 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I agree with most of that, but do you see the need for some type of overall government management of a wilderness area? It seems to me you were suggesting that overall management is best achieved through a variety of 'private concerns'. At least this is what I think you were saying.
Tut
Tom it seems you can't find a role for government anywhere, you cannot really believe that left to its own devices private enterprise will preserve the environment, no, they will pursue profits and that doesn't include cleaning up after themselves
Don't confuse "better" with "only." It's like the saga of the Delta smelt, the feds turned one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the world, the San Joaquin Valley, into a dust bowl to protect a minnow.
We all acknowledge government has a proper role. As with the above example, bullying environmentally responsible people out of their homes and businesses on cherry-picked evidence in contravention of the contract the government made isn't one of them.
Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it
I'm kind of sick of answering this strawman canard . I hope I make this clear. Because I think a limited government role is ideal does not mean I don't think government plays a role . First off ;I've never diminished the role of the local and state governments . They are only restricted by their own local charters or state constitutions .
AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . Capiche ?
And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.
The feds want me to eat good fats like in avocados... they cost me nearly $2.00 each thanks to their intervention. That's not going too far, it's stupidity. Encourage good behavior while making it impossible except for the wealthy that they allegedly hate. What's the price of arugula these days anyway? Oh that's right, the taxpayers buy it for Obama so who cares? Let 'em eat cake... oops, no Twinkies for us either.Quote:
Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it
I don't think you can have an effective government when you have a powerful business class with a bunch of loot.
What good is even having a constitution if business makes the local rules in there own interests, and the central government cannot work in the peoples interest? That's not an environment for effective governent.
As bad as we complain about government stifling business, its obvious these rich guys have done quite well in this down economy. That's without all those land leases, and taxes and regulations. They still don't create jobs here, despite record low taxes, and high profits.
So if government is the problem we also have to blame the job creators for failure to live up to their title also.
But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If Hostess had been better managed, they might till be around and the workers who lose their jobs are not at fault, yet the ones that ran things in the ground will benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes there was a reason for a central federal government ;it was intentionally designed to be restricted by the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. That is the system I prefer . It is the reason I live here and not in other nations where the powers of the central government are seemingly limitless and not defined .Quote:
But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.
Are you saying that because Congress acts that makes their action constitutional ? The fact that so many of their acts are declared unconstitutional proves that point false. But in this case I'm not arguing against a federal authority like the EPA. I'm saying that public lands are better managed by leasing arrangements with private interests .
Let me give you another example... NYC used to manage Bryant Park. Under their leadership is was an unsavory dangerous place for the public to go . So how did it change ? NYC handed over leasing rights to a businessman ;Dan Biederman ,who runs a conservancy in a nonprofit public-private partnership model . He raised private funding from businesses(those greedy rich people ) around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsors. Since 1966 it has been a place that the public feels welcome and safe to go. Oh they pass by the occasional vendor or 2 selling food and gifts;but the park has been self sustaining not requiring a dime of taxpayer's money since.
A little known secret is that NYC has also adopted that model for the management of Central Park. It was once managed by the city ;and it was a dangerous crime infested place . Now ;it is a model of what a public commons can become.
In both cases the government role is oversight ;not direct management ;and that is a superior model .
"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." Aristotle
We can disagree with the actions of government, but that doesn't make the action unconstitutional. Only SCOTUS can rule on that so it either meets or NOT a constitutional challenge. That's the system intended or NOT. Right or wrong.
As for the best way to manage public lands, agree or disagree, there is also a process for that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.
That's up to them and the court of public opinion has little to do with the owners decision.
Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests
Yes, but what good is this. It depends on the political makeup of SCOTUS at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
Wrong . The fact is that they are better managed by private interests . Under your model the California oysters are an endangered species. Under the privately managed arrangements oyster beds grow and the public benefits . This is just a demonstratable fact be it oysters or ;lobsters ,or parkland ,or forest management . Had that model been employed in the San Joaquin Valley the farmers would've gotten the water needed to maintain their business ;and the smelt would still be saved .Quote:
Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests
Make the case .Quote:
Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.
In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting aloneQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
(Hardin 1968)
Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.
The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.
Tut
The feds just unilaterally evicted them from their homes and jobs on bad science. I thought you like science, I thought you were for the underdog. You rant endlessly about big business running roughshod over the little guys but don't seem to be bothered by big government doing the same.Quote:
As for the best way to manage public lands,agreeor disagree, there is also a processfor that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.
yes but I'm presenting examples of demostrated results . In 1989 the Montana Legislature approved a pilot program that allowed the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to lease some water rights for in-stream flow during a 10-year trial period. The problem was that water rights were being used almost exculsively for agriculture and it was destroying the fish in Montana streams. In 2005, the pilot program became permanent.Quote:
In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting alone
(Hardin 1968)
Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.
The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.
The results ? Zero fish were found on Wasson Creek in Montana in 2003. In 2008, after five years of leasing there were five fish per 100 feet in the stream. In Murphy Spring Creek , populations were measured at three fish per 100 feet of stream . In 2010, populations increased to 14 fish per 100.
BTW ;to improve the system even more ,the Alaska model should be employed where the revenue from the leases goes back to the citizens in the form of commons land and water use dividends . What that does is recognize the basic truth that everyone has property rights in the commons .
I thought that in the end there was too much flack over the science, so the Feds opted for the easy way out by not renewing their lease.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ok, that's well and good, but you told me to read the commons thing and I did. Obviously I could not read everything, but based on what I did read it seemed obvious that one could use the arguments either way.
You said to make the case for that. And I did,
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 PM. |