Why do the people who do not want drilling deserve to control the land more than the people who do want drilling?
This is a very good question, Stranger. Perhaps a supporter of drilling should actually provide a reply to counter my previous arguments.
There are no supporters of drilling here, only supporters of the right to drill.
Let me, then, rephrase my statement. I am looking forward to reading the agruments of supporters of the right to drill.
Actually, I appreciate your pointing out the distinction. I didn’t realize how important it is.
No Ruben, you seem to be believe that land is owned by the majority, but you’re wrong – you’ve no argument actually.
The burden of proof is on you, you have to state why those who favour keeping these areas free from drilling have a greater claim to the national parks than those who favour drilling.
You seem to assume that nature has any value other than that given to it by individuals.
Except that no mortal can know future prices.
Yet, it is meaningless. If they are not willing to put their money where their mouths are, by paying whoever came to own areas of Alaska to keep it pristine, they really do not value it enough for that to be so. That is why GilesStratton says it is a property rights matter, and right now what we have is state ownership, which is neither private nor public in any real sense.
A lot of people do not want pornography and try to ban it through the state. Why should this be seen as any more legitimate than the above? If they tried to impose this preference on a free market they’d be treated as criminals. At best, they reserve the option not to buy pornography, i.e. to boycott it.
Possibly.
-Jon
NEW YORK CITY CENTRAL PARK.
It is a City rather than National Park, but in any case it is a government-owned land. Would Central Park have to be privatized as well? or used for building more skyscrappers? Is the current use: grounds for exercising and jogging for New Yorkers, appropriate? or should it be sold for a huge amount of money? What about all the infrastructure, museums, and trails within Central Park?
CARACAS AVILA NATIONAL PARK
Same case than New York Central Park. A lot of constructors would love to expand the city boundaries North of Boyacá Avenue and transform the wilderness of Avila mountains into buildings. But it is protected nature, and tourists who come to Caracas always tell me how fortunate we are of havcing a city with such a nice mountain that guarantees clean air, unusual for a 6-million people metropolis.
Ok then, and in a free market these individuals would be well within their rights to pool their money to buy this land. Why exactly do we need the state?
We need the state to protect the right of New Yorkers, most of them who want to enjoy Central Park as it is, and to protect the right of Caracans, most of them who want to enjoy the Avila mountain as it is.
If Central Park were for sale, I am absolutely sure a few individuals, as you say, would pool their money and would gather the market purchase amount within minutes. Even double or triple if necessary.
These are both state and not Federally owned parks…which completely negates your statement. These people have a direct correlation between their vote and what is done within their city. Even if this were not true and the people did not agree with what was done in their city, ie a park, they can move to another city. Your argument is completely flawed.
So what’s the problem?
Indeed, the “right to enjoy Central Park” ranks very highly in libertarian ethics, how did I forget.
The Avila National Park is a National Park, not a City Park. It has the same rank as Los Roques Islands, the Sierra Nevada or Canaima Angel Falls. It is administered by the National Park System. Caracas city parks are actually very ill-maintained and I would be the first one to suggest their privatization in the Caracas case as they are littered and insecure.
The particularity of the Avila is that it is surrounded: to the South by the Cities of Caracas and Guarenas, to the North by the small strip of the coastal cities of La Guaira, Maiqueia, Catia La Mar, Macuto, etc. as the mountain goes directly into the Caribbean.
There is one piece of information that I failed to inform you previously and might change my previous opinions, but I wish to hear your reactions first:
Around the year 2000 a private company leased a section of the Avila Mountain including the cable car from the City of Caracas to Humboldt peak where you can actually see the Caribbean Coast on non-cloudy days. The Avila Magica concession ran restaurants, the ice skating rink, maintenance for electrivc equipment for cable car, and customers were more than welcome to pay the entrance fees. They were also remodeling the Humboldt hotel and expected to put it into service by today.
The revolutionary government forcefully nationalized the concession one or two years ago. They reduced the entrance fees. Minor accidents have already occurred with the cable cars. Customers are complaining that the quality of service has decreased, etc.
Ehm…
So I guess my actual position is that the private concessions are good and should be encouraged, but the bulk of the natural areas should remain in the hands of the National Park Authority.
There’s no such thing. Meaning, at best, those who work there might have acquired rights over it. The government owns nothing but stolen funds. New Yorkers certainly have no right to insist on a state to protect land they have not the faintest of claims to, unless they can show they consumed its services out of their own funds…
-Jon