Here's a piece to start the thought-investigation: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/rangers-arrest-21-venturi...

You'll see that the Grand Canyon federal Park Rangers have arrested 21 people for venturing onto lands that their own taxes have paid to supposedly keep the place going.

Many folks are appropriately upset by the gestapo tactics (one tourist group was held by police at gunpoint in a hotel near a fed park so they couldn't "view" the park or walk into it). They correctly cry foul at how the government takes their money, then supposedly shuts down, even while continuing to fund troops overseas, drones, nuclear subs, and all kinds of "feel-good" programs like Michele Obama's "Nutrition" website. But there's another aspect of this, one that can lead us to see the difference between how private property works (more responsively, based on consumer and owner desires) and how gubment operates (few choices, less responsiveness, heavy-handed tactics because the gubment troops, ploice, bureaucrats will end up getting your money later, whether you want to pay or not.)

Let's take the side of the Rangers for a moment. They might say that they are there to make sure that people don't do dangerous things to the park. They might argue that there is a "skeleton staff" (though reports indicate that the policing presences at national parks have actually INCREASED as a result of government orders to try to keep people away). But let's assume that the Rangers and others offer a rationale that they are there to make sure people don't enter and do damage to the park or other people.

A dilemma arises here. People have already paid for the park. In fact, due to government debt, their progeny will be paying for the costs of the park as it's operating today. It doesn't pay for itself through visitor fees. It is paid for via taxation and debt instruments that will have to be repaid by people who never even had a say. So folks justifiably feel that they have a right to step onto land they already paid to manage. (By the way, many park visitors around the nation will tell you that it's volunteers who do the vast majority of trail upkeep and management.)

How can we square these two aspects of the situation? Short answer. They can't be squared. They are incompatible.

But in a private paradigm, things are different. When one owns private property, he has a common-law claim among others to open that property or close it based on his own desires. He is not forcing anyone to pay for it. HE has paid for it. He can regulate its being open or closed and can keep it up based on his desires. If he opens the property to tourists or for any activity, people willingly agree to enter under his conditions, and he willingly agrees to allow them access based on those same conditions. If they pay and he doesn't open or live up to his agreements, they can announce to the public that he has defrauded them. He can suffer market penalties like lost business, or even suffer losses for compensation if he had signed onto a popular private adjudication system. In fact, the fact that businesses have or have not signed on to private court systems would be one of the major factors influencing potential customers in their decisions about whether to enter. Like you consider the warranty for a computer, other businesses in a freer market would expand their assurances of customer satisfaction and dispute resolution.

If you hadn't paid to enter, or were entering based on something that was not in the owner's agreement, you could be removed. Policing would be based on consumer satisfaction, otherwise, people would go to other parks. The owner could handle potential threats to his property, and would have an incentie to keep it up based on what the consumers prefered.

Government cannot do this so well. It is essentially an on-off switch predicated on one thing: They own you and the property if they have enough votes.

When was the last time Disney World taxed you to keep going?

Be Seeing You!