- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,228
- Reaction score
- 4,458
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
What is a corporation's raison d'etre?
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
What is a corporation's raison d'etre?
That is like asking what is governments reason for existence and then deciding to be an anarchist when the question is answered.
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.
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.
Why would they do that? What would be their motivation to do such a thing?
Word. I don't even want to see a corporate logo discreetly placed on a brochure.The thought of seeing the Golden Arches over the USS Arizona Memorial makes me want to puke.
NPs are national security.
Yes
.
How so? Can you expand on this?NPs are national security.
How so? Can you expand on this?
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
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.
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
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.
Yup. There are no corperations with enough influence to have the state sell a 'park' to them. No risk there. Right?