Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Should Government Own Wilderness?

By

I found a link to a great article at FreeColorado.com. It doesn’t apply to urbanism specifically, but conceptually deals with privatization of publicly owned land.

Free Colorado – Should Government Own Wilderness?
The original article was from Grand Junction Free Press – Armstrong Column: Should the government own, manage wilderness?

here’s a few quotes I enjoyed:

Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people’s rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people’s resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want.

We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception.

Politically, of course, it’s usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there’s no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries.

It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We’re confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they’d be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transferred to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.

I agree. Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife. Since they have a vested interest, I trust them more than I do the government.

Comments

  1. “Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife.”

    -because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil….

  2. “Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife.”

    -because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil….

  3. because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil…

    Is the gov’t going to do the drilling? Or the oil companies who lobbied for it?

    Maybe it’s a way to safely allow drilling. Let’s say the Sierra Club owns some wildlife preserve, and determines that there are ways of drilling for oil on their land without harming wildlife or the environment. Environmentalists may be more comfortable with the Sierra club saying it’s OK, rather than Bush.
    So, the Sierra Club could charge oil companies to drill, while monitoring the drilling to meet their own standards. Then, the Sierra Club could use the revenues for their own worthy causes.

    I see it as a win-win-win for oil companies, environmentalists, and taxpayers.

    Then again, the Sierra Club may become hopelessly corrupt from their new wealth and drunk with power…

  4. because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil…

    Is the gov’t going to do the drilling? Or the oil companies who lobbied for it?

    Maybe it’s a way to safely allow drilling. Let’s say the Sierra Club owns some wildlife preserve, and determines that there are ways of drilling for oil on their land without harming wildlife or the environment. Environmentalists may be more comfortable with the Sierra club saying it’s OK, rather than Bush.
    So, the Sierra Club could charge oil companies to drill, while monitoring the drilling to meet their own standards. Then, the Sierra Club could use the revenues for their own worthy causes.

    I see it as a win-win-win for oil companies, environmentalists, and taxpayers.

    Then again, the Sierra Club may become hopelessly corrupt from their new wealth and drunk with power…

Meta