Should We Do Away with the National Park Service?

[Contumacious]

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?

And if we let government bureaucrats disregard the Constitution , freedom will be ruined forever.


"
Detroit’s Anarcho-Building Preservation



Sean Emery, David Carleton, and Tom Carleton are just three regular guys, and business owners, who bought this abandoned gem with a flashlight, a vision, and $220k. In addition, these self-made historians are repurposing as much of the building materials as possible, as well as replicating building characteristics that cannot be saved due to the building’s condition.

There are no public funds to gloat about, and there will be no politicians or Detroit “celebrities” showing up at the opening of this building. But these grassroots entrepreneurial efforts are the essence of this city’s phenomenal voluntaryist economy. Cross-posted at my blog “Detroit: From Rust to Riches.” Follow me on Twitter @karendecoster.


?[/QUOTE]

 

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

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

Amazing how the fucktards crawl out of the woodwork.


.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

How many Redskins have you killed?

 

[Kondor3]

Keep the National Parks and Preserves and Monuments, and the National Park Service.

It's one of the few nice things that Liberals haven't been managed to phukk up yet.

 

[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.

Amazing how the fucktards crawl out of the woodwork.


.

Yes you have. We the People are against big, bloated government, not against any government. We need something that can reign in you anarchists getting all freaky and shit.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

How many Redskins have you killed?

I only kill race-baiting faggots, so you'll be happy to know the Indians are safe around me.

 

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

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

Amazing how the fucktards crawl out of the woodwork.


.

Yes you have. We the People are against big, bloated government, not against any government. We need something that can reign in you anarchists getting all freaky and shit.

Oh, I totally forgot that you fucking communists believe that abolishing tyranny and slavery is anarchism.

.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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?

You didn't provide a yes/no slot for independents, libertarians, neo-anarcho-libertarians, fundamental-classical liberals, transvestites for Jesus, etc. etc.

 

[Mojo2]

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.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How many Redskins have you killed?

I only kill race-baiting faggots, so you'll be happy to know the Indians are safe around me.

Redskins are a football team.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Nice cop out.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

I can't copy it because iOS 8.x sucks, but the Property Clause of Article IV might be the authority for it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nice cop out.

Lighten up Felix. I just finished watching Cenntennial.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Have you visited Yellowstone lately? It ain't free to get in, you stupid dipshit.
Turn Yellowstone over to the Koch brothers or the Waltons. Then the Teton Mountains can be lit up at night with neon signs and flipflops for sale at $2.00 a pair.
Please just GFY and then after you do that, get a plane ticket to Paris, Tokyo and London and learn about noblesse oblige.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Nice cop out.

Lighten up Felix. I just finished watching Cenntennial.

Michener mentioned my great-grandfather in that historical novel. But I'm not going to say where or when.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

Right, let's do it. I'm sick and tired of these whiny Republicans who have no fucking idea of what they are talking about. It would be fabulous to see Obama try to sell it back to France and then sit back and watch their outrage.

The top cities in the world (except China, which still has Tiananmen square Square) have vastly more land dedicated to public space than the U.S.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

And voila....You'd have Beijing.

 

[Camp]

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.

You need to back up your misinformed crap. The states never owned the lands being spoken of. They have been federal lands since being acquired through treaties with the native tribes, Mexico or purchased with federal tax dollars. The states became states with full knowledge that these lands were designated as federal lands. Clinton didn't take one acre of state land to create National Monuments. They were federal lands and he designated them National Monuments to protect them from development. The lands you speak of were gained by blood and sacrifice of federal troops. They have been maintained, protected and developed with federal taxes. Presidents have been naming federal lands as National Monuments since 1906.

 

[Mustang]

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.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Well, one of the things that people forget about when it comes to mining and drilling for oil is that it requires roads to get into wilderness areas. Once there are roads, it's not really wilderness anymore.