I liked your discussion of decentralization of Public Lands, but I think there's one factor that was not given sufficient attention.
The co-op idea has much merit, but a subset or close relative of that could have major implications for national parks and related areas (national monuments, state parks, etc). That is the idea of a Trust for each such facility. (This is not original with me.)
As with any co-op, it could be organized to be perpetual. But the nature of a trust is that it has a mission, that it serves a particular and identifiable purpose, and any deviation from that mission would be grounds for revisiting the structure or the people managing the trust. The trust would be completely transparent, and thus publicly accessible, while those serving to manage the trust (the trustees) would have their qualifications and interests (and therefore possible conflicts of interest) similarly open and questionable. Perhaps each such trust would be governed by a Board whose only purpose would be to ride herd on the trustees and hold their feet to the fire.
Because there is such a wide variety of National (and state?) parks, the purposes of the trust and the variety of modes available for their operation would be extensive.
For example, Rocky Mountain park is very small and is bordered by semi-private and fully-private lands, and those admit of conflicts between what happens in the park and what happens outside. Managing that border requires intimate knowledge of the circumstances. Crater Lake is smaller, and its mission is much more constrained, because it is a park for one reason and one reason only: the spectacle of the deep and deep blue lake somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. And because Crater Lake is elevated, its interactions with nearby lands is much less a factor than with Rocky Mountain Park. Humans are by far the animal that most visit it and impose risks on its mission.
Different still would be Grand Canyon. It is large, but it also encompasses some indigenous territory, and that would have to be factored in its mission, and therefore the management of the trust.
A book could be written addressing the nature of the Trust that would be appropriate for each National Park, Monument, state park, etc. The above shallow survey could, however, reveal just how powerful the Trust format could be to satisfying the public's requirement regarding National (and most state) parks: that they remain largely inviolate, that they remain accessible, and they remain transparently in control of those who most value them, while also allowing each such facility to pursue what is determined to be in the best interests of that facility and its mission without regard for competing requirements of any other such facility elsewhere. No more fighting for pieces of the National Park pie. Each Park would have its own budget, to match its own mission.
What do you think needs to happen for this system of decentralization to occur? I am concerned if the dollar collapses, due to debt spending and unfunded liabilities, that people will look for more government agency not less. How do we present this idea in a manner that people can be confident will end well?
Yes, I think a currency crisis, along with the political divide, will force decentralization, at least to the state level. People may want more government to fix the problems the government created, but without beings able to share our inflation with the rest of the planet, we'll be broke and forced to shrink the government. Also, with a currency crisis the US standard of living will plummet. Let's hope people wake up. There will be a lot of short term pain, so economic education for free markets as the best and fasts recovery, but of course the government that created the dollar collapse will blame corporations. Another risk is a "strong man" comes along promising to fix the mess. That's how we end up full authoritarian. There is that risk, let's hope we aren't that stupid.
A country full of people who are all looking for one "strong man" leader to come in and fix it all? When everybody wants the government to do something but nobody can agree on what needs to be done? Wow this sounds like untrammeled territory... unless you can think of any examples when this type of authoritarianism has occurred before... in the last 100 years... when everything went to hell ;)
Todd --
I liked your discussion of decentralization of Public Lands, but I think there's one factor that was not given sufficient attention.
The co-op idea has much merit, but a subset or close relative of that could have major implications for national parks and related areas (national monuments, state parks, etc). That is the idea of a Trust for each such facility. (This is not original with me.)
As with any co-op, it could be organized to be perpetual. But the nature of a trust is that it has a mission, that it serves a particular and identifiable purpose, and any deviation from that mission would be grounds for revisiting the structure or the people managing the trust. The trust would be completely transparent, and thus publicly accessible, while those serving to manage the trust (the trustees) would have their qualifications and interests (and therefore possible conflicts of interest) similarly open and questionable. Perhaps each such trust would be governed by a Board whose only purpose would be to ride herd on the trustees and hold their feet to the fire.
Because there is such a wide variety of National (and state?) parks, the purposes of the trust and the variety of modes available for their operation would be extensive.
For example, Rocky Mountain park is very small and is bordered by semi-private and fully-private lands, and those admit of conflicts between what happens in the park and what happens outside. Managing that border requires intimate knowledge of the circumstances. Crater Lake is smaller, and its mission is much more constrained, because it is a park for one reason and one reason only: the spectacle of the deep and deep blue lake somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. And because Crater Lake is elevated, its interactions with nearby lands is much less a factor than with Rocky Mountain Park. Humans are by far the animal that most visit it and impose risks on its mission.
Different still would be Grand Canyon. It is large, but it also encompasses some indigenous territory, and that would have to be factored in its mission, and therefore the management of the trust.
A book could be written addressing the nature of the Trust that would be appropriate for each National Park, Monument, state park, etc. The above shallow survey could, however, reveal just how powerful the Trust format could be to satisfying the public's requirement regarding National (and most state) parks: that they remain largely inviolate, that they remain accessible, and they remain transparently in control of those who most value them, while also allowing each such facility to pursue what is determined to be in the best interests of that facility and its mission without regard for competing requirements of any other such facility elsewhere. No more fighting for pieces of the National Park pie. Each Park would have its own budget, to match its own mission.
Dan Karlan
What do you think needs to happen for this system of decentralization to occur? I am concerned if the dollar collapses, due to debt spending and unfunded liabilities, that people will look for more government agency not less. How do we present this idea in a manner that people can be confident will end well?
Yes, I think a currency crisis, along with the political divide, will force decentralization, at least to the state level. People may want more government to fix the problems the government created, but without beings able to share our inflation with the rest of the planet, we'll be broke and forced to shrink the government. Also, with a currency crisis the US standard of living will plummet. Let's hope people wake up. There will be a lot of short term pain, so economic education for free markets as the best and fasts recovery, but of course the government that created the dollar collapse will blame corporations. Another risk is a "strong man" comes along promising to fix the mess. That's how we end up full authoritarian. There is that risk, let's hope we aren't that stupid.
A country full of people who are all looking for one "strong man" leader to come in and fix it all? When everybody wants the government to do something but nobody can agree on what needs to be done? Wow this sounds like untrammeled territory... unless you can think of any examples when this type of authoritarianism has occurred before... in the last 100 years... when everything went to hell ;)