High Sierra Topix

Caddis,
I prefer government control over corporate control when it comes to wild lands. If you ever lived in an area where there are large private land holdings such as in western Washington or Texas you would feel different I suspect.

Private landowners will typically either close their land to entry or charge you your left gonad and spare change for the honor of hiking or hunting or fishing. And, if you happen to shoot an animal or catch fish, they charge you more than the going grocery store rate for the meat (I exaggerate here a bit but not much).

Our public lands are a national treasure; the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has extensive areas of open-entry public land. If we have to suffer a few rules to use them, I think it is a price worth paying. And, just because one doesn't agree with a particular policy does not mean that there is no good reason for it.

Finally, as I'm sure you already know, socialism and capitalism are simply economic systems, not systems for social control. At the extremes, socialism is public ownership of the means of production and distribution; capitalism is private ownership of everything.

What you are complaining about is authoritarianism versus libertarianism; differences in the way government controls, or doesn't control, its' citizens. It is quite possible to have a socialist-libertarian government instead of the capitalist-authoritarian government we presently have. I agree with you that we have seen major increases in authoritarian government in the U.S. in the past six years. Let's hope things will change soon.

Charles2 wrote:Caddis,
Our public lands are a national treasure; the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has extensive areas of open-entry public land. If we have to suffer a few rules to use them, I think it is a price worth paying. And, just because one doesn't agree with a particular policy does not mean that there is no good reason for it.

The point I was trying to make was that public lands are my lands and your lands. We simply allow the goverment to manage them...preferably for sustained use. What I take offense to is the government limiting my use of our lands, whether it's through unreasonable permit processes, non-sensible fire/stove restrictions, increased costs at every turn (fishing license, hunting license, entrance fee, permit fee,...), or burdensom rules and regulations (bear canisters)

I don't mind them making rules and enforcing them when someone violates them as long as those violators are causing damage to the land. I do mind when I am lectured every time I get a permit by a desk jocky who has never been on the trail, or when I feel like a law breaker because I don't carry out my used toilet paper. I do mind having to leave a zip stove behind because someone thinks I'll destroy the environment one twig at a time.

What you are complaining about is authoritarianism

All social systems evolve/devolve to authoritarianism...it's natural when you surrender your freedoms to a higher authority

Brookie, I understand that YOU knew...I was just clarifying for those reading that might not have known.

Finally, as I'm sure you already know, socialism and capitalism are simply economic systems, not systems for social control.

What is the best way to "socially" control people?

Hint: The answer is in your statement.

Caddis wrote:

I do mind when I am lectured every time I get a permit by a desk jocky who has never been on the trail, or when I feel like a law breaker because I don't carry out my used toilet paper.

Yeah, me too. Usually when I am getting "the lecture" I just stand there and grind my molars but sometimes I add an eye roll that I learned from my granddaughter

Mountaineer wrote

What is the best way to "socially" control people?

Hint: The answer is in your statement.

Coercion is the more traditional and best-tested approach. You know: warrantless wiretaps, permits, licenses, warrantless searches, national identification cards, required internal passports, no-knock home searches, that kind of thing. Countries in the middle East are generally good at this sort of social control regardless of their chosen or de-facto economic system, a lot of countries in South America and Africa are too. China also understands the concept and uses it really well. We in the USA are not there yet but we've caught up a lot in the past 7 years.

As much as I am fond of the freedom afforded me when I'm in the woods, it seems that many of the regs that are being complained about aren't really that offputting. If a fire burns through MK (where I happened to spend last weekend, up White Chief) because some bozo can't properly put out (or start, for that matter) a fire, it burns your land, my land; land that belongs to all of us.

Should that same bozo be allowed to chop down a tree so he might have a bench or a better view in his chosen campsite? How bout a dam for a personal swimming hole? Most of us don't mind regs to prevent that sort of thing.

When I was in White Chief this weekend there was a huge and recent firepit with evidence of scorching on nearby brush. Obviously someone disregarded the regs and made a mess (though I doubt it could have led to a conflagration, based on where it was). That was one yahoo (or several) for whom the regs meant nothing but at least there are some of their ilk who might be discouraged from doing so for fear of punishment.

I would like to see more public input on regs but in general somebody will always feel as if a rule is targeting them unfairly.

As for fees? Hey, there is nothing more capitalist than making those who use something pay for its maintenance. Think toll roads. As it is the parks are subsidized by people who never see them. Why shouldn't those of us who enjoy them most (and potentially harm them) pay more for their upkeep and protection?

And I was going to complain about people who don't pack out their TP but I didn't want to offend anyone on this thread

Charles2 wrote:Mountaineer wrote

What is the best way to "socially" control people?

Hint: The answer is in your statement.

Coercion is the more traditional and best-tested approach. You know: warrantless wiretaps, permits, licenses, warrantless searches, national identification cards, required internal passports, no-knock home searches, that kind of thing. Countries in the middle East are generally good at this sort of social control regardless of their chosen or de-facto economic system, a lot of countries in South America and Africa are too. China also understands the concept and uses it really well. We in the USA are not there yet but we've caught up a lot in the past 7 years.

Money. Control the money and you control the people.

arloop...why should those of us that are responsible suffer because of those that aren't? You just told us how someone disregarded the regulations in MK. MY POINT EXACTLY!!! The only people that excessive regulations affect are responsible ones. Irresponsible people don't give a crap.

mountaineer,
what constitutes excessive regulation? Prohibition of mining? Prohibition of logging? Tossing trash? A campfire?

We all agree (I assume) that some regulation should be required and we all agree that some idiot is going to break those regs. But at least, if caught, those yahoos can get their due (one hopes).

I think that more input from the users (i.e. you and me) is needed for the formulation of regs but I also think that since I don't fight fires (professionally) those that do may be better informed as regards potential threats in specific areas. I will, most of the time, defer to their better judgement, just as I defered to my doc this morning when he told me to lay off the hiking for a few weeks after trashing my knee this weekend. But if I ignore his advice the only person I hurt is myself. If I ignore a "no campfire" reg I may be endangering, not just property that belongs to others, but the very well-being of others.

Just my 2 cents.