• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Parks

Henrin said:
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
Click to expand...


What is a corporation's raison d'etre?
 
ChezC3 said:
What is a corporation's raison d'etre?
Click to expand...

That is like asking what is governments reason for existence and then deciding to be an anarchist when the question is answered.
 
Henrin said:
That is like asking what is governments reason for existence and then deciding to be an anarchist when the question is answered.
Click to expand...

No, I've already stated my position in post #14.;)
 
Henrin said:
Ok, but the point being is that the government would not simply allow the businesses to do whatever they wanted with the land. They would most likely not even really sell the land, but lease it out for something like 99 years.
Click to expand...

Why would any corporation want to buy or even lease a piece of land that they couldn't build on or extract resources from? In the end something would be done to that land if corporations were allowed to own (or lease) the land. All of it would ultimately be a detriment.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why would any corporation want to buy or even lease a piece of land that they couldn't build on or extract resources from? In the end something would be done to that land if corporations were allowed to own (or lease) the land. All of it would ultimately be a detriment.
Click to expand...

You do realize I didn't grab that 99 year lease business out of thin air right? I'm not sure how businesses doing something to land somehow means that the land is worse off, but in any event government does all kind of things to the land as well and if you really want to get picky about it they are only harming the land.
 
I'm torn on the question.

Our national parks are, in general, gems that should be cared for and maintained for future generations. However, who is best to do so?

Perhaps it should be a PARTNERSHIP between states, private entities, and the federal government. Such as licensing or subcontracting those services best done by the private sector.

I drove a tour bus and took people from all over the world to parks both state and federal here in the California/Nevada/Arizona area and routinely saw where certain things were left to the private sector.

One area of concern is the West Rim of The Grand Canyon. It's located on the Hualapai Reservation and is having troubles because of political disagreements between the tribal council and private businesses. Did the council have the business savvy to deal with the businesses? Probably not? So, in effect, we had two private entities squabbling over what should be maintained for our children.

Again, I'm at a loss for a good answer.
 
Henrin said:
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
Click to expand...


Well, what if they could break it into pieces and sell it in packages and make a 9 billion profit over ten years and create 300 minimum wage jobs?


Seriously ... if Big Phara or Exxon could do something corporate with all that land and kick out the federal management and we did not spend our tax dollars on the socialist National Park system ... what if 12 people could profit and become multi millionaires.

Would anyone feel angry and if they were is it simply jealousy? What if Monsanto, Exxon or Glaxo Smith Kline could make some product or build factories and make billions?

Monsanto wants control of seed and global food supply ...why not just give all natural resources of nature, water, fossil fuel, seed to corporate structure to be controlled for bottom line profit and why not allow them to take the profit to offshore accounts so no taxes would be paid to the nasty people who maintain the parks at this point in time ...?

RNC loyalists ... come on chime in ... think of the tax monies to maintain the National Park System and think of the profits for corporate structure if we hand off our wasteful socialist National park system to the highest bidder to do as they please ...

I want wonder Rush would say ...

Bottom line is there anyone on this forum that think that bottom line corporate profit would be a better choice for our national park system over tax funded (state or federal) and managed by federal or local governments?
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase a couple others in this thread... not no, but hell no. The very thought makes me ill. No way in hell national parks should be privately/corporately owned.

However, having said that, I do think we have long since gone way too far and designated too many borderline places as national park/monuments, etc. National status should be reserved for the best of the best, and maybe only a couple dozen sites qualify. The rest should be left to the states and lower.
 
I think they should stay national. It's the only sure-way to protect them.
 
Parks should stay with the Feds. The parks were created for the enjoyment of all the people of the US. The land belongs to all citizens.

Some States manage State parks well, some don't.

It would be a shame to sell National Parks to a private company. One the land is sold, it is lost to the citizens of the US.
Another consideration if sold to a State or private company. In the event of a natural disaster (wildfire for example), I seriously doubt if a private company could afford the suppression costs and or rehabilitaiton costs. One good fire could bankrupt a State as well.
 
The thought of seeing the Golden Arches over the USS Arizona Memorial makes me want to puke.
 
NPs are national security.
 
radcen said:
How so? Can you expand on this?
Click to expand...

Since someone has asked nicely, I might. Let's see if anyone else can see it first.
 
Dion said:
If you could decide who controls and runs the National Parks would you continue the federal funding and management or would you prefer a corporation be able buy the parks and use the designated lands as they please?

Lots of pros and cons and it is likely a corporation could make a big bottom line if they had no government meddling in what they wanted to do with the land.

Consider big corporations ...Exxon, Big Pharma, Wal Mart ... I am certain they could use those resources and space to make a profit for a few and create more minimum wage jobs?

Are we hurting out country and being socialist to even have national parks?

nature.nps.gov » Explore Nature
Click to expand...

It's something we can use the federal government for.
 
Arbo said:
State at the highest level, yes. If they want or need to, they can split it out inside the state, to counties or such. When the Feds 'stole' all this land to start with, they were to give it all back, as the norm, they have not.

As for corporations, owning and running it, hell no.
Click to expand...

Yup. There are no corperations with enough influence to have the state sell a 'park' to them. No risk there. Right?
 
BMCM said:
Are the states going to pay what the land is worth? Those parks belong to everyone in the country, they were paid for be Federal taxes not state taxes. Will the states have the funds to maintain the parks in a usable manner or are they looking to sell them to the highest bidder for destruction
Click to expand...

No, they were merely set aside by the President at the time, the state wasn't paid **** for the land and shouldn't pay anything back for the return of its property. Tourist will pay to get in, and that will pay for parks.
 
mike2810 said:
Parks should stay with the Feds. The parks were created for the enjoyment of all the people of the US. The land belongs to all citizens.

Some States manage State parks well, some don't.

It would be a shame to sell National Parks to a private company. One the land is sold, it is lost to the citizens of the US.
Another consideration if sold to a State or private company. In the event of a natural disaster (wildfire for example), I seriously doubt if a private company could afford the suppression costs and or rehabilitaiton costs. One good fire could bankrupt a State as well.
Click to expand...

They will still be there for all to enjoy.
 
OhIsee.Then said:

Yup. There are no corperations with enough influence to have the state sell a 'park' to them. No risk there. Right?
Click to expand...

There are corps with enough influence to have the feds sell them crap... The current president has loads of big corp chronies. Your point?
 
i live close to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. i see no reason to change what's now in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom