Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

[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..

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?

More proof that the far left dos not understand the Constitution and can only respond in programmed far left religious propaganda.

 

[Camp]

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?

More proof that the far left dos not understand the Constitution and can only respond in programmed far left religious propaganda.

Another of you "More proof of far left..." nonsense. He was asking a question. Why don't you just answer it?

 

[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..

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?

More proof that the far left dos not understand the Constitution and can only respond in programmed far left religious propaganda.

Another of you "More proof of far left..." nonsense. He was asking a question. Why don't you just answer it?

And anther far left drone swoops and fires another dud..

Further proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

 

[Mustang]

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...

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?

More proof that the far left dos not understand the Constitution and can only respond in programmed far left religious propaganda.

Another of you "More proof of far left..." nonsense. He was asking a question. Why don't you just answer it?

And anther far left drone swoops and fires another dud..

Further proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Even that doll, Chatty Cathy, doesn't say the same thing every time some little girl (or boy) pulls the cord.

 

[Camp]

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?

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

We need to remove politics from the Parks service, and make it easier for the service to buy and sell land as needed to consolidate holdings.

 

[Staidhup]

Regardless of political affiliation the oversight and maintenance should and would be best served on the local state basis. This is not to say National Parks are a poor idea just that the maintenance and care should be on the state level. Once land is acquired by the federal government it should be divested and transferred to the state. Funding should derive from the federal government. As for BLM, abolished, and all federal lands transferred to the states, in addition Federal timber lands should be transferred as well.

 

[Mustang]

Shouldn't the uber rich be allowed to build luxury homes all around a place like Crater Lake if that's what they want to do and they can afford the price of the land and the construction of their homes?

Or maybe even on the island in the middle of crater lake.

 

[Kosh]

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...

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?

More proof that the far left dos not understand the Constitution and can only respond in programmed far left religious propaganda.

Another of you "More proof of far left..." nonsense. He was asking a question. Why don't you just answer it?

And anther far left drone swoops and fires another dud..

Further proof the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Even that doll, Chatty Cathy, doesn't say the same thing every time some little girl (or boy) pulls the cord.

The irony of those comments form a far left drone posting based on far left religious programmed propaganda proving that they do not understand the Constitution..

 

[Contumacious]

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?

.

Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

I am a LIBERTARIAN and I say yes.

Actually ALL government agencies from AAA to ZZZ should be abolished !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[initforme]

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?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Parks are our crown jewells and I would never sell them. However NP designation should not be used to prevent access to oil reserves ripe for drilling.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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?

.

Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

I am a LIBERTARIAN and I say yes.

Actually ALL government agencies from AAA to ZZZ should be abolished !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Do be stupid. You don't even know why you're saying that. You're just parroting people you think are cool.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

"oo-oooooo. bah bah bah bah"

 

[initforme]

You open those lands for drilling then they can no longer be considered parks. Don't let private industry in there. Not even close.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The NPS is obviously unconstitutional since creating national parks is not one of the listed powers of congress.

 

[longknife]

While this has nothing directly to do with the OP, I live in a state where the federal government "owns" almost 90% of the land. Therefore, in many cases, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service control more of the state than the state government does.

There's something definitely wrong with that!!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Shouldn't the uber rich be allowed to build luxury homes all around a place like Crater Lake if that's what they want to do and they can afford the price of the land and the construction of their homes?

Or maybe even on the island in the middle of crater lake.

Straw man arguments are dismissed out of hand