NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTRY: Not much to say on this. It's simply insane!


Privatizing the American West (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/opinion/26sat3.html?th&emc=th)


Published: November 26, 2005
While lawmakers are in recess, it is worth reflecting on one particular part of the mess they have left behind. Last week, a budget bill scraped through the House, 217 to 215. Democrats and moderate Republicans had already stripped a provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the House bill left intact an evil trap to be sprung on the American public: Richard Pombo's plan to put a few hundred million acres of publicly owned land up for sale in the American West.

Mr. Pombo, Republican of California, is head of the House Resources Committee and has long been determined to privatize as much of the West as he can lay his hands on. His bill would allow the holders of mining claims to buy the land outright instead of leasing it - a substantial revision of the current practice. He argues that his proposal would merely adjust laws and affect only about 360,000 acres where mining claims are currently being developed or explored.

But the bill is so vaguely drawn that at least 6 million acres of public land, and possibly as much as 350 million acres, could wind up in the hands of private buyers. These buyers need to express only the intent to develop a mineral claim without any need to demonstrate commercial mining potential. Once the land is bought, it can be developed as the owners see fit. This is a blatant fraud on the American people, expressed in bland legislative legalese. The question is, Who is going to stop it?

The bill has to clear a few more hurdles before becoming the law of the land - a House-Senate conference committee and final votes in the House and the Senate. In the best of all possible worlds, the House negotiators would reject the worst aspects of the Senate bill, which authorizes drilling in the Arctic refuge, and the Senate negotiators would reject the worst aspects of the House version, including Mr. Pombo's outrageous raid on the public lands.

This is not the long shot it might have seemed as recently as a week ago. Americans have come to understand that America can't drill its way out of dependency on Middle Eastern oil, and that ravaging the Arctic is no substitute for sound energy policy. They also understand that Mr. Pombo's sleight of hand is little more than legislative robbery.

What will the USian government think of next?

What will the USian government think of next?

Privatizing the government?

Privatizing the government?
Again?

I agree. I'll join you in making a big stink about this.

Isn't this what the libertarians have been advocating all along? They are probably happy about this. It gives them free range to turn all our natural wilderness into housing developments, strip mines, and toxic waste dumps.

But I'll look into buying some. I intend on developing a mineral claim, I swear (I don't even own a shovel).

Again?

I mean officially! :D

You support the regime, you sleep in the bed you make without bitching.

What will the USian government think of next?

I bet you were just waiting for Eutrusca to start another thread so you could say that. Your relentlessness trolling behavior made me laugh.

You're a little late, I already wrote to my congressperson about this.

But you're right, it's completely insane. This is the type of thing that makes me want to take up arms and go storm that guy's office.

Privatizing the government?

or social security? :mad:
no more gov't for me, ma! im stuffed! :p

All for the all mighty Dollar.

You're a little late, I already wrote to my congressperson about this.

But you're right, it's completely insane. This is the type of thing that makes me want to take up arms and go storm that guy's office.
It's possibly one of the most short-sighted and severely ignorant proposals it has ever been my extreme displeasure to see. :(

Actually, the land is not ENTIRELY free in it's disposal... the buyer IS supposed to prove a working 'business-plan' to satisfy the acquisition, and they DO have to set up mining facilities.

However, if you buy 2000 acres, and your 'mining investment' only takes up 5 acres, you are pretty much free to dispose of the remainder as you see fit.

Because of this, claims staked near bodies of water are already attracting big money interest... for accomodation and resort investments.


Personally, I don't see why anyone is surprised that the government is using a 'back-door' to put protected public land into the hands of fatcat investors.

All for the all mighty Dollar.
SIGH! :(

It's possibly one of the most short-sighted and severely ignorant proposals it has ever been my extreme displeasure to see. :(

Indeed...

SIGH! :(

Come now, don't be sad. This is what you fought for, remember? What will become of the ewseean dream if people can't buy land?

It's possibly one of the most short-sighted and severely ignorant proposals it has ever been my extreme displeasure to see. :(
Every program created to privatise something is short-sighted and ignorant, but people still rally around it like it will save their asses from an alien invasion.

Every program created to privatise something is short-sighted and ignorant, but people still rally around it like it will save their asses from an alien invasion.
I don't agree that "every" program to privatize is bad, but this one surely is. My Congresswoman can expect a nassy letter from my lawyer on this one! Heh!

Every program created to privatise something is short-sighted and ignorant, but people still rally around it like it will save their asses from an alien invasion.Is that how we do it? Quick! Somebody tell Paul Hellyer!

Isn't this what the libertarians have been advocating all along? They are probably happy about this. It gives them free range to turn all our natural wilderness into housing developments, strip mines, and toxic waste dumps.


Because, of course, it's simply impossible for any private organization or entity (http://nature.org/) to ever do anything good for the environment (http://nature.org/wherewework/).




( :D )

Because, of course, it's simply impossible for any private organization or entity (http://nature.org/) to ever do anything good for the environment (http://nature.org/wherewework/).
"Cognitive Dissonance?" Good counseling strategy, but only for those with moderate or better ability to reason. :)

Because, of course, it's simply impossible for any private organization or entity (http://nature.org/) to ever do anything good for the environment (http://nature.org/wherewework/).




( :D )


Um...no, but exceedingly rare, given that the most influential ones are bound by law to increase their profit in order to increase the shareholders' profit. If they cannot prove that their good-for-the-environment-doing is increasing shareholder value, their board will be seen in court.

This is important. In typical NY Times fashion, important parts of the story were omitted. The bill number, HB ????, is very important to use when writing congressmen. I'll see if I can't dig that up in the Thomas locator.

Here's a little tidbit about Mr. Pombo to read while you wait for me to add the bill number.


Richard Pombo has had a hard time keeping himself out of the news lately. In late September, a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Mr. Pombo, a seven-term House member from California, one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress.

Um...no, but exceedingly rare, given that the most influential ones are bound by law to increase their profit in order to increase the shareholders' profit. If they cannot prove that their good-for-the-environment-doing is increasing shareholder value, their board will be seen in court.

Corporations do have incentive to take care of the environment, or at least that portion of it that they own. If a corporation buys a piece of land and trashes it, that will severely lower the resale value, but if they take good care of it they could very well end up selling it at a profit. It's not that hard to convince stockholders that taking good care of a company's assets will improve the bottom line.

On the other hand, a government has much much less incentive to take care of its things. If they buy a piece of land and trash it, they might receive some angry letters and maybe lose a few votes (if the land trashing thing isn't overshadowed by bigger election issues), but there's a pretty decent chance they'll still stay in power.

Um...no, but exceedingly rare, given that the most influential ones are bound by law to increase their profit in order to increase the shareholders' profit. If they cannot prove that their good-for-the-environment-doing is increasing shareholder value, their board will be seen in court.

Is making a profit necessarily contrary to environmental goals? Isn't it possible to create for-profit businesses that satisfy the demands of an environmentally concerned customer? For example, I can open a private for-profit beach. If I allow my beach to become trashed and polluted, not many people are going to want to visit. If no one is visiting, I'm not taking in profit. I have a vested interest, therefore, in seeing to the environmental quality of my beach, in order to attract visitors, thereby increasing my profits. Same goes for my private for-profit recreational park in the middle of a mountain range. If the customer values the environment, then my pig-like greed for profit values the environment too. :D

Is making a profit necessarily contrary to environmental goals? Isn't it possible to create for-profit businesses that satisfy the demands of an environmentally concerned customer? For example, I can open a private for-profit beach. If I allow my beach to become trashed and polluted, not many people are going to want to visit. If no one is visiting, I'm not taking in profit. I have a vested interest, therefore, in seeing to the environmental quality of my beach, in order to attract visitors, thereby increasing my profits. Same goes for my private for-profit recreational park in the middle of a mountain range. If the customer values the environment, then my pig-like greed for profit values the environment too. :D

Saving the environment in the name of the almighty dollar!

Saving the environment in the name of the almighty dollar!

More like exploiting the almighty dollar in the name of the environment. Profits are a means to a higher end.

This is important. In typical NY Times fashion, important parts of the story were omitted. The bill number, HB ????, is very important to use when writing congressmen. I'll see if I can't dig that up in the Thomas locator.

Here's a little tidbit about Mr. Pombo to read while you wait for me to add the bill number.
As best as I can tell, this is the Mining Provision of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/emr/mining/miningprovision_web1.pdf

This is important. In typical NY Times fashion, important parts of the story were omitted. The bill number, HB ????, is very important to use when writing congressmen. I'll see if I can't dig that up in the Thomas locator.

Here's a little tidbit about Mr. Pombo to read while you wait for me to add the bill number.
"Richard Pombo has had a hard time keeping himself out of the news lately. In late September, a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Mr. Pombo, a seven-term House member from California, one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress."

Ouch! Well, that explains a lot! :(

Is making a profit necessarily contrary to environmental goals? Isn't it possible to create for-profit businesses that satisfy the demands of an environmentally concerned customer? For example, I can open a private for-profit beach. If I allow my beach to become trashed and polluted, not many people are going to want to visit. If no one is visiting, I'm not taking in profit. I have a vested interest, therefore, in seeing to the environmental quality of my beach, in order to attract visitors, thereby increasing my profits. Same goes for my private for-profit recreational park in the middle of a mountain range. If the customer values the environment, then my pig-like greed for profit values the environment too. :D

I agree there are some instances where it is in the company's favor to maintain the enivronment. But there are many cases where it is not. I don't understand why so many can't understand this. The problem with the libertarian proposal for taking care of the environment by privitizing everything is that it assumes that it is always in the companies favor to maintain it. When really its only sometimes. A mining company has no insentive to maintain the environment. Filling in a strip mine is likely to be more expensive then what they would earn by resaleing it. They would much prefer to leave it trashed and just hold onto it if need be.

Also while they might not be polluting the environment development is bad for the environment. Someone can still destroy natural habitat without actually polluting it. That's no better for the animals that live there or for our ability to enjoy the nature. What insentive would a company have to leave land undeveloped?

You may wish to live in a world where everything is paved over, but I sure don't. I have no problem paying tax money for the maintance of parks and would be wiling to pay more. It's one of the few ways the goverment spends my money that I agree with.

Well we might be about to see the products of the libertarian experiment. If this land is privativitized we will all see if the libertarian system of environmental protection works after all. For it to work companies must buy up land with the intended purpose of not developing it and for maintaining it for the enjoyment of all Americans. Does this sound like any company you know? Doesn't sound like normal corporate practice to me.

Goverment is not just for the protection of the people, but also allows individuals to do things that they couldn't on there own. Goverment builds infastructure, it builds parks, roads, etc. Should we privatize everything. If I pull out or my driveway will I have to pay a toll. Will I run into a seperate toll both everytime I run into another companies roads? Will there be true competion. Such as maybe 5 parrallel roads for me to choose between.

In a true democracy we are the goverment. A true democracy is all of us getting together and deciding that we are going to build roads and since we will all use them we chip in a little for them. Same thing goes for public land. We decide we are going to set aside land and everyone chips in to maintain it. The problem isn't that their is goverment, but that we as individuals have lost control of it. It now behaves like a seperate entitiy and is unresponsive to the people. We need to take back goverment, not privatize it. Actually I would say the reason why our goverment does things that seem so contrary to the will of the people and why libertarians think they do such a bad job at taking care of public land is because our goverment allready has been privatised. It's policies go hand in hand with what coorporations want. The libertarian system is just more of the same.

A mining company has no insentive to maintain the environment. Filling in a strip mine is likely to be more expensive then what they would earn by resaleing it. They would much prefer to leave it trashed and just hold onto it if need be.


Or they would prefer to hold on to it and invite outside environmental organizations in to restore the land, eventually planning to open the area up as a recreational area once the old mines are secured and safety is assured:

http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arkansas/preserves/art11121.html

Could it be that this evil mining company is trying to improve public relations and image, in order to increase profits, by restoring and protecting the environment? :eek: :eek: :D


Also while they might not be polluting the environment development is bad for the environment. Someone can still destroy natural habitat without actually polluting it. That's no better for the animals that live there or for our ability to enjoy the nature. What insentive would a company have to leave land undeveloped?


See link above.


You may wish to live in a world where everything is paved over, but I sure don't.


Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric)

Should we privatize everything.


I don't recall arguing any such thing. Therefore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric

Privatizing the American West (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/opinion/26sat3.html?th&emc=th)

They also understand that Mr. Pombo's sleight of hand is little more than legislative robbery.
What a fucking traitor. Shoot him.

"Richard Pombo has had a hard time keeping himself out of the news lately. In late September, a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Mr. Pombo, a seven-term House member from California, one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress."

Ouch! Well, that explains a lot! :(
*Laughing a lot* The Sierra Club even sold/sells halloween masks of the man. He must really be in their sights.

*Laughing a lot* The Sierra Club even sold/sells halloween masks of the man. He must really be in their sights.
Hahahahaha! Kewl!

He really does sound like an asshat though. Grrrr!

Because, of course, it's simply impossible for any private organization or entity (http://nature.org/) to ever do anything good for the environment (http://nature.org/wherewework/).




( :D )

And let's not forget that it's state run organizations (http://www.defenselink.mil/) which never do any harm (http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/index.shtml) to the environment! Especially not on land they own in the west (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html)!

*BREAKING NEWS:*

38 Western American States Now Officially Canadian Provinces

Last Updated Sat, 26 Nov 2005
CBC News

Canada has officially acquired 38 of the western American states from the US. The former American states are now the 11th - 48th province of the Canadian confederation. Please stay tune for more details.




*smack me Americans*:D :D :D

What will the USian government think of next?

Well I'm not sure, they might....Oh! You meant the AMERICAN government...Oh, well thats a different subject.

Well I'm not sure, they might....Oh! You meant the AMERICAN government...Oh, well thats a different subject.

The Americas have yet to form a government, we're still a bit behind Europe and Africa.

The USA happens to have a government, but it's hardly the 'American' government. ;)

The Americas have yet to form a government, we're still a bit behind Europe and Africa.

The USA happens to have a government, but it's hardly the 'American' government. ;)

No. It is the American government.

United States of America = America.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain and Ireland
Peoples Republic of China = China

There's a reason why it's called the USA.

I'd just burn all of the forests down. Then I'd build a large fence around it and allow people to do massive amounts of drugs and have wild sex within the fence.

I'd just burn all of the forests down. Then I'd build a large fence around it and allow people to do massive amounts of drugs and have wild sex within the fence.

That would work, everyone would be happy and in order. It's kind of like anarchy with barriers.

No. It is the American government.

United States of America = America.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain and Ireland
Peoples Republic of China = China

There's a reason why it's called the USA.

Actually...

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = UK

And America refers to the continent, most people from the US seem to forget they're but a small chunk of America.

That said, most people know when people from the US say 'American' they mean US citizen.

That said, most people know when people from the US say 'American' they mean US citizen.

Most people do. Even when people NOT from America say "American." So why do you continually try to confuse the issue?

He really does sound like an asshat though. Grrrr!
What a fucking traitor. Shoot him.
But you're right, it's completely insane. This is the type of thing that makes me want to take up arms and go storm that guy's office.

Why is everyone so worked up about this? Unless I misunderstood the article, all that is happening is the government is selling off some land. I can see why some people might oppose this, but why is everyone so angry?

Why is everyone so worked up about this? Unless I misunderstood the article, all that is happening is the government is selling off some land. I can see why some people might oppose this, but why is everyone so angry?
I think it's the deceitful and slimy way that it's being done.

why is everyone so angry?

Because that's what most people do in this forum...there's something to be angry about in every post.

You just need to [look harder/read between the lines/get paranoid/or twist the facts to fit your own personal biases] and you'll get angry about something too

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :D

Why is everyone so worked up about this? Unless I misunderstood the article, all that is happening is the government is selling off some land. I can see why some people might oppose this, but why is everyone so angry?

because it's our land and we don't want it sold in sweetheart deals to land grabbers, perhaps? especially since we have no input into the sales, nor do we recieve the money from them?

*SIGH*

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

*SIGH*

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

Probably in the afterlife beating up on some poor third world country with a really big stick.

Probably in the afterlife beating up on some poor third world country with a really big stick.

Most likely... :p

Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric)

Not a strawman argument. Paving over land is bad for the enivronment is it not? Inviting companies to develope public land will result, in my opinion, to much of it being paved over. So I'm still refuting your claims that privativing public land is somehow better for the environment. Though I suppose I did make the additional claim that I want public land to enjoy (which is sort of seperate from environmental concerns), so I did shift the argument some. I'll give you that. But its true, you can't really refute that. That libertarianism alowed to run unchecked would result in a nation without public land for us to enjoy. All our parks would be fenced in or paved over.

Have you, by chance, ever driven by a large industrial manufacturing plant? They sure don't take good care of their own property in my experience. And why is it that when strip minners own the land they are mining that most of them didn't fix them up until npw when they are pushed to do so.

Companies only care about making a profit. When you say that companies do good things for public relations. Now you are shifting the responsibility off of the corporation and on to the consumer saying that the consumer cares about the environment. If the consumer doesn't care the corporation has no reason to pull such publicity stunts. The consumer is often detached from the actions of the corporation. They see that one corporation leads big poluted crators in the ground and another doesn't. But the one with the more destructive environmental policy sells the same product for half the cost. They generally buy the cheapest. Look at examples when it comes to fair labor. Most people don't care if fair trade coffee is served or if their shirt was made in a sweat shop. Only in rare events do people get together and decide to boycott the cheaper product and buy the more expensive one.

I really don’t see anything wrong with this. Less land in the hands of the government, putting land that has been wasted up until now to good use. Seems pretty good to me.

I think it's the deceitful and slimy way that it's being done.

Welcome to politics.

Because that's what most people do in this forum...there's something to be angry about in every post.

You just need to [look harder/read between the lines/get paranoid/or twist the facts to fit your own personal biases] and you'll get angry about something too

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah, but the levels of anger really seemed out of proportion to the issue at hand.

because it's our land and we don't want it sold in sweetheart deals to land grabbers, perhaps? especially since we have no input into the sales, nor do we recieve the money from them?

It's not your land; it's the government's land. If you don't like what they do with it, you will have a chance a couple years down the road to cast one vote out of several million to decide between two candidates who may or may not do what you want them to. If you want land you can call your own, you'll have to buy it or invest in a company that owns it; if you want the opportunity to have a stake in the way this land is being managed, you ought to support this measure and then invest in the company that buys the land.

It's not your land; it's the government's land.

By definition, government land in a government of the people by the people belongs to the people, not individuals.

Sell the land to China to write off the the US trade deficit! :p

Not a strawman argument. Paving over land is bad for the enivronment is it not? Inviting companies to develope public land will result, in my opinion, to much of it being paved over.


Your statement was: "You may wish to live in a world where everything is paved over"

I wish no such thing. Pointing out examples of private organizations/companies working in environmentally friendly ways is hardly wishing to live in a paved over world.

Therefore, strawman.

My Congressman is behind the push to open the Artic National Wild Life Refuge and the bridge to nowhere, so writing him about this latest insanity would be a waste of time...

SIGH! :(
I am sick of Back door deals and Politicians ramming things through, against the peoples wishes and for the dollar.

I don't even know who my congressperson is. :confused:

Thank god i don't live in the US

I could have sworn this title did not say "codswallop" a moment ago...

My Congressman is behind the push to open the Artic National Wild Life Refuge and the bridge to nowhere, so writing him about this latest insanity would be a waste of time...
I read that the bridge to nowhere was axed. I think it was a headline on Yahoo! U.S. news, if you want to track it down.

Do congresspeople write back to your letters, or do you just get some 'thank you for your interest' notes?

I could have sworn this title did not say "codswallop" a moment ago...
It didn't. Apparently some overly-sensitive Mod decided they didn't like the orginal title. :rolleyes:

Do congresspeople write back to your letters, or do you just get some 'thank you for your interest' notes?
It varies. Some do, some don't. Depends on the congressperson and how large their staff is, I suppose. Heh!

Thank god i don't live in the US
Yeah. The rest of us feel the same way. Thank God you don't live here. :p

Do congresspeople write back to your letters, or do you just get some 'thank you for your interest' notes?
Most do. Best letters I ever got were from Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia. His staffers would follow up the letter with a phone call if it was about a problem, for which I'd asked for help, or a good letter explaining his position on an issue.

Worst letters I ever got were from Max Cleland, another Democrat from Georgia. His were the "thanks for your interest" type form letter that made me sure he never read mine.

Guess who I voted for and guess who I voted against.

Isn't this proposal just another government land progam? I can get cheap gov't land right now as it is.. There's some limits to what I can or can't do with it, but I don't need to prove a commercial interest...

Isn't this proposal just another government land progam? I can get cheap gov't land right now as it is.. There's some limits to what I can or can't do with it, but I don't need to prove a commercial interest...
It's a bit more than "just another government land program." It's a bald-faced grab of public lands for private profit. These lands belong to the American people and should be held in pepetuity for coming generations, not parcelled out among a bunch of money-grubbing thieves.

Who cares? Doesn't the government account for most environmental destruction anyway?

Who cares? Doesn't the government account for most environmental destruction anyway?

only because of it's immense volume. i don't know that anyone has done the leg work to create a more meaningful measure based on proportionality.

of course, the government hasn't been a very good property manager thus far - they've been letting the mining companies get away with murder for over a century, for example. but i'd rather attempt to fix that while keeping all that land as the common property of us and future generations, than just give it away to the bastards.

These lands belong to the American people and should be held in pepetuity for coming generations, not parcelled out among a bunch of money-grubbing thieves.

since both you and me share this (impressive in itself), i wonder just how common this view is?

I really don’t see anything wrong with this. Less land in the hands of the government, putting land that has been wasted up until now to good use. Seems pretty good to me.

Depends on your perspective... if you look at the 'robber baron' era of American history as the nadir of capitalistic expression, then yes.... this is fine.

If, on the other hand, you object to the government selling public land, into the hands of those who are already most wealthy, such that they can make a minimal effort, and get far MORE wealthy from the deal... while, at no point really contributing anything worthwhile to the average American... then you would probably see something wrong with this deal.

The sort of people who object to THIS, are the sort of people who object to the government giving all war contracts to Haliburton, or FEMA contracting out all the cleanup work to out-of-state big business.

since both you and me share this (impressive in itself), i wonder just how common this view is?
I think, like most questions, it depends on how the question is asked? The committee that Pombo sits on is sure doing a hard sell on the lack of effect of this sale. If the sale were really limited to 360,000 acres that are already being mined, what difference would it really make? These aren't national parks or even suitable sites for recreation.

On the other hand, if the language in the bill is vague enough, maybe several million acres could be sold. Maybe some of that would be desirable as recreational areas. I think that's the possibility to which rational people object.

since both you and me share this (impressive in itself), i wonder just how common this view is?
Pretty damned common, I would think. But since we all tend to hang with those who agree with us on most things, that may be a bit of a distorted perspective. :(

Pretty damned common, I would think. But since we all tend to hang with those who agree with us on most things, that may be a bit of a distorted perspective. :(

Well, I have almost never agreed with you in living memory... :)

And yet, I agree with you on this one...

So, it must be FAIRLY common...

I don't recall arguing any such thing. Therefore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric


Well I suppose you got me on that one (refering to when I stated that privitizing everything as libertarians want to do is stupid, and pointing out that privitizing road mainanence seems impractical). Got a little broad on my libertarian rant and didn't speak directly of the issue of privitizing land.

Oh and if I simply stated that allowing privitization of land would create a world were everything is paved over, instead of saying that "you may want to live in a world where everything is paved over" would that be acceptable? It's not like I really thought you wanted this, nor did anyone really think that's what you were advocating. I was just being dramatic. Is it a strawman argument if I'm just emphaising a point and not really trying to convince people that you hate nature and want it paved over. But I was arguing, which I truely believe, that that is the natural outcome of privitising our public land. Which is certainly on topic and is certainly what I believe to be the outcome of your argument. So you may not be directly advocating paving over public land, but you are indirectly.

Oh and about this "I have a single example of a company helping the environment" attitude. So what? Seems like most people on this thread think companies are more likely to do the environment harm then good. If I post a single example of a company with bad environmental policy does that make me right? It's what most companies do, not what a select few do that makes the difference. Anyone want to help me out by posting examples of companies that poluted land they owned at the time of such pollution? Or does anyone have any statistics on how much companies have helped the environment versus destroyed it?

The problem is that our goverment is unresponsive to the people and that its set up in a manner that canidates that are responsive to the people cannot get elected. All US citizens technically own government land even if it doesn't seem like it. The government technically is an organization of the people for the people.

For those advocating that having companies buy it there are problems. You can't expect companies to adequately fill the role that are defunt goverment isn't. Sure you may buy stock in the company and therefore have a say in how the company uses the land, but:

1. If you advocate good environmental policy for the company you bought stock in and another company has bad policy and is able to outperform your company. Then your company gets bought out, goes bankrupt, and/or is forced to sell the land it owns. So with companies its profit and not much else that controls decisions.

2. Those with more money can buy more stock and get more votes. Not exactly a fair system is it?

Oh and yes sometimes it is in a companies favor to restore land. But if a company is poluting land in the middle of North Dakota or somewhere similarly remote the land is not worth much and is not likely to become worth much. Only when the land becomes worth a lot does it become worthwhile to clean it up. It's simple economics. North Dakota has a lot of supply (unpoluted land) and very little demand (see many people flocking there).

Now if the land was in West Philly, which has recently seen the property values skyrocket, cleaning up polluted land makes econimic sense.

Oh and using similar logic about companies cleaning up pollution for public relations. Walmart recently started advocating a raise in minimum wage. Does this mean Walmart treats its employees as well as it could? Or is this a simple publicity stunt while doing something, doesn't really overcome the damage it has done?

I agree. I'll join you in making a big stink about this.

Isn't this what the libertarians have been advocating all along? They are probably happy about this. It gives them free range to turn all our natural wilderness into housing developments, strip mines, and toxic waste dumps.

But I'll look into buying some. I intend on developing a mineral claim, I swear (I don't even own a shovel).

It also gives enviromentalists the chance to buy the land and stop all development on it.

It also gives enviromentalists the chance to buy the land and stop all development on it.

a chance, yes. but have you looked at any numbers on wealth distribution ever? most of us don't have very much available cash to buy up tons of land compared to the forces we are up against. so we may get some and they will get more.

but that isn't the point. the point is that this land shouldn't be sold to individuals. it belongs to all of us and to future generations.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain and Ireland

As an Irishman living in an independent Republic I object to this.

Why is everyone so worked up about this? Unless I misunderstood the article, all that is happening is the government is selling off some land. I can see why some people might oppose this, but why is everyone so angry?
It's because this politician is going to let business ruin what is termed as "America, the beautiful" for profit. It's unpatriotic.

It's not like I really thought you wanted this, nor did anyone really think that's what you were advocating. I was just being dramatic.


Well, confusion occurs while being dramatic instead of addressing one's opponent's actual arguments. :D


But I was arguing, which I truely believe, that that is the natural outcome of privitising our public land.


Then say so, instead of trying to tell other people what they think or wish. :)


Seems like most people on this thread think companies are more likely to do the environment harm then good.


Now you're standing on the very edge of a bandwagon fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy).


If I post a single example of a company with bad environmental policy does that make me right?


At most, you've shown that a company can behave in an environmentally destructive way. By giving examples of private organizations and corporations what act in environmentally friendly ways, I show that companies can also behave in environmentally friendly ways. Neither of us has shown that private companies must or will always act in any particular way.


Walmart recently started advocating a raise in minimum wage. Does this mean Walmart treats its employees as well as it could? Or is this a simple publicity stunt while doing something, doesn't really overcome the damage it has done?


The analogy is flawed.

Regardless of the motovations or reasons Alcoa or the Nature Conservancy (http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arkansas/preserves/art11121.html) might hold, their efforts actually help improve the environmental quality of the area in question. Who cares what their motovations are so long as the environment benifits? Can someone demonstrate how repairing the environment is a bad thing?

Walmart advocates increasing the minimum wage, however, because the minimum wage actually and necessarily hurts workers as it makes the payment of wages more expensive. Employers thus have to layoff workers (who were at least making something, but are now making nothing) and thus are unable to conduct as much business. Since Walmart already pays above minimum wage, it can avoid these effects. It's competition, however, may have to struggle. Or worse.

Yes, Alcoa and Walmart are both working for selfish gain. However, in the process of doing so, Alcoa, working with the Nature Conservancy, does a net good, while Walmart does a net wrong. As such, we can begin to see that working in one's self interest can be but is not necessarily a bad thing.