POLITICS AND NATURE

"Current environmental policies are based on antipathy for business, support for increasing government intervention and regulation, and a belief that the ecology and economy are conflicting systems." William C. Mitchell and Randy T. Simmons, Political Pursuit of Private Gain: Environmental Goods, In Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader, Edited by John S. Dryzek and David Schlosberg. 1998 Oxford Press.

This is an article about privatization. It's authors argue that privatization of all lands will benefit both the land and the people who reside upon it. They assert that all government is bad and inefficient and with private ownership, the land will be managed more cost effectively, and for the greater good, while generating profits and expanding private industry.

My question is, if this is true, what is the cost to the rest of society? The authors argue against taxes but for tax credits. One of the funny things that is missed at all times when this argument is made is that governing takes money. Credits are seen as a means to influence business but in a positive way while taxation is negative.

The problem I have is that government is not a business. The original intent of protecting our public lands is that they would be open to all people so that workers and productive citizens could rejuvenate their spirits out in the natural world...this would then make them more productive.

I wonder what our readers think about privatizing Yellowstone or Yosemite? It may seem like a mute argument but public lands are being sold off to private interests all over the country. To me, this seems short sighted and it appears to benefit private individuals accruing short term gain at the expense of the long term health of our overall society.

Please respond to this e-mail and let me know what you believe. I would love to post some privatization argumments as well as those in opposition to privatization. 

Thank You.