On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:45:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> >I think the government owning a National Park is
> >different from it being owned by "all the people",
> >and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
> merely leased to the US Gummint?

No, no.

He's thinking about a principle that came up recently on January 6th of
this year.

The U.S. Capitol building, and the property it stands on, are owned by
the U.S. Government.

Does that make every American, as a stockholder in the U.S. government,
able to just wander in there any time he feels like? After all, if it belongs
to America, that means it belongs to him too!

Now do you see the distinction?

After all, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, and the Central
Intelligence Agency, for example, could hardly do their work properly
if any American could just wander through their buildings at any hour
of the day or night.

Thus, the Government of the United States of America, even though it
_ultimately_ belongs to the people of the country, and is controlled by
them, still has an existence as a corporate person in its own right. It
can own property which it keeps to itself, not allowing the American
people to freely use that property directly.

John Savard

On 5/19/2021 7:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>>> right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>
>>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>>> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>>> means that we /all/ own it.
>> You're changing the topic.
>>
>> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>> to pay rent for the mountain.
>>
>> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>> thing.
>
> I think the government owning a National Park is
> different from it being owned by "all the people",
> and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
> Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
> Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
> from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
> use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.
>
Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
sure they handle them differently.) The National Park System juggles a
set of contradictory demands. Preservation, entertainment/relaxation,
education, research, etc. Access to with minimal disruption would be a
better simplistic description.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
>USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
>National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
>sure they handle them differently.)

Two semi-contradictory points:

The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.

Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:42:34 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
>organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
>including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
>because it is privately owned.

For some it isn't as well-developed as one might wish.

(Others do a fine job.)

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:647354dd-5c72-45de-9e88-fe4f1ce7ca59n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
>> has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
>
>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
>> owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
>> Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
>
> You're changing the topic.

Of course he is. He demonstrated how fucking *stupid* he is on the
old topic, and he's not man enough to admit it, so he has to dance
from topic to topic.

In short, he's a sniveling little weasel.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:pjfaagptvm19054la94qm3tbr97c2ii461@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:51:15 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:l7r7ag1olhpva5ihtrvme4eeun829mtgvd@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:d585ag1qhqu2ulbusrc3jf6ii442lvoij6@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan
>>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>>>>>>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>>>>>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>>>>>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>>>>>>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>>>>>>> That's what taxes are for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
>>>>>>> attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
>>>>>>> while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
>>>>>>> the mantra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and
>>>>>>> other special-purpose districts), which is financed by
>>>>>>> property taxes paid by the owners of the property being
>>>>>>> protected. This is distinguishable for "permits or
>>>>>>> insurance or whatever" only in that payment is required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in
>>>>>>> fact, user fees paid by everyone for the services
>>>>>>> rendered. --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
>>>>>>service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those,
>>>>>>as the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice attempt to evade reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.
>>>>
>>>>There is a qualitative difference between the services of a
>>>>fire department, which everybody needs and which everybody
>>>>benefits from even when someone else's house burns down, and a
>>>>permit fee to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational
>>>>activity, and which is paid only by participants. If you don't
>>>>climb a mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property
>>>>tax whether your house catches fire or not.
>>>
>>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
>>> has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>>
>>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
>>> owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that
>>> "National Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
>>>
>>> Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
>>> inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
>>> and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the
>>> piper calls the tune". There have already been efforts along
>>> that line regarding historically-significant cabins
>>> established, IIRC, for firespotters.
>>>
>>> National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
>>> /everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
>>> /everyone/.
>>>
>>> This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
>>> Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
>>>
>>> <snippo bot-like nonsense>
>>
>>Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
>>difference between a usage fee and a tax.
>
> That is because there is /no/ difference between a "usage fee"
> (whatever that is; the term I am familiar with is "user fee")
> and a tax.

Only in your idiotic fantasy land. I've already explained why there
is, but you're too stupid to understand it.
>
> Can't be relevant to something that doesn't exist.

And you're a retard.
>
>>As expected.
>
> Well, of course: it is not possible to be relevant to a
> difference that does not exist.

I'm sure you'll keep chanting that to yourself, but it will never
be true outside what passes for your mind.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 17:45:25 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>
> >> > If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
> >> > right to charge for the right to climb it.
> >>
> >> > But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
> >> > such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
> >> > means that we /all/ own it.
> >> You're changing the topic.
> >>
> >> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
> >> to pay rent for the mountain.
> >>
> >> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
> >> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
> >> thing.
> >
> >I think the government owning a National Park is
> >different from it being owned by "all the people",
> >and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>
> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
> merely leased to the US Gummint?

I actually do not know. Does the government own
everything there - and which government? Or do
they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
hotels? The McDonalds?

> >Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
> >Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
> >from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
> >use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.
>
> You mean, of course, only by those with enough money
> to pay the fee.
>
> Hoi polloi need not apply.

And there's the cost of travelling. But it needn't
be prohibitive. You won't tell me that Mt Rushmore
was built to attract the elite, will you?

On 5/19/2021 10:41 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
>> USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
>> National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
>> sure they handle them differently.)
>
> Two semi-contradictory points:
>
> The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
> the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.
>
Hey! I did say "based on". Some are just more "based on" than others. :)

> Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
> are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.
>
Nitpicker! :-P We could also get into "Not all national parks are
actually national _parks_. Monuments, seashores, forests, etc. And I
did say the Parks _System_.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On 5/19/2021 12:12 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 17:45:25 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>>>>> right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>>>
>>>>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>>>>> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>>>>> means that we /all/ own it.
>>>> You're changing the topic.
>>>>
>>>> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>>>> to pay rent for the mountain.
>>>>
>>>> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>>>> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> I think the government owning a National Park is
>>> different from it being owned by "all the people",
>>> and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>>
>> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
>> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
>> merely leased to the US Gummint?
>
> I actually do not know. Does the government own
> everything there - and which government? Or do
> they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
> hotels? The McDonalds?
>
They are Federal Government land. The US Federal government owns land.
It was either donated to or bought by the Federal government. The
various amenities such as lodging and dining are run by contractors who
go thru Federal bidding procedures.

>>> Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
>>> Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
>> >from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
>>> use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.
>>
>> You mean, of course, only by those with enough money
>> to pay the fee.
>>
>> Hoi polloi need not apply.
>
> And there's the cost of travelling. But it needn't
> be prohibitive. You won't tell me that Mt Rushmore
> was built to attract the elite, will you?
>

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On 5/16/2021 11:45 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> So we should only rescue people when their
>> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>
>> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>
> Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>
> But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
> for permits or insurance or whatever.
>

I would agree with that, thrill seeking should
be a solo sport, not a burden to society.

> John Savard
>

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:42:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> And the rescue service is simply part-and-parcel of property
> management. As any company whose owners ended up in prison because
> they didn't keep the fire doors clear has learned to its cost.

> I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
> organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
> including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
> because it is privately owned.

Of course, the idea that owning a mountain makes you responsible for the
people who try to climb it...

because it isn't as if you _built_ that mountain

rests on the "attractive nuisance" principle.

If the cost of rescuing the odd person who gets lost in the wilderness is not
an undue burden on the taxpayer, that's one thing. If it _is_, one can always put
fences around the mountains...

John Savard

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:15:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/19/2021 10:41 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
>>> USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
>>> National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
>>> sure they handle them differently.)
>>
>> Two semi-contradictory points:
>>
>> The Croatian national park system (which is amazing) is so much like
>> the U.S. system it was weirdly familiar, almost uncomfortably so.
>>
>Hey! I did say "based on". Some are just more "based on" than others. :)
>
>> Not all U.S. national parks operate the same way. Oh, some features
>> are pretty much universal, but others are unique to a particular park.
>>
>Nitpicker! :-P We could also get into "Not all national parks are
>actually national _parks_. Monuments, seashores, forests, etc. And I
>did say the Parks _System_.

Just an aside but if you have a taste for murder mysteries and want a
gentle introduction to the National Parks, you might find Nevada Barr
of interest. When she started writing she was working as a park
ranger and she wrote what she knew so her detective is a law
enforcement ranger with the US National Park Service. She places ever
novel in a different park.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:45:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> >I think the government owning a National Park is
>> >different from it being owned by "all the people",
>> >and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>
>> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
>> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
>> merely leased to the US Gummint?
>
>No, no.
>
>He's thinking about a principle that came up recently on January 6th of
>this year.
>
>The U.S. Capitol building, and the property it stands on, are owned by
>the U.S. Government.

Nice diversion.

He clearly said he doesn't know whether "either statement" is true.

And one of those is "the government owns the National Parks".

But just keep diverting the flow ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 12:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 17:45:25 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>> >> > right to charge for the right to climb it.
>> >>
>> >> > But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>> >> > such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>> >> > means that we /all/ own it.
>> >> You're changing the topic.
>> >>
>> >> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>> >> to pay rent for the mountain.
>> >>
>> >> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>> >> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>> >> thing.
>> >
>> >I think the government owning a National Park is
>> >different from it being owned by "all the people",
>> >and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>>
>> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
>> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
>> merely leased to the US Gummint?
>
>I actually do not know. Does the government own
>everything there - and which government? Or do
>they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
>hotels? The McDonalds?
>
>> >Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
>> >Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
>> >from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
>> >use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.
>>
>> You mean, of course, only by those with enough money
>> to pay the fee.
>>
>> Hoi polloi need not apply.
>
> And there's the cost of travelling. But it needn't
>be prohibitive. You won't tell me that Mt Rushmore
>was built to attract the elite, will you?

There are those who are radical enough to believe that only people who
can cough up enough money for a "user fee" should be allowed to see it
up close. They support user fees and insist that they are not taxes.

And what it was built for and what it is used for are two different
things.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:19:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/19/2021 12:12 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 17:45:25 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>>>>>> right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>>>>>> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>>>>>> means that we /all/ own it.
>>>>> You're changing the topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>>>>> to pay rent for the mountain.
>>>>>
>>>>> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>>>>> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> I think the government owning a National Park is
>>>> different from it being owned by "all the people",
>>>> and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>>>
>>> You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
>>> Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
>>> merely leased to the US Gummint?
>>
>> I actually do not know. Does the government own
>> everything there - and which government? Or do
>> they only regulate what is there? Who owns the
>> hotels? The McDonalds?
>>
>They are Federal Government land. The US Federal government owns land.
> It was either donated to or bought by the Federal government. The
>various amenities such as lodging and dining are run by contractors who
>go thru Federal bidding procedures.

Precisely.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:56:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/19/2021 7:12 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>>>> right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>>
>>>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>>>> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>>>> means that we /all/ own it.
>>> You're changing the topic.
>>>
>>> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>>> to pay rent for the mountain.
>>>
>>> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>>> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>>> thing.
>>
>> I think the government owning a National Park is
>> different from it being owned by "all the people",
>> and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
>> Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
>> Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
>> from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
>> use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.
>>
>Your simplistic description is fundamentally wrong in regards to the
>USA. Admiring is a usage. (Other nations have created their own
>National Parks or equivalents based on the American Parks System but I'm
>sure they handle them differently.) The National Park System juggles a
>set of contradictory demands. Preservation, entertainment/relaxation,
>education, research, etc. Access to with minimal disruption would be a
>better simplistic description.

Yes, they have many "stakeholders" to consider and consult.

And being funded by the general tax system, as part of the government,
instead of by taxes on very small groups described as "user fees" to
conceal their nature, is one way to ensure that all of those
stakeholders are, in fact, listened to.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 10:43:27 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:42:34 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
>>organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
>>including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
>>because it is privately owned.
>
>For some it isn't as well-developed as one might wish.
>
>(Others do a fine job.)

American capitalism at work!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:15:55 -0400, Jonathan <LSA@UMich.edu> wrote:

>On 5/16/2021 11:45 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> So we should only rescue people when their
>>> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>>
>>> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>
>> Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>
>> But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>> for permits or insurance or whatever.
>
>I would agree with that, thrill seeking should
>be a solo sport, not a burden to society.

Like someone who goes out into the Everglades to view the stars?

If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Should you be required to get a permit? Or pay a user fee? Or have
insurance?

People do stuff. Some of it doesn't make sense to other people. This
is normal, and nothing to worry about. Calling them names doesn't
help.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person wrote:

>If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
>crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?

Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
other hand, are much more dangerous.

Brian

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:16:01 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
> Paul S Person wrote:
>
> >If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
> >crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?
> Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
> population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
> other hand, are much more dangerous.
>

Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
the American croc.

[quote]

Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
as far north as the Tampa Bay area.

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile

A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
of them, I can't say.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html

If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
you hear otherwise.

BTW, when something is "owned by the people," it isn't necessarily
"government property," though pols and bureaucrats can make it
seem that way. Many resources are held as a commons, which may
be well managed, or the infamous "Tragedy of the Commons." Access
to use the resource or take part of it can be handled in various ways:
auctions, quotas, lotteries, customary law, and even "museum fees
are waived on Sundays." Some of the New England town greens used
to be the commons, where colonists would let their cattle graze. The
New Haven Green is overseen by these folks:

https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }

In an alternate universe, the parkland managed by the US government
might have been assigned to a private foundation or membership group.

There are these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy

....who took the same name as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Conservancy_(UK)

Go back far enough and only the Aristos got to make full use of
them.

Issues of land tenancy show up in Stirling's Emberverse novels,
with "lords of the manor" in the Portland part of the Montival
kingdom set-up by SCA enthusiasts.

--
Kevin R

In article <20039401-ef50-468e-88cf-ccbf544d75f3n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:16:01 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> >If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
>> >crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?
>> Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
>> population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
>> other hand, are much more dangerous.
>>
>
>Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
>the American croc.
>
>[quote]
>
>Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is generally
>limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two have been found
>as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
>
>[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
>
>A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
>as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
>of them, I can't say.
>
>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
>
>If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
>think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
>you hear otherwise.
>
>BTW, when something is "owned by the people," it isn't necessarily
>"government property," though pols and bureaucrats can make it
>seem that way. Many resources are held as a commons, which may
>be well managed, or the infamous "Tragedy of the Commons." Access
>to use the resource or take part of it can be handled in various ways:
>auctions, quotas, lotteries, customary law, and even "museum fees
>are waived on Sundays." Some of the New England town greens used
>to be the commons, where colonists would let their cattle graze. The
>New Haven Green is overseen by these folks:
>
>https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }
>

Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project about
such a preservation society..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 11:17:08 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <20039401-ef50-468e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > The New Haven Green is overseen by these folks:
> >
> >https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }
> >
> Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project
> about such a preservation society..
> --

...with accompanying Picture Book? :)

--
Kevin R

In article <793ec9cd-1797-41f0-bc1d-d2dda522835fn@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 11:17:08 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <20039401-ef50-468e...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> > The New Haven Green is overseen by these folks:
>> >
>> >https://tinyurl.com/NHG-Proprietors {which is
>> >
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Green#The_Committee_of_the_Proprietors_of_Common_and_Undivided_Lands_at_New_Haven }
>> >
>> Sounds interesting! Perhaps someone could record a musical project
>> about such a preservation society..
>> --
>
>..with accompanying Picture Book? :)
>

You really got me!
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Kevrob wrote:

>On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:16:01 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> >If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
>> >crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?
>> Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
>> population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on
>>the other hand, are much more dangerous.
>>
>
>Go too far north in Florida and the winters are too cold for
>the American croc.
>
>[quote]
>
>Within the United States, the American crocodile's distribution is
>generally limited to the southern tip of Florida, though at least two
>have been found as far north as the Tampa Bay area.
>
>[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
>
>A few Nile crocs have been introduced, whether on purpose or
>as a result of zoos, or people with illegal exotic pets losing track
>of them, I can't say.
>
>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article78680152.html
>
>If a saurian chomps anyone in the `Glades, on the "sound of hooves,
>think horses, not zebras" principle, assume it was a gator until
>you hear otherwise.

I found one news report of an attack (no fatalities) from a couple that
went swimming in an inlet or something with a high "am croc" population.

Brian

On Fri, 21 May 2021 00:15:57 -0000 (UTC), "Default User"
<defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person wrote:
>
>>If you get eaten by a crocodile, should anything be done to the
>>crocodile? Or are you just another "thrill-seeker"?
>
>Crocodile attacks are exceendingly rare in the US due to the low
>population of the species and its reclusive nature. Alligators, on the
>other hand, are much more dangerous.

Thanks for correcting my incorrect choice of large reptilian
flesh-eaters. I will try to keep this in mind in the future.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."