no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

National Parks

September 21st, 2007

Acadia National Park, near Bar Harbor, Maine, is the first National Park to be established east of the Mississippi. It encompasses most of the gorgeous rock of an island otherwise known as Mount Desert Island, the remainder of which is populated by quaint fishing villages turned tourist destinations. The 47,000+ acre park is constituted of lands donated entirely by private citizens.

Queue the libertarian nay-saying:

Libertarians generally believe that parks should be established privately, and maintained privately. So what objection could one possibly raise to a park like Acadia, established in such a manner? Simply put: none. But it’s not that easy – the problem isn’t the establishment of a park, the problem is with its maintenance and upkeep of the park, which after having been donated to the federal government, becomes the collective charge of all citizens near and far, some of whom will never set foot on its soil, or ever desire to do so. A park – local or national – is not a public good, by virtue of its non-exclusivity, which can be enforced by (among other methods) toll roads, access fees, or membership dues. And the benefits conferred by such a park are limited to those who own property within or adjacent thereto, or otherwise subscribe to its ownership in some collective manner, and hence rivalrous.

The economic effect of this transference of “ownership” from private to public hands, is that it artificially reduces (significantly) the availability of what is already rare, and hence, exclusive, real estate. The value of what little land remains privately held is consequently pushed upwards to an otherwise unsustainable level – there are practically no single-family residences offered (as of today) for less than $300,000. The cost and burden of maintaining the pristine and natural environment which would justify such land rents is borne not by the primary benefactors – the residents – but instead by the nation’s population as a whole. So those families who donated lands to the National Parks Service at the beginning of the century were able to secure for their posterity a windfall profit in the form of inflated property values, at the expense of everyone else.

This is why a consistent libertarian should revile at the very idea of nationalized parks. It is not because we hate the environment, it is not because we hate unadultered open spaces – it is simply because the benefits conferred thereby should be financed by those people (and only those people) who benefit from them. Anything else is demonstrably unjust.

Michigan’s Government Crisis

September 8th, 2007

The state of Michigan won’t fall of the face of the earth, nor will its population regress into a new dark age, like the post-Visigoth Romans. Life will go on, without a hiccup, even if the legislature can’t balance the budget, and most government operations cease.

“That would be terrible, terrible, terrible for the state,” [Governor] Granholm said Friday “These are services that citizens rely on.”

I can’t underestimate what an exaggeration that statement is. Hell, the Czechs survived for at least six months or so, last year, during which the entire country was without parliament. And since I haven’t heard any stories of the Czech republic falling off the face of the earth, I’ll presume that it hasn’t happened.

Aside from the surprising number of commentators on the freep forum calling for permanent abolition (which unfortunately, is probably just hyperbole), most of the comments are predictably partisan: red vs. blue, republican vs. democrat. The commonality among the comments of this sort, is that the current government crisis is the fault of one particular politician or another, or the fault of one particular set of laws or tax proposals, etc. For everyone blaming former Governor Engler, there’s some dickweed calling all democrats “retards,” and for every person blaming Jennifer Granholm, there’s some liberal arts grad talking about how “crime will increase if we cut welfare entitlements.”

They all suffer from the same fallacy, a variant of Kip’s Law, that if only the right people were in power, everything would be hunky-dory. They see only the people in power as the problem, but as long as man is fallible or corruptible, it is not man, but the concentrated power of the State that is the problem.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for an impasse. Let the people in Michigan realize that they can do for themselves most (if not all) of those things for which they currently rely on the state. Let them see that the very earth upon which they walk will not be torn asunder if the State stops taking money from this group and writing checks to that group. I say shut her down.

Davy Crockett: Rolling in His Grave

September 4th, 2007

To review: The State has no business promoting, subsidizing, or operating museums, theaters, recording studios, publishing houses, athletic fields, etc.

That said, I’m sure there are some people in the State of Texas who object to the use of “public” funds, for the purchase of an old piece of paper. It’s too bad for them that the Texas Historical Commission purchased what is believed to be the last letter written by Tennessee congressman Davy Crockett, before he died defending the Alamo.

The state bought the letter for $490,000 from Simpson Galleries, a Houston fine arts auctioneer. . . The document likely could have sold for a much higher price in an open auction, Simpson said, but the family wanted to offer it to Texas first.

Half a million dollars. For a stupid piece of paper. It is hurricane season, after all. Might be wiser to save that largess for potential destruction following one of the five hurricanes in the forecast. Would it be fair to assume that Texas doesn’t plan on asking for Federal assistance in the event of catastrophic losses? Don’t count on it.

If he wanted the State to have the letter, he could’ve given it to them on loan, reserving the right to sell it later. He could’ve sold it conditionally, stipulating that the letter would remain on loan to the State. Clearly, money was not his only motivation, else he would’ve auctioned it instead. I do not blame him for selling the letter to Texas, I only regret that Texas has been allowed to purchase it, and the citizens have been forced to finance it.

Something tells me Crockett would be appalled, too.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics