board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

National Forest Land Sale

Post Reply   Page 4 of 4  [ 70 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Author Message
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 26 Feb , 2006 7:08 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
To me the idea of living packed like sardines is absolutely repellant. I'd go insane if I had to live like that.
Dave_LF wrote:
People don't need national parks in the same way that they don't really need art, music, or literature.
That may be true, but then art, music and literature are all marketable items that people are willing, not forced, to pay for. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't national parks maintained at least partially through taxes? (I may indeed be wrong, I have never looked up exactly how these things are done.)

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 26 Feb , 2006 8:57 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Putting this BACK in the correct thread.
sauronsfinger wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote:
So instead of a Q and A all about the libertarian program to deforest America, I thought it was better just to print the song which was pro-tree and let it be at that .... let the lyrics speak for me.


There is no libertarian program to deforest America.
Perhaps I should have said the Libertarian program which would result in the deforesting of America.
I know of no such plan.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 2:11 am
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I took this from the debate style thread, but I'm posting my responses here because this is the right topic.
sf wrote:
Public Land + Libertarian Idiocy - government protection = deforesting
Your equation doesn't fit the answer. It's missing a step pertaining to a need or use to deforest. Otherwise it's just demonizing for the sake of demonizing.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, because the cynic in me has the same sort of fear, but the logic isn't smooth.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 3:19 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
The problem with that equation (if you remove the gratuitous Ad Hominem) is that the first variable is incorrect.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 4:40 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Vincent wrote:
national forests are also important though, in a park I can't hunt, I can't fish, I can't decide to climb that hill if theres not a trail there, I can't do a million things that I normally do when I go "real" camping, and they charge money. Camping in a national park is like visiting a museum, pretty but you can't touch.
At least in Missouri, there is a distinct difference between national parks and national forests. In the Mark Twain forest , you can hunt, fish and camp, either in campgrounds with ammenities, or :
Quote:
Primitive Camping is allowed throught the forest except in day use areas, administrative sites, within 100' of springs, stream, caves and other natural features or archeological sites, or where otherwise prohibited. Follow Leave No Trace principles and protect the forest resouces.
I'm not worried about loggers buying up the land and clear cutting it. The woods in the Missouri Ozarks are not really very good for lumber. What saddens me is the fact that people like me will buy up the chunks of land as they become available, and live on it and civilize it. They'll build fences and run cows or hogs on it and put up no trespassing signs and NO ONE else can walk on that ground and enjoy the sights ever again. They'll build houses and barns and sewage lagoons and plant fescue grass for lawns, and the character of the land will be changed forever.

If it's near a town, developers will buy it and develop it and change it like the area around Branson has been trashed. When my family first moved to the Missouri Ozarks over 30 years ago, Branson was a small town with a thin highway running through the hills with just a few shows for tourists plus Silver Dollar City and The Shepard of the Hills play. Now it's like this:
[ img ]

Wall to wall tourist traps and all those pretty hills paved over and jammed with buildings. I've been there once since I grew up and moved away (I just had to go see ROTK in IMAX!) and it was just appalling. :( There was barely anything natural left. Orcs had destroyed everything. There will never again be the delicate ecosystem of the thin soil of the glades there again.

That's why I don't like the thought of selling off any of this national forest land. It's been acquired, it's in our hands. It will only get more expensive later, if we try to buy it back. We need to keep it now, so that we can save it from being developed by individuals or corporations. The more people there are in the world, the more we need to keep wild areas available for those people to visit.

And Halpm (I think it was you?) you said what did it matter because a forest will burn down. Having a forest burn down is OK, it's natural. It happens. New trees will grow, more animals will move in. What is impossible to recover from is concrete foundations and trees with barbed wire fences imbedded in their flesh because people were too lazy to sink posts. Makeshift bridges constructed of culverts with concrete poured over them. Ugly things like that that endure for centuries. If we try to make developed land back into wild zones later, it would take an enormous, huge effort to erase the signs of human habitation. Much more expensive than merely saving these lands for later. And the diverse ecosystem survives as well, with conservation.

It's more than worth it, I think. It's necessary.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 4:51 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Meril36 wrote:
That may be true, but then art, music and literature are all marketable items that people are willing, not forced, to pay for. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't national parks maintained at least partially through taxes? (I may indeed be wrong, I have never looked up exactly how these things are done.)
Some art, music, and literature is marketable. Some is not. Much is currently supported through taxes. I agree that a general discussion of whether governments should collect "beautification taxes" from people who don't care about beauty or who define it differently is a subject for another thread.


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 5:34 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
Dave_LF wrote:
Some art, music, and literature is marketable. Some is not. Much is currently supported through taxes.
Yes, I remembered that shortly after my post, but I was too lazy to go back and mention it. I don't approve of tax supported artistry either.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 6:00 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Does anybody agree with tax supported artistry? Nature parks I can see, but shouldn't the people who want to look at the art be paying for the art??


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 6:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
There must be someone who does, otherwise there would be no opposition to ending the National Endowment for the Arts.

The theory, with which I disagree, is that since so many great artists died penniless and weren't recongnized in their time, we must support our current great artists so that they can produce even more great art. Suppose Van Gogh didn't have to worry about where his next meal was coming from?

But how can we know which art is great? The NEA has to support just about everything on the off chance that some of it is "great but not recognized as such during our lifetime". I don't know how many lifetimes it would take to recognize "piss christ" as great art.

When the NEA doesn't fund some artist, people scream "censorship" - which ironically isn't the right word. Nobody is preventing anyone from producing anything, the artist just isn't getting free money for the art.

Some people complain that art becomes too commercialized without such support. I'd rather look at a Normal Rockwell than a Piss Christ anyday, simply because I like it, and consider Rockwell to be on of the best artists of the 20th century. The hoi polloi are often reluctant to name Tolkien as a great writer. Classical music comes it two varieties - the atonal noise that you can hear in the symphony halls and is government supported, or the background music to modern movies that you rather enjoy.

Would you rather listen to Danny Elfman or John Cage?

In "Team America world Police" there was a parody of a broadway musical. All the elite were there to watch the cast sing "Everybody has AIDS". It would be hard to turn many musicals into movies because so much of what is being written tries too hard to be profound, and thus fails abysmally and becomes crap. Then everyone is criticized for not having "refined tastes". There's a good bit in "The Fountainhead" where Ayn Rand describes exactly the same thing, the disparity between art enjoyed and art appreciated.

I prefer to enjoy my art. Let those who want to appreciate art pay for it themselves.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Feb , 2006 8:46 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Got to agree with most of CG's statement. I do believe that there should be some funding for art in schools (not college).

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 4  [ 70 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Jump to: