PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie) (02/12/90)
> Your comments about government-owned land seem to assume that the > government doesn't "exploit" the land, private individuals do, and > also that "exploiting" the land is somehow bad. Yep. Actually, it only assumes that the government won't exploit land to the same extent that private industry does. But surely this is true. The Fed. preserves it's national forests, doesn't cut them. If the Grand Canyon were not on federal land, it would be full of condos and hotels by now. > You may be able to make an argument that there is a large spillover > benefit to keeping lots of trees growing (for the sake of the > atmosphere) but that has little to do with whether the government > owns it or not.... Could be I'm missing your point. But, do you think it is just a coincidence that the standing forests in the U.S. are on public land???? I don't really understand the point about government power. Does the government really get a lot of extra, dangerous power by holding national forests? The only power I can see is the power to preserve that land, and the government is the party most likely to do that. Jamie