JohnF
Advanced Member
Preserving land for it's inherent beauty has not always been a commodity - not at all. It is recent!
Who said anything about the preservation of land? My point is, and it is supported in your comment, that the beauty inherent in nature is a commodity. That its relative position in individual and societal value scale has changed over time is important. To believe that it is fixed where it is today would be in error. Given enough economic/political pressure I suspect houses in Many Glacier (a place I personally value the absence of houses) a distinct possibility.
... supported and lobbied for ... So, capitalism ...
A side note: I don't want to distract too much from the discussion but what you describe here is not, strictly speaking, capitalism. I sometimes can be a stickler for semantics, I apologize, but you are promoting the socialist propagandist adaptation of the term; ultimately used as an argument of class warfare to break social stratification; the very thing socialism creates.
But hey, that's a good segue... [near the bottom]
What have I traded? Paying for entry, paying for camping, paying to be able to hike in large tracts of land that are not broken up by fences and vacation homes. I am paying to keep these spaces mostly wild.
Ok, let's work this a little deeper because I don't think you fully see the system and your comment below; "that's how our brand ..." leads me to believe that you accept the current system fully. I will argue that you trade the very principle of liberty. Someone has drawn a circle on a map and convinced you that they will "preserve it for your purpose" and you have given to their exploitation. I will answer to the agenda question below.
That's capitalism for you.
Not capitalism, but I accept where you are going with it.
I don't think we need to pay for preservation, I may not like it,
Of course we do. All natural resources are resources in an economic sense and must be distributed amongst all of our economic wants. Whether we "pay" with by pulling from our wealth or "pay" with lost opportunity we still must choose to use that resource for that purpose. It is an economic certainty.
but that's how our brand of democracy works right now.
You say you haven't been given an opportunity to make a choice? I don't understand what choice you want, and I think you need to define it and your agenda, if you expect reasoned discourse. Do you want mostly private land like Europe? Do you want more land opened to varied uses and development with no rules and protections? Surely you must realize that every choice has implications. What are you willing to trade?
Fair enough.
I lumped this together as my answer to the call of agenda is that our brand of democracy is flawed. Liberty is a new idea in the history of ideas and I wish to push the refurbishment activities more towards liberty and away from socialism. I believe that greatest advancements in social standards of living have played out in times of history when societies were the most free and that socialism, lacking a price mechanism, cannot achieve the efficiency without the very unlikely event of a leader that just happens to have perfect instinct as to the proper distribution of resources. My motivation is self-interest. My design is to better my standard of living. Yes, I said my. But I believe that my actions towards this self-interest will, through the invisible hand, better the standard of living of those around me. This is in distinct contrast to use exploitation to better my standard of living as that would improve my lot at the expense of yours.
I have so much more I can say about this. Most people believe they are pro-liberty but are unaware that their actions are anti-liberty. Mostly this is a combination of being rationally ignorant [you can google that] and having grown in a world given a standard that promotes itself such that rational ignorance is proper. If you were pro-liberty than the idea of taxation would be as vile to you as the idea of slavery. Either self-ownership exists or it does not. Either personal property exists or it does not. Our society is at a point between and fleshing this out.
What do I want? Public debate. Conscience thought. The choice, private and public, that free market capitalism provides. And not socialism...
The following link is pure propaganda in support of my agenda click through only if you care to see a bit about the philosophy of liberty.
Now I can answer Frank: I don't know exactly. I have confidence that there is enough economic support that if many of these places were "owned" by people in this forum then their use would be no different. Liberalism, the classic kind - called libertarianism today, is in its infancy and is an idea with edges. How natural resources fit is one of these; left arguing that these things are owned by all and there should be some sort of system of consent towards their use, and right arguing first come first served. There are argument between. To the left I argue that owned by all is owned by none and breaks the principle of ownership. To the right; this does not promote efficiency. I need more debate.
Hmm, well that's probaby large enough...
Who said anything about the preservation of land? My point is, and it is supported in your comment, that the beauty inherent in nature is a commodity. That its relative position in individual and societal value scale has changed over time is important. To believe that it is fixed where it is today would be in error. Given enough economic/political pressure I suspect houses in Many Glacier (a place I personally value the absence of houses) a distinct possibility.
... supported and lobbied for ... So, capitalism ...
A side note: I don't want to distract too much from the discussion but what you describe here is not, strictly speaking, capitalism. I sometimes can be a stickler for semantics, I apologize, but you are promoting the socialist propagandist adaptation of the term; ultimately used as an argument of class warfare to break social stratification; the very thing socialism creates.
But hey, that's a good segue... [near the bottom]
What have I traded? Paying for entry, paying for camping, paying to be able to hike in large tracts of land that are not broken up by fences and vacation homes. I am paying to keep these spaces mostly wild.
Ok, let's work this a little deeper because I don't think you fully see the system and your comment below; "that's how our brand ..." leads me to believe that you accept the current system fully. I will argue that you trade the very principle of liberty. Someone has drawn a circle on a map and convinced you that they will "preserve it for your purpose" and you have given to their exploitation. I will answer to the agenda question below.
That's capitalism for you.
Not capitalism, but I accept where you are going with it.
I don't think we need to pay for preservation, I may not like it,
Of course we do. All natural resources are resources in an economic sense and must be distributed amongst all of our economic wants. Whether we "pay" with by pulling from our wealth or "pay" with lost opportunity we still must choose to use that resource for that purpose. It is an economic certainty.
but that's how our brand of democracy works right now.
You say you haven't been given an opportunity to make a choice? I don't understand what choice you want, and I think you need to define it and your agenda, if you expect reasoned discourse. Do you want mostly private land like Europe? Do you want more land opened to varied uses and development with no rules and protections? Surely you must realize that every choice has implications. What are you willing to trade?
Fair enough.
I lumped this together as my answer to the call of agenda is that our brand of democracy is flawed. Liberty is a new idea in the history of ideas and I wish to push the refurbishment activities more towards liberty and away from socialism. I believe that greatest advancements in social standards of living have played out in times of history when societies were the most free and that socialism, lacking a price mechanism, cannot achieve the efficiency without the very unlikely event of a leader that just happens to have perfect instinct as to the proper distribution of resources. My motivation is self-interest. My design is to better my standard of living. Yes, I said my. But I believe that my actions towards this self-interest will, through the invisible hand, better the standard of living of those around me. This is in distinct contrast to use exploitation to better my standard of living as that would improve my lot at the expense of yours.
I have so much more I can say about this. Most people believe they are pro-liberty but are unaware that their actions are anti-liberty. Mostly this is a combination of being rationally ignorant [you can google that] and having grown in a world given a standard that promotes itself such that rational ignorance is proper. If you were pro-liberty than the idea of taxation would be as vile to you as the idea of slavery. Either self-ownership exists or it does not. Either personal property exists or it does not. Our society is at a point between and fleshing this out.
What do I want? Public debate. Conscience thought. The choice, private and public, that free market capitalism provides. And not socialism...
The following link is pure propaganda in support of my agenda click through only if you care to see a bit about the philosophy of liberty.
Now I can answer Frank: I don't know exactly. I have confidence that there is enough economic support that if many of these places were "owned" by people in this forum then their use would be no different. Liberalism, the classic kind - called libertarianism today, is in its infancy and is an idea with edges. How natural resources fit is one of these; left arguing that these things are owned by all and there should be some sort of system of consent towards their use, and right arguing first come first served. There are argument between. To the left I argue that owned by all is owned by none and breaks the principle of ownership. To the right; this does not promote efficiency. I need more debate.
Hmm, well that's probaby large enough...