Skip to main content

National Parks or National Liability?

The Mercury News has reported that the fees to enter Yosemite National Park could jump to $70 per car, up from $30, under a proposal by the Trump administration.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke claims that the uptick in prices comes as "the infrastructure of our national parks is aging." Zinke continues, "Targeted fee increases at some of our most-visited parks will help ensure that they are protected and preserved in perpetuity and that visitors enjoy a world-class experience that mirrors the amazing destinations they are visiting."



Ironically enough, these provisions and others are already funded through the National Park Service's annual $3-billion budget, whose principal objective is outlined as follows in the National Park Service FY 2018 Budget Justifications General Statement: 

"As the keeper of 417 park units, 23 national scenic and national historic trails, and 60 wild and scenic rivers, the NPS is charged with preserving these lands and historic features that were designated by the nation for their cultural and historic significance, scenic and environmental worth, and educational and recreational opportunities. Additionally, the NPS further helps the nation protect resources for public enjoyment that are not part of the National Park System through its financial and technical assistance programs."

Their FY 2018 budget justifications document also reports a $12,000 year-over-year decline in Yosemite National Park's operations and maintenance costs. 

So while the Interior Secretary attempts to characterize the price increase as something more than a money grab, the devilish details interfere with the narrative.


National Parks or National Liability?


While many adventurers are livid about the hike in admittance fees, others specifically charge government with the responsibility of funding everything parks-related.

Of course, the United States government already allots more than $3 billion annually to the National Park Service for the purposes of park protection and preservation, while still further supplemental sums are extended to the parks through state conservation grants.

And while the average taxpayer simply assumes that protection and preservation imply efforts of the mightiest importance, the National Park Service merely continues to spend frivolously on projects as trivial as the replacement of a dirt path with a concrete walkway. If only the prices of these projects were as trifling. 

So government clearly has a problem spending money effectively, and yet some of its constituents believe that the government ought to simply fund the parks outright and eliminate entrance fees to the public.

Now, this argument is failed from the start.

People tend to myopically assume that government can magically pay the cost to render services, or even goods, free to the public. 

In the case of national parks, voters often lament the climbing entrance fees, urging the nebulous abstraction of government to shoulder the burden in order to somehow relieve the public of this cost, as if through magic. 

Of course, the government has no capital of its own; it has only that which it takes from private producers and employees. So the public can pay on either the basis of use or the assumption of responsibility. 

Of course, the latter being involuntary necessarily qualifies as a form of slavery, so be sure to reconcile that before rushing to judgment. 

What's more, an assumed responsibility yields disproportionate advantages to proximate travelers and those with an appetite or capacity for travel, while those who are remote, uninterested or incapacitated are systematically enslaved for the specific benefit of a select fraction of the population. 

This is hardly consistent with the unequivocal Constitutional precept of general welfare, which justifies initiatives that inclusively and proportionately promote the interests of all citizens of the United States. 

So clearly there are both ethical and Constitutional supports against the tide which favors comprehensive federal funding for all national parks, but what about the economic case? 

Well, in the case of identifying the appropriate price for any good or service, it is absolutely essential to first determine the value of said product, and this can be accomplished only through the voluntary probing of the market, whereby individual actors cooperate voluntarily to reach an agreeable price for a given exchange. 

Only through this mechanism can we purely appraise the market value of given property and the labor which maintains it; otherwise, the entire system collapses into shoddy guesswork and prices which prioritize specific and inauditable political interests over those whom the parks purport to serve. 

The 134-percent entrance fee hike also begs the question, what exactly are these funds expected to accomplish? 

If merely an identical maintenance schedule or itinerary of typical talking points, the increase seems to achieve nothing more than lining the pockets of workers who will eventually discover another way to do less with still more, and so on and so on. 

Perhaps these national parks ought to be returned to the people, away from the opportunists who exploit their adherents in the name of civility and propriety. 

Perhaps these national treasures might then attract the treatment they very well deserve, and then and only then might freedom be restored in the nation which markets it so well before delivering a radically inferior and disappointing knock-off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…