Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

[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?

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

Does the US Constitution even mention capitalism? Probably not since I think it was Karl Marx who invented the term. But the Constitution doesn't proscribe an economic system, does it? I mean, when you come right down to it, capitalism is no more constitutional than socialism is unconstitutional. Isn't that right?

 

[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.

God wants mountaintop removal? Chemical dumps? Hazardous waste? Other thing that spoil His creation? Ask God. He'll tell you that such an idea is stupid too!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

And replace tax collection with what the honor system?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And replace tax collection with what the honor system?

We got along fine for many years without a direct tax on labor.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

And replace tax collection with what the honor system?

We got along fine for many years without a direct tax on labor.

Should have a flat tax rate of 15%, no loopholes, no 10,000 page tax code. Everybody pays 15% regardless. And then only on incomes over say 30k, 60k if married.

 

[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.

You sound like that Environmental nut case, the liberal Henry David Thoreau, and his equally loopy mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson.

But I didn't say it was my idea. I didn't even say I supported it. I merely put it in the form of a question. I mean, should a capitalist country like America let the magic hand of the market place determine how these lands should best be used and not some nameless, faceless bureaucrats?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think we should retain ownership. I for one like the idea of keeping wilderness unspoiled. I would however contract out management of the parks to a private company as the government management usually sucks.

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO... "nameless, faceless bureaucrats" = convenient strawmen invented out of thin air.

They aren't for sale. They have been designated national parks/monuments. It's settled.


...but just for laughs;

Define "magic hand of the marketplace"?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I bought my place in Colorado for a few good reasons, but the biggest is the fact that I'm just a mile down the highway from the eastermost entrance to the Rio Grande National Forest, a 1.8 million acre wilderness playground. My mutt and I are over there almost every day. There are wild hoses only a few miles south of me, and all manner of other wildlife besides. It's all public land, free from development.

 

[Mustang]

LMAO... "nameless, faceless bureaucrats" = convenient strawmen invented out of thin air.

They aren't for sale. They have been designated national parks/monuments. It's settled.


...but just for laughs;

Define "magic hand of the marketplace"?

Ever hear of Prohibition? Anything that's legal can be made illegal and the same is true vice versa.

 

[Mustang]

I bought my place in Colorado for a few good reasons, but the biggest is the fact that I'm just a mile down the highway from the eastermost entrance to the Rio Grande National Forest, a 1.8 million acre wilderness playground. My mutt and I are over there almost every day. There are wild hoses only a few miles south of me, and all manner of other wildlife besides. It's all public land, free from development.

View attachment 33498

It's the oppressive hand of the federal gov't.

 

[Camp]

We should create new ones and enlarge some of the ones we already have with buffer zones to help protect them. They have been put aside and invested in for generations. One generation doesn't have the moral right to come along and destroy what others before them built just because they have screwed things up and want an easy way out of the problems they created. It would be like nullification of grandpa's will leaving a college fund for the grand kids because the sons or daughters wanted to buy new cars.

 

[longknife]

My thoughts on this are mixed.

We need to preserve some of the wonders of our beautiful country. Some are simply too awesome to be despoiled.

However, is it the place of the federal government to designate and manage such places?

I personally don't think so. I think they should be managed by individual states as the voters of that state see fit. If voters determine private entities can best manage those wonders, than I'm for it.

There is one problem with that idea, of course. Many of the parks are bordered by two or more states. How should those be determined and which state should control them. Is shared control possible?

It is not an easy question to calmly answer.

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO... "nameless, faceless bureaucrats" = convenient strawmen invented out of thin air.

They aren't for sale. They have been designated national parks/monuments. It's settled.


...but just for laughs;

Define "magic hand of the marketplace"?

Ever hear of Prohibition? Anything that's legal and be made illegal and the same is true vice versa.

You want to abolish the national park system and the dept of the interior so the land and monuments can be sold to some mythical "magical hand of the marketplace" (that you invented )so that "nameless, faceless bureaucrats" (that you also invented) won't be able to administer the properties.


Yeah..that's all reasonable...why not.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

Do away with Medicaid, food stamps, section 8 housing.

 

[depotoo]

You do realize the statue of liberty was a gift to the US, right? Oh, no you didn't. Might be time for some real US history lessons.

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

 

[Mustang]

I notice that not even one self-avowed or self-described conservative has voted no in this poll. They haven't voted yes either. Nor have they voted unsure? What does that say when conservatives can't go out on a limb on this kind of issue?

 

[Camp]

You do realize the statue of liberty was a gift to the US, right? Oh, no you didn't. Might be time for some real US history lessons.

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 Statue of Liberty is owned by the federal government and maintained by the National Park Service. It is not a National Park. It is designated as a National Monument.

 

[Vastator]

Poorly written poll my friend. It could have been simplified to a "yes", or "no".
But then each poll option but the last required a left/ right conformation bias...
I think so many more of our problems could get solved if we just focused on the source of our problems; rather than the source of the solutions...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who cares? Aren't there more pressing issues here?