

"we" did not confiscate anything. The federal government under T Roosevelt essentially "took" state owned land when he persuaded Congress to set up the NP system.
My contention is that the federal government is not fully capable of caring for these lands and the on site artifacts and structures.
Also, if you remember the Clinton admin with the stroke of a pen did confiscate millions of acres of state owned property and placed it under federal jurisdiction. That was done without compensating the states from which the land was taken.
File Map of all U.S. Federal Land.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Most of the land in the West was taken by the federal government during the Clinton admin.
As you can see, some 90% of Nevada does not belong to Nevada as well as over 70% of Utah is not "part" of Utah. That's absurd.

Actually, most of the parks land is in the West, and it's the STATES that can't afford to cost of managing it. In fact, for decades the States never wanted the land. Hell, it couldn't even be given away because there wasn't the water available to develop it. Even now, federal land grazing fees are WELL below the cost ranchers would have to pay in order for their cattle to graze on privately owned land.

Yeah...whatever you say....you done trolling yet or do you have some more "look at me, everybody" to get out?