While I trust the libertarian philosophy of privatize most everything, sometimes I worry about certian externalities which the market fails to account for. Nature reserves are a perfect example. We discussed the role of the Federal Government as a protector of the National Parks (like Yosemite and Tahoe and Toyabe).
This article would lead us to believe that private investors can protect land:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ted-turners-land-purchases-questioned/20071129084809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
The Food and Agriculture Organization has an interesting breakdown of arguments for and against federal funding for National Forests:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6821E/X6821E05.htm
This doesn't settle it for me though. I think as a rule we should leave the National Forest Department in tact. There are much more important things that need to have their funding cut. National Forests should have their funding cut after we have developed a more complex understanding of market externalities in regards to the environment.
However, I am still pondering the subject. If you have a more informed opinion feel free to be irate and verbally abuse me.
Peace,
-Ian
This article would lead us to believe that private investors can protect land:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ted-turners-land-purchases-questioned/20071129084809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
The Food and Agriculture Organization has an interesting breakdown of arguments for and against federal funding for National Forests:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6821E/X6821E05.htm
This doesn't settle it for me though. I think as a rule we should leave the National Forest Department in tact. There are much more important things that need to have their funding cut. National Forests should have their funding cut after we have developed a more complex understanding of market externalities in regards to the environment.
However, I am still pondering the subject. If you have a more informed opinion feel free to be irate and verbally abuse me.
Peace,
-Ian
