• About
    • Links to Articles, Academic Papers and Books
  • Market Urbansim Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification

Should Government Own Wilderness?

June 22, 2008 By Adam Hengels

I found a link to a great article at FreeColorado.com. It doesn’t apply to urbanism specifically, but conceptually deals with privatization of publicly owned land.

Free Colorado – Should Government Own Wilderness?
The original article was from Grand Junction Free Press – Armstrong Column: Should the government own, manage wilderness?

here’s a few quotes I enjoyed:

Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people’s rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people’s resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want.

We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception.

Politically, of course, it’s usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there’s no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries.

It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We’re confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they’d be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transferred to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.

I agree. Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife. Since they have a vested interest, I trust them more than I do the government.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: privatization Tagged With: Environment, politics, privatization, Sierra Club, wilderness

About Adam Hengels

Adam is passionate about urbanism, and founded this site in 2007, after realizing that classical liberals and urbanists actually share many objectives, despite being at odds in many spheres of the intellectual discussion. His mission is to improve the urban experience, and overcome obstacles that prevent aspiring city dwellers from living where they want. http://www.marketurbanism.com/adam-hengels/

  • DBM

    “Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife.”

    -because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil….

  • DBM

    “Why not just give the land to the Sierra Club or other environmental groups, and let them take responsibility for protecting the wildlife.”

    -because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil….

  • MarketUrbanism

    because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil…

    Is the gov’t going to do the drilling? Or the oil companies who lobbied for it?

    Maybe it’s a way to safely allow drilling. Let’s say the Sierra Club owns some wildlife preserve, and determines that there are ways of drilling for oil on their land without harming wildlife or the environment. Environmentalists may be more comfortable with the Sierra club saying it’s OK, rather than Bush.
    So, the Sierra Club could charge oil companies to drill, while monitoring the drilling to meet their own standards. Then, the Sierra Club could use the revenues for their own worthy causes.

    I see it as a win-win-win for oil companies, environmentalists, and taxpayers.

    Then again, the Sierra Club may become hopelessly corrupt from their new wealth and drunk with power…

  • Market Urbanism

    because then the gov’t won’t be able to drill it later for oil…

    Is the gov’t going to do the drilling? Or the oil companies who lobbied for it?

    Maybe it’s a way to safely allow drilling. Let’s say the Sierra Club owns some wildlife preserve, and determines that there are ways of drilling for oil on their land without harming wildlife or the environment. Environmentalists may be more comfortable with the Sierra club saying it’s OK, rather than Bush.
    So, the Sierra Club could charge oil companies to drill, while monitoring the drilling to meet their own standards. Then, the Sierra Club could use the revenues for their own worthy causes.

    I see it as a win-win-win for oil companies, environmentalists, and taxpayers.

    Then again, the Sierra Club may become hopelessly corrupt from their new wealth and drunk with power…

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Mini review: Vanishing New York, by Jeremiah Moss
  • The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies
  • The Rent is Too High and the Commute is Too Long: We Need Market Urbanism
  • The Progressive Roots of Zoning
  • “Curb Rights” at 20: A Summary and Review
  • High Rents: Are Construction Costs the Culprit?
  • Cities Should Not Design for Autonomous Vehicles
  • Does Density Raise Housing Prices?
  • The “Geographically Constrained Cities” Fantasy
  • The Role for State Preemption of Local Zoning
  • Exempting Suburbia: How suburban sprawl gets special treatment in our tax code
  • old posts
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.