Here is a very good example of the libertarian principle that if there are not enough people to support something in the market, yet people are forced to support it, then the "something" they've been forced to support should not exist in its present state. Not only have the liberties of the taxpayers been dampened, but their economic well-being has been hurt. It also allows us to reflect on the fact that as times change, people's interests change. Call it ignorance, call it what you will, but over centuries, over decades, over years, sometimes people place less importance on things their ancestors valued greatly. Sometimes they place MORE value on something.

So, for example, a t-shirt worn by Johnny Rotten at the 100 club in London, during the break-out period of UK punk might not have seemed valuable that night, or that year, but today, a collector will spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of Pounds on it. Upon reflection, the importance of the Pistols and the changes punk wrought are much more significant than what they might have seemed at the time.

In some cases, the item, or place, might not increase in value to the people. Hence a legendary rock club in Boston's Kenmore Square, where the Cars, Human Sexual Response, Pixies, XTC, Zulus, Mission of Burma, and many others have played, is now part of a series of shops and restaurants, because the people who had free use of their money saw greater value in those things at that location than punk rock. Should the owner of the property have been bailed out, or the buyers prevented from buying the land to turn it into clothing stores? And if they were, should the consumers who would then be forced to pay for the club as an historical site, be forced to pay for something the use of which they had ALREADY decided was not valuable enough to them to support of their own free will?

In the case of this story, and the Wilderness Battlefield, in VA, it is important to remember that as time passes, people's interests change, and no one has the right to force people to have to "care" about what that person believes is important. No one has a position of omniscience and infinite wisdom to conceitedly tell another that his ignorance of history and sacrifice must be changed BY FORCE.

What one needs to do is compete. Compete in the marketplace for the hearts and minds of the consumer, and to make certain that he attracts and educates enough willing participants that he can ask them to pay to support the care of that property, privately. And besides, forcing people to "care through paying taxes' doesn't mean anyone but those in charge of government care. Only through private, individual and free initiative does one show he cares about anything.

Here is the tale. Oh, and that soft-spoken, ultra-sensitive socialist Ken Burns is mentioned, too. Great!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090102/D95F79I00.html