About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I recently read an article where the author compared rainbows and McDonald's (I don't have the link, sorry). The idea, probably put too simplistically, is that McDonald's are more beautiful because they have been created by humans and represent the epitome of human productivity. I grew up in Washington state which has excellent National parks. I'm curious as to how the system works, the government owns the national park service, yet... you have to pay to get in...? Has there been any discussion on this, or does anyone know how it works? There's a lot of talk in environmental circles (albeit without much evidence) that privatization of parks will lead to a trampling of the area by advertising, fast food restaurants, pollution, etc. What do you think of this? Or do you think lots of advertising etc wouldn't be a bad thing? I personally wouldn't like to see countless billboards depicting half-naked women advertising beer products go up all over Mount Rainier.

Jane

Post 1

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If someone owns a private park I don't give two darns what the heck they put up within the boundaries of their property. It's theirs. They can do with it what they will, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. There's no shortage of trees to stare at all day long in the US. I can always go somewhere else.

I do understand the desire to get away from the hubbub every once in a while. So it's not hard for me to imagine a like-minded capitalist intent on creating an outdoors recreation park for those seeking solitude or what-have-you. As a profit-minded man or woman, he/she would certainly see the benefits in keeping the place an ideal natural habitat--or whatever the greenies call them--in order to attract customers. If he/she starts putting up billboards...hey, that's one more place for the tree owl to roost. :)

J

Post 2

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jane,

As Jeremy said, some businessman might decide to keep the area untouched by civilization.

I suspect there are a few reasons why that generally doesn't and wouldn't happen. As David Bertelsen suggests in this fine artice:

http://SoloHQ.com/Articles/Bertelsen/Hey_Greenie,_Wanna_Get_Rich.shtml

the government is already in that business so it's hard to make a profit.

I'd also add that Hippies are generally dirt poor...not exactly a target market.

Combine that with the fact that what people generally want isn't just untouched nature, but solitude as well. That means you need a lot of land to satisfy each person or family (let's say you don't want to see or hear anyone else while there). That's a lot of land, and you can't expect much from poor environmentalists.

A more lucrative market would be semi-untouched setting, but with all the luxuries of home. A vacation spot for people with money who don't like sleeping in dirt, even if they like seeing it. In that case, they probably will have restaurants, cottages/condos, boat docks, horseback riding tours, etc. But that's because a lot of people would want them. Billboards seems fairly unreasonable. If there's any competition at all, the one without billboards would be preferred.

It's not what the greenies are looking for, though. They want large chunks of untouched land that they can use, and nobody else can. And they want it for free, of course.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.