Libertarians: Are public parks hurting your freedom?

[RGacky3]

It strikes me as very anti-freedom that there is a group of people arbitrarily taking land and giving it to people. If someone wants a piece of land, they should buy a piece of land from its current owner.

No the land HAS no owner ... that's what I'm saying, Your ASSUMING ownership, that's begging the question.

 

[Federalist]

No the land HAS no owner ... that's what I'm saying, Your ASSUMING ownership, that's begging the question.

Even if it's currently unowned, I still think it's very anti-freedom for a group of people to claim it as theirs to give. If it's unowned, then individuals ought to be able to go and homestead pieces of it.

 

[RGacky3]

Even if it's currently unowned, I still think it's very anti-freedom for a group of people to claim it as theirs to give. If it's unowned, then individuals ought to be able to go and homestead pieces of it.

How is that anti-freedom? ALso it isn't a group of people claiming it as theirs to give, it's a community claiming it as the commons ... for EVERYONE, i.e. NO ONE can claimg it as theirs to give.

Its a very strange way to view "freedom."

 

[Federalist]

How is that anti-freedom? ALso it isn't a group of people claiming it as theirs to give, it's a community claiming it as the commons ... for EVERYONE, i.e. NO ONE can claimg it as theirs to give.

Its a very strange way to view "freedom."

I suppose that IF there were some unused resource, and IF every member of the community agreed, then it wouldn't be anti-freedom for them to ALL agree that they were going to communally own that piece of property. It would be their unanimous choice.

I see that scenario as different from that of a city government taxing people so that it can buy land to build a park. The taxation is an unjust (in my opinion) violation of property rights.

 

[RGacky3]

I suppose that IF there were some unused resource, and IF every member of the community agreed, then it wouldn't be anti-freedom for them to ALL agree that they were going to communally own that piece of property. It would be their unanimous choice.

I see that scenario as different from that of a city government taxing people so that it can buy land to build a park. The taxation is an unjust (in my opinion) violation of property rights.

That's what a public park is.

But is'nt property just a bunch of people agreeing that such and such property belongs to such and such person? For whatever justification?

 

[Visbek]

I disagree. A state is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without such an organization.

States do a tiny bit more than "maintain a monopoly of force." At a minimum, they provide a means of conflict resolution; they maintain a system of laws and safety nets, which produce social stability; they provide for common goods, including parks.

Oh, and some of them enact and enforce property rights.

If there is no state whatsoever and/or the use of force is decentralized to the individual level, then ultimately the only way to defend your property is by sitting on your porch with a machine gun. I.e. governments provide an entire backdrop of stability and security that makes it possible to walk away from your property, with no fear that someone will walk up to it, claim it as their own, and use force to maintain said claim.

 

[jonny5]

libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?

To the extent that we didnt consent to them, yes. The federal govt doesnt have the power to own parks, so any federal parks are a violation of state and individual rights.

 

[RGacky3]

To the extent that we didnt consent to them, yes. The federal govt doesnt have the power to own parks, so any federal parks are a violation of state and individual rights.

Wait, so then why can a single individual own a swath of land without my consent?

 

[Visbek]

It strikes me as very anti-freedom that there is a group of people arbitrarily taking land and giving it to people. If someone wants a piece of land, they should buy a piece of land from its current owner.

Please note that many parks are purchased by governments, rather than created via eminent domain.

Oh, wait. It doesn't matter if the land was purchased, right?

I see that scenario as different from that of a city government taxing people so that it can buy land to build a park. The taxation is an unjust (in my opinion) violation of property rights.

Right.

Yeah, sorry, but taxes are the price you pay for civilization. You may not like it, but it is utterly impossible to create a society where every person is in 100% unanimous agreement about how things should be done.

By the way, there's also Acadia National Park, which was created by private citizens who intentionally purchased and donated land to create a national park. How does that fit in?

Even if it's currently unowned, I still think it's very anti-freedom for a group of people to claim it as theirs to give. If it's unowned, then individuals ought to be able to go and homestead pieces of it.

Right. Because Yosemite and the Grand Canyon would have looked so much nicer if a bunch of condos were built right on top of them. :mrgreen:

 

[Federalist]

That's what a public park is.

But is'nt property just a bunch of people agreeing that such and such property belongs to such and such person? For whatever justification?

Sure. Any system of property is merely the rules that govern people's access to and control of things like land, natural resources, the means of production, manufactured goods, etc.

Libertarians think that property should only be transferred voluntarily, not forcibly taken.

 

[Visbek]

To the extent that we didnt consent to them, yes. The federal govt doesnt have the power to own parks....

Of course it does. It has the power to purchase property. In fact, it has the power to seize property, as long as the owner is compensated appropriately for the loss. What country do you live in again?

any federal parks are a violation of state and individual rights.

States don't have "rights." They have powers which are allocated to them by the Constitution.

Individual rights are not abridged by public ownership of land or property. Your freedom was not curtailed because Yellowstone wasn't turned into a quarry and condos.

Central Park is a critical component of New York City. It's a vital resource, which provides the community with space to assemble, to recreate, to relax and to exercise. It's an international tourist destination, and its existence enhances property values all the way around the park. No private individual can provide the same functionality -- because if that land was privately owned, the owner could discontinue public access at any time, for any reason.

What about Acadia National Park? A bunch of citizens purchased land, and intentionally donated it to the federal government on the condition that it would become a national park. Why don't those property owners have the right to dispose of their land in this way?

To me, this anti-park line of argument illustrates one of the problems with libertarianism: It refuses to acknowledge the benefit of common goods.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I was never denied services by an insurance company.

That must have been a hell of an expensive insurance package, then. Would you like me to link data showing you the tens of thousands (if not millions) of complaints from people who were denied services - and some even denied coverage?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Of course it does. It has the power to purchase property. In fact, it has the power to seize property, as long as the owner is compensated appropriately for the loss. What country do you live in again?

States don't have "rights." They have powers which are allocated to them by the Constitution.

Individual rights are not abridged by public ownership of land or property. Your freedom was not curtailed because Yellowstone wasn't turned into a quarry and condos.

Central Park is a critical component of New York City. It's a vital resource, which provides the community with space to assemble, to recreate, to relax and to exercise. It's an international tourist destination, and its existence enhances property values all the way around the park. No private individual can provide the same functionality -- because if that land was privately owned, the owner could discontinue public access at any time, for any reason.

What about Acadia National Park? A bunch of citizens purchased land, and intentionally donated it to the federal government on the condition that it would become a national park. Why don't those property owners have the right to dispose of their land in this way?

To me, this anti-park line of argument illustrates one of the problems with libertarianism: It refuses to acknowledge the benefit of common goods.

 

[Cyrylek]

libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that

That's odd. How do you separate economic issues from "the issues of freedom"? People are free - or not free - to make their own decisions is "the issue of freedom". Whether they are "personal" or "economic" decisions makes no difference, and there's no clear border between the two categories.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?

It depends on how they are funded, of course. It's not parks (or any other form of public property) that "takes away our freedom", it is the fact that at this point in history they are created and maintained mostly via coercive taxation.

Now, for the foreseeable future, I would advocate expansion of the system of American national parks and of conservation in general.

While we are trying to make coercive taxation less barbaric, and eventually eliminate it, money that is collected currently could be spent in many different ways. Right now, a good deal of it goes to government activities that are dubious in nature, or outright harmful - from the Idiotic War on (some) Drugs to market-distorting corporate welfare. Conservation of land and ecosystems (without violating anyone's property rights) is undeniably a positive thing, in itself.

Publicly held factories or schools suffer from numerous problems that boil down to (1) the dilution of personal interest and responsibility, and (2) the accumulation of errors in the absence of market feedback. But the basic job of preservation (not allowing interlopers) is a police job appropriate for government agencies. Socialist methods are quite effective, when your goal is to prevent things from happening.

 

[jonny5]

Wait, so then why can a single individual own a swath of land without my consent?

Assuming there are no laws?

 

[jonny5]

Of course it does. It has the power to purchase property. In fact, it has the power to seize property, as long as the owner is compensated appropriately for the loss. What country do you live in again?



States don't have "rights." They have powers which are allocated to them by the Constitution.

Individual rights are not abridged by public ownership of land or property. Your freedom was not curtailed because Yellowstone wasn't turned into a quarry and condos.

Central Park is a critical component of New York City. It's a vital resource, which provides the community with space to assemble, to recreate, to relax and to exercise. It's an international tourist destination, and its existence enhances property values all the way around the park. No private individual can provide the same functionality -- because if that land was privately owned, the owner could discontinue public access at any time, for any reason.

What about Acadia National Park? A bunch of citizens purchased land, and intentionally donated it to the federal government on the condition that it would become a national park. Why don't those property owners have the right to dispose of their land in this way?

To me, this anti-park line of argument illustrates one of the problems with libertarianism: It refuses to acknowledge the benefit of common goods.

The federal govt has the power own land yes, but not to use it for parks, as there is no park power in the constitution. If they want to put a post office or a road on it, or a military base, sure, just not parks. And any land they take has to be for public use. They cant take land for any other purpose.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Federalist]

Yeah, sorry, but taxes are the price you pay for civilization.

Sorry, but I don't regard taking other people's property by force to be civilized.

 

[Visbek]

The federal govt has the power own land yes, but not to use it for parks, as there is no park power in the constitution.

The Takings Clause does not restrict the uses of eminent domain in that fashion.

any land they take has to be for public use.

Yep. And national parks are established for, wait for it... for public use. :mrgreen:

 

[Visbek]

Sorry, but I don't regard taking other people's property by force to be civilized.

Meaning what, a civilized society will completely eradicate all forms of force? What are you, a hippie?

On a more serious note, I do not see how even a minarchist society could support even the tiniest of governments based on voluntary tax remittances, especially without resulting in massive corruption and abuse.

For example, let's say the "state" consists of three components (military, police, courts) and a voluntary payment system. A wealthy individual could hire a private security service, not pay for any services, and could be well-armed enough to ignore any court rulings. Why not just go straight to feudalism and get it over with?

Besides, there is one voluntary component. If you don't like being taxed, you can:
1) Advocate for lower tax rates.
2) Leave.

 

[jonny5]

The Takings Clause does not restrict the uses of eminent domain in that fashion.



Yep. And national parks are established for, wait for it... for public use. :mrgreen:

The 9th and 10th amendments do restrict it. You will not find parks anywhere in the constitution.

 

[fmw]

That must have been a hell of an expensive insurance package, then. Would you like me to link data showing you the tens of thousands (if not millions) of complaints from people who were denied services - and some even denied coverage?

I think it was in line with the Obamacare numbers I see bandied about. It was about $90 per month for me and $700 per month for my wife. If people are denied coverage then it must be for something that is excluded in the policy. Otherwise it is a breach of contract on the part of the insuror.

 

[Federalist]

Meaning what, a civilized society will completely eradicate all forms of force? What are you, a hippie?

Meaning I would think that a civilized society would outlaw the taking of other people's property by force not institutionalize the practice.

On a more serious note, I do not see how even a minarchist society could support even the tiniest of governments based on voluntary tax remittances, especially without resulting in massive corruption and abuse.

For example, let's say the "state" consists of three components (military, police, courts) and a voluntary payment system. A wealthy individual could hire a private security service, not pay for any services, and could be well-armed enough to ignore any court rulings. Why not just go straight to feudalism and get it over with?

I think we disagree on whether the people at large would allow such an individual to flout the law.

Besides, there is one voluntary component. If you don't like being taxed, you can:
1) Advocate for lower tax rates.
2) Leave.

Those are indeed things one could do. However, that doesn't address the point that it isn't civilized to take the property of others by force.

 

[fmw]

Not all governments are made equaly .... in a democratic system (not like what exists in the US), it DOES answer to the people.

Irrelevant.

What the customer wan'ts .. its not that simple ... when customers have limited funds they can't demand that much, they have eto take what they can afford, the rich can.

Not the point and it is that simple. The point is that businesses must provide what their customers want or they go out of business. If Volkswagen made only cars that cost $150,000, they would go out of business. It is not what their customers want. If Bentley made only econoboxes, it would go out of business. It is not what their customers want. It might be possible for company to discard its customer base and develop a new one but few would survive the change.

Also ALL wealth doesn't come from buisiness profits, you have public industry, and public inventions and infastructure that make it possible for private buisiness to exist.

NO, NO, NO. All wealth comes from business profits. The government is a net spender of wealth. While it does create some, it spends more than it creates. It is impossible for government to contribute to societal wealth. If it could, it wouldn't need to tax. That is not to say that government doesn't do some useful and helpful things but that isn't the point. We are talking about wealth.

We can compare medicare to private systems, nad which one works better ....

clue, medicare works better, and people are more satisfied with medicare, even though the cost is artificially high since it's only old people on it, it's STILL better, more efficient, and better service overall.

Not in my experience. I've always had better service with private health insurance. I'm not complaining about medicare. But it isn't better and it would be bankrupt without the government subsidizing it.

But hey, stop being on medicare, you're hurting your freedom, go into the marketplace and find a private insurer.

Yes, I'm aware that I can do that. I continue to have that freedom.

 

[Visbek]

The 9th and 10th amendments do restrict it. You will not find parks anywhere in the constitution.

Article IV, Section 3. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

No one has ever successfully challenged federal land ownership in the courts.

Oh, and we do not live in the Libertarian States of America. :mrgreen:

 

[jonny5]

Article IV, Section 3. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

No one has ever successfully challenged federal land ownership in the courts.

Oh, and we do not live in the Libertarian States of America. :mrgreen:

There is nothing in there about parks.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to dispose of property owned by the govt, and to make rules regarding the property they own, yes. The power to claim any state property they want and turn it into a park, no. Just like people do with the commerce and spending clauses, your extrapolating the power to anything you want from a indirectly related power which never intended what you want from it.