• 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!

Should We Privatize National Parks?

Should We Privatize National Parks?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 10.4%

  • No

    Votes: 36 75.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 14.6%
  • Total voters
    48
T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Should We Privatize National Parks?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should We Privatize National Parks?
Click to expand...

No, but there are some areas that are so vast and largely inaccessible to the general population at large that I don't see the harm in taking a more liberal attitude to issuing concessions for natural resource exploitation.
 
If we did so, the contract or whatever would HAVE to be very carefully written, so as to maintain things in current or better state.

I think?

I do know that I am opposed to privatization on some things, such as prisons, police forces, and military forces (although I'm OK with contracting out some of these things, which I admit is slightly contradictory, but case-by-case basis and all that.).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should We Privatize National Parks?
Click to expand...



No. I've done the math, and it doesn't work. Parks, forests and wilderness areas could not turn a significant profit without cost of entry becoming prohibitive for the average person; developing the land would always be tempting as it would be vastly more profitable.

Public parks/forests/etc are among the few things better handled by gov than by the free market.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should We Privatize National Parks?
Click to expand...

I voted other. I'd be open to the idea. I haven't really looked at the issue in depth enough to make a hard line decision of yes or no. A lot of the services national parks offer (i.e. lodging, restaurants, etc.) are often already privately owned, so I would think, at least in theory, as long as the land was still required to be preserved and protected, that private ownership wouldn't be a bad thing. What is your opinion, good sir?
 
Goshin said:
No. I've done the math, and it doesn't work. Parks, forests and wilderness areas could not turn a significant profit without cost of entry becoming prohibitive for the average person; developing the land would always be tempting as it would be vastly more profitable.

Public parks/forests/etc are among the few things better handled by gov than by the free market.
Click to expand...

Ah, a hole has been shot in uninformed logic already. I had not considered that it may not be profitable. My love of parks and the outdoors blinds me again, haha.
 
The sustainability of National Parks is a matter of national security.
 
Sherman123 said:
No, but there are some areas that are so vast and largely inaccessible to the general population at large that I don't see the harm in taking a more liberal attitude to issuing concessions for natural resource exploitation.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're in favor of James Watt crossings?
 
No, I don't see any reason for it, and as Goshin pointed out, I doubt they'd stay parks for long.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should We Privatize National Parks?
Click to expand...

I picked other. I think they should be turned over the states to control and maintained.Privatizing the parks would be disaster.
 
jamesrage said:
I picked other. I think they should be turned over the states to control and maintained.Privatizing the parks would be disaster.
Click to expand...
The states are more likely to cut corners and deals which compromise the parks and make them open to exploitation as cash strapped states all compete for economic investment from the private sector. I think giving them to the states would be a bad idea.
 
tres borrachos said:
I picked "Other". I'd consider changing them to be the responsibility of the states. Not sure privatizing is a great idea.
Click to expand...

But could the States be able to afford to maintain them. Or would they be tempted to sell part or let loggers and oil companies destroy them.
 
BMCM said:
But could the States be able to afford to maintain them. Or would they be tempted to sell part or let loggers and oil companies destroy them.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "consider". I don't have any data to decide if it would be a good idea or not.
 
Goshin said:
No. I've done the math, and it doesn't work. Parks, forests and wilderness areas could not turn a significant profit without cost of entry becoming prohibitive for the average person; developing the land would always be tempting as it would be vastly more profitable.

Public parks/forests/etc are among the few things better handled by gov than by the free market.
Click to expand...

Care to share the math? Or should we simply take your word for it?
 
dogtowner said:
How so ?
Click to expand...

National Parks represent a great wealth of resources (including biodiversity and other natural resources), a savings account if you will. The sustainability of these natural resource reservoirs represents a vital national investment. Additionally, the multi-use of these parks represents a wealth of services available to American people; services that, diminished, would never again return.

For these reasons, the sustainability of National Parks is a matter of national security and, thereby, specifically our government's duty.
 
As stated, virtually all money making elements in our national parks are already privatized.

As long as the government maintains property control, everything else should be privatized.
 
Sherman123 said:
No, but there are some areas that are so vast and largely inaccessible to the general population at large that I don't see the harm in taking a more liberal attitude to issuing concessions for natural resource exploitation.
Click to expand...

National Parks are not only for people. They have a separate charter and designation than BLM, Nat. Forest Service, Wilderness areas, Refuges, Dept of Nat Resources, etc. THey all have different charter, purposes, and regulations

Nat Parks are also for the preservation of open space and the preservation of the species that inhabit them. They are also for the preservation of the other natural resources in those areas....including the geologic features, any rivers/bodies of water, micro and macro habitats, etc.
 
Last edited:
BMCM said:
But could the States be able to afford to maintain them. Or would they be tempted to sell part or let loggers and oil companies destroy them.
Click to expand...

Our state cant afford to operate the parks we have now. Entry fees go up and areas get closed off because they cant be maintained or protected.
 
Lursa said:
National Parks are not only for people. They have a separate charter and designation than BLM, Nat. Forest Service, Wilderness areas, Refuges, Dept of Nat Resources, etc. THey all have different charter, purposes, and regulations

Nat Parks are also for the preservation of open space and the preservation of the species that inhabit them. They are also for the preservation of the other natural resources in those areas....including the geologic features, any rivers/bodies of water, micro and macro habitats, etc.
Click to expand...

Which is done for the people. We don't preserve anything just for the sake of preserving it, we do it because we anticipate the preservation to be of some value to the people. I'm simply saying some, especially in the Arctic, are so remote and so sparsely populated that their exploitation is worthy of consideration.
 
Sherman123 said:
Which is done for the people. We don't preserve anything just for the sake of preserving it, we do it because we anticipate the preservation to be of some value to the people. I'm simply saying some, especially in the Arctic, are so remote and so sparsely populated that their exploitation is worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...


No, that's like saying it's ok to give up your immune system because you're not sick right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom