Debate Rounds (3)
I am anti-big government so I do not support the Government having full power over environmental issues but I think they should have a little power and continue to run the national parks and not privatize them.
Due to budget constraints many parks are falling to shambles. You know those tax dollars are better spent subsidizing expensive ObamaCare and oppressive foreign undeclared wars. As a result parks are put into permanent 'deferred maintenance' and never get the attention they deserve for upkeep. This displeases visitors who regret their lengthy family road trip complete with hundreds of bathroom stops and are-we-there-yets. News travels faster than a cold at preschool and soon very few people are taking the time to experience what used to be great national treasures.
As you are well aware, capitalism hinges on the consumer wanting a product because that product is awesome. Governments are not good at producing such products. In fact, as you know, they produce almost the exact opposite of awesomeness. They specialize in that biting-cold, dark feeling of regret and self-loathing that we experience when we see how much money was stolen, I mean, "withheld" from our paychecks. Does that sound like the type of people you want inspiring awe and wonder in the eyes of our tender youth as they touch a giant redwood tree for the first time?!
Here is a healthy dose of Patriotic Conservatism in the form of free market models for public parks:
Not enough you say? Well, check this out. Many public services that people thought could only be provided by clunky, biased, government bureaucrats are now being privatized. Police forces, judges, and yes, road building (because, well, who will build the roads if the government doesn't?) are all being managed by private contractors who keep costs low and service high. See the links below, if you're Libertarian enough.
http://www.nlc.org... (Look at page 4 of this one)
I'll end with this little gem from a super liberal. Even he understands the advantage of free markets in this case. Do you?
"It is not a government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they are provided."
"former New York Governor Mario Cuomo
But the Government even if it allows a private company to run it needs to protect the natural environment. Let me paint you two examples of what happens when the Government steps out of the way and lets a private entity have a decision to do what they want.
This is a Indian reservation area which gives the local Indians to do whatever they want without government intervention. What do they do? They build a lame sky walk that not only ruins the landscape but is not nearly as popular. You might be tempted to think that well if it's not popular then companies won't do it. Well there are several examples where that is true and several where it is not true. The question is would a bad decision create an irreversible effect? It is often the case since this structure is so expensive it would cost a lot to remove it and they receive enough business that it just wouldn't make sense to remove it but the vast majority would hate to see it.
Most people go to parks to escape technology and advances within which is why parks like the grand canyon and Yellowstone are so popular. Theodore Roosevelt made a very wise decision and protected all the land he could out west instead of being turned into farming land. Since national parks were not very popular back then if a corporation was allowed to do what they want odds are they wouldn't be a beautiful and technology free like we see today.
This is textbook example of the potential damage that a corporation can do to a very beautiful natural area. While the show and tour is interesting and cool something is truly lost with all the technology and development that they have poured into the cave. The cave is truly spectacular but in reality is almost ruined by all the technology that they put into it. This damage is irreversible and would be too expensive to take back since they make money on it anyways.
Now I am not totally against having these types of places because the technology certainly added an effect which was interesting and there obviously is demand for these types of places.
Even if corporations took over the grand canyon it would still be popular no matter what so the argument that the people still come wouldn't apply to these scenarios. Instead they would ruin the experience of millions of people. A survey found that 55% percent of people who enjoy going outside enjoy finding true nature places (where technology isn't present http://www.nrpa.org...) These are the majority of park visitors so the demand to put technology into parks is just not there for the majority of people.
In closing yes the parks should be run by private entities BUT the argument isn't this answer it is should the government be involved? The answer is a clear YES they should heavily regulate these private companies to make sure they leave nature alone and don't do any permanent damage. People who go to parks don't want to see a huge resort hotel that surely would pop up if it was privatized. There would be a demand for it but the majority of park goers would not support it. In a democracy you need to protect the rights of the majority opinions. The Government should privatize the parks or privatize most of them and they should be heavily involved and prevent the parks from making any radical decisions that may damage the experience of over 250 million park visitors.
Step 2 is convincing you to agree with the position of moving all control and property rights of all parks to the respective states in which they are contained. In the case of a park crossing state lines, an agreement between the affected states will be easily reached. My reason for this? There is no constitutional basis for the federal government to operate a national parks program or department. See Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and also Amendment 10 of the same. "Public" parks are clearly a state issue.
Only when the states have regained their valor by owning their own land again will I consent to government's malicious meddling in parks. A state-owned park is more easily controlled by citizens. It is easier for cautious, circumspect citizens to beat back and brush off bumbling, boring bureaucrats set on beadledom with their un-relenting, repulsive red-tape if all park affairs are limited to one fairly local government body.
As to your examples of privatized parks irreversibly marring the face of beautiful natural vistas, the first one was on an Indian reservation. Reservations should never have existed in the first place, but since I don't want to start another debate... Tribal governments are not known for their high IQ, I admit that, but I will also admit that a sky bridge is kind of a neat idea. And with around 277 miles of Grand Canyon, its position is unlikely to rob the masses of their park experience. If anything it will enhance it because now you can look directly down the canyon and gain new perspective and appreciation for the depth of this national landmark.
Your second argument about lights and railings in caverns is hollow (get it?). Without lights how are we supposed to appreciate the rock formations? Without a conservative application of safety railings how is the park going to avoid the liability of injury or death if someone slips and falls down some crevice and is eaten by Gollum? Your point is so empty it echoes!
I certainly appreciate your conjecture about private businesses itching to construct resort hotels on top of Old Faithful, but I think the free market is wiser than that. Knowing that a majority of park-goers seek a natural experience, corporations will undoubtedly deliver. And if it ever came to the point where the vast majority demand a flashy, luxurious, synthetic experience, there is always huge profits in the niche market. However, with the advent of virtual reality and its advances in the future, all those synthetic types will be walking through Yellowstone and Glacier national parks in the comfort of their air conditioned, baby-seal leather recliners. They won't be the ones actually visiting the parks, anyway.
In summary, your fear-mongering will not win you this debate. Your appeal to emotion is what starts wars and decimates civilizations. Are you prepared to let your feelings dictate your principles?
dan40000000 forfeited this round.
If you don't have the decency to reply to debates that you start then you should no longer taint these hallowed halls of debate.org! Clearly Pro is experiencing dread and fear as he/she has realized that their position holds little merit in the critical eyes of public scrutiny. I rest my case! Viva Free Markets!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.