Here I and my co-author discuss not the goal of preservation but the means. After all, it was the forces of the Venetian state (with some help from the Ottoman government) that blasted the roof off of the Parthenon after it had been held aloft for over two millennia. It was the army of the Roman Republic that razed the venerable cities of Carthage and Thebes. It was as a result of state actions that the great library of Alexandria is lost to us. World War I and II obliterated valuable relics of Europe’s past and its cultural gems at a rate previously unimaginable. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6258/can-we-trust-the-state-with-preservation/
Can We Trust the State with Preservation?
Previous post: Woods: First Place Templeton Book Award
Next post: Why Does Capitalism Need To Be Defended?
{ 14 comments }
I think I follow the argument and I certainly agree with the idea of allowing the renovation to the building to go ahead. I still have trouble when it comes to parks and farmland. It seems obvious to me that if Central Park in New York City was on the market, no other use would bring the financial return of developing it and paving it over. I don’t know that I would be much interested in visiting Yellowstone National Park if it was open to development. Is this the price we pay for liberty?
“It seems obvious to me that if Central Park in New York City was on the market, no other use would bring the financial return of developing it and paving it over. I don’t know that I would be much interested in visiting Yellowstone National Park if it was open to development. Is this the price we pay for liberty?”
Not at all. You just have to conceptualize the market as something on a much greater scale than the single lot. New York City, as landlord, can earn an income from providing Central Park as a recreational space. It competes with New Jersey and Long Island in the market for urban land. As landlord it can regulate the architectural character of new constructions in such a way that they embellish their neighborhood instead of disrupting them, and as landlord it can calculate the costs and benefits of placing these restrictions.
The problem is that the New York City landlord is a communist, off-market institution, incapable of economizing. The same is true for London. That is why there is a shortage. Prior to the 19th century, landlords owned whole cities and villages, and they produced the cities with the “historical” character that they are prized for today.
Msrs. Callahan and Blumfeld,
An excellent article but an apparent typo jumps out at me:
"The urge to protect cherished monuments from the past or particularly scenic rural landscapes is without merit. However, the flaw in attempts to do so through legislation is that the political process cannot properly balance the value of such preservation with the cost of foregoing other possible uses for the land in question."
Presumably the first sentence of this passage was meant to read “…not without merit.”
Pellinore
There are at least quasi-libertarian ways of dealing with the National Parks. For example, Yellowstone National Park, could, and should, be sold in fee simple to a private owner. However, I would insert certain, perpetual caveats in the deed. No development. Period. Permanant easement for research science in the park. The private owners could of course maintain the current infrastructure. The park would likely be more efficiently run under private ownership, and a private owner would have every incentive to protect the wonders of the park from damage, namely the drawing power of those wonders, which would feed the owners bottom line.
The harder question is how to deal with parks that don’t generate revenue. I don’t have all the answers on how to solve that problem, I imagine their are entrepreneurs who could solve that problem without destroying the park in the process.
As a frequent visitor to National Parks, I have a personal interest in seeing these parks well run and preserved, which could be better accomplished under private ownership.
Has anyone else noticed the growth of “historic sites” over the last dozen years or so? Under government, it appear to be rational to save any and all sites with even a modicum of historic value. Typically, the site is of interest to a chosen few. And, the site is a give-back from elected official to his constituency. Under the free market, there will be many less sites, but does Ohio really need a National Road Museum to commemorate US Route 40? I have never seen a visitor there, yet tax dollars keep it open year after year. Items similar to those contained within the museum are available to view or purchase at flea markets and antique shops throughout the state, being preserved for future generations under the watchful eye of the property owner.
As far as land, the state has not done a good job preserving the land as smog and noise have harmed the aesthetics of The Grand Canyon and Yellow Stone.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of small parks being run by capitalists. Steve Irwin used to run such a park.
As for parks in cities, the city councils keep them open to attract business- a city with no green parks would be bad for city morale, and that would affect everyone.
A New York where Central Park was simply another suburb would be a drabber city- or would it? Would there be smaller private tea gardens run by capitalists as a replacement? Would there be more emphasis on colourful flowers as a result?
An alternative-history novelist might want to look into that.
For example, Yellowstone National Park, could, and should, be sold in fee simple to a private owner.
Sold by whom?
Peter:
Presumably by its defacto owner, the Federal Government. Not that they should have ever owned the park, or anything else for that matter, but they are the defacto owner, like it or not.
Of course, this brings up another issue, that being the particular case of Shenendoah National Park, which was stolen from private ownership in a particularly brutal manner by the state of Virginia. In this case, proceeds from the sale of the park should be renumerated to those original alienated owners. Shenendoah is kind of a unique case.
This piece reminded me of a couple articles from Adam Young regarding State-managed preservation.
The first is: “In Defense of Tomb-Robbing”
The second discusses the highly-regulated organ donation market: “Organ Donations: Socialism or Laissez-Faire?”
And the land destruction cited in the piece reminded me of an older piece by Thomas DiLorenzo: “Why Socialism Causes Pollution“
I live in Australia, so the details of the Shenendoah example are lost on me, and any other non-American, Could you give us the highlights? I’ve already gathered that it is another example of innocent non-politicians being thugged by the state, but in what way?
I think Lew Rockwell or another contributor posted a blog entry some time ago in regards to the Shenendoah situation.
Essentially, what happened was the landowners, mostly poor farmers, were forcibly bought out by the state of Virginia. In some cases, their dwellings were burned by the State to force them out. The land was then given to the Federal Government to form the Shenendoah National Park. That is the bare essentials.
You can read the whole article here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier2.html
> Presumably by its defacto owner, the Federal
> Government. Not that they should have ever
> owned the park, or anything else for that
> matter, but they are the defacto owner, like it > or not.
The Soviet Union government was the ‘defacto owner’ of most of the Eurasian continent until it collapsed. But thankfully that odious collective entity is dead and buried.
The United States government has no right to ‘sell’ Yellowstone National Park, or indeed most of the western North American continent, which it has claimed by fiat since the nineteenth century.
I know Thomas Jefferson ‘bought’ Louisiana from the French (though by what ‘right’ the French owned all this land unseen by any Frenchman in the first place is beyond me), but even if you grant that Jefferson bought Louisiana legitimately, that gave no ‘right’ to the United States government to commandeer all this Western North American Land. And to say nothing all of those Native Americans who were slaughtered by the United States government to make this ‘ownership’ possible.
As Yellowstone Park is mostly left as nature intended, I see no reason why anyone in the world shouldn’t just occupy this land and make it their own and ‘mix’ their labour with it to claim ownership. And to hell with ‘defacto’ ownership. Aside, of course, that they’ll probably have to worry about all the
ose guns pointed in their direction by the entrenched US Mafia, sorry, government, claiming its ‘ownership rights’.
The price of liberty is freedom and private property. If you don’t want to pay, keep paying taxes to the collective.
To clarify, I am limiting my comments to those Federal and State lands currently used as parks and wilderness areas. I will omit lands that are held by the government as forests or simply as land that is being kept idle. Those last mentioned lands should be released and opened to settlement and use, under the land+labor formula of Rothbard.
I will come right out and say that I won’t accept any solution that doesn’t guarantee that these parks and wilderness will be kept in there current uses and kept pristine. I shudder to think what might happen to Yellowstone if development was turned loose in the park.
In any event, there are millions upon millions of acres of vacant land, available for ownership and development, there is absolutely no scarcity of land that could even conceive requiring us to broach the parks and wildernesses. If you want a mountain view home or a home with scenery, literally endless opportunities abound.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, good quasi-libertarian solutions exist, namely selling the property to the highest bidder or bidders, with covenents to ensure the parks and wildernesses are kept as is.
I will readily admit that this is not the “purist” approach. I don’t think the purist approach is necessary or even desirable in this instance.
As for the rest of Federal property, other than parks and wildernesses, I would wholeheartedly endorse the purist approach, to wit, Rothbardian land+labor approach.
You should never give up hope. If all else fails, you and me can move to Hutt River Principality. This is an independent piece of land, a microstate, in Western Australia, about 600km (400miles) north of Perth. Prince Leopold broke away from the state when they tried to dictate the size of his acerage, and how much he could sell. He found a legal loophole, and seceded. That was over 35 years ago, but he is still alive, and he has a website. Just search for Hutt River Principality home page, and you can read all about it.
Of course, he does claim to be a prince, but his success can inspire all of us. He claims to have not paid taxes in all that time. i don’t know what he trades, or to whom, but he makes enough to keep going.
Comments on this entry are closed.