wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:08:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:

In article
,
Larry L wrote:

wrote


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you
and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or
anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,


Every time I go to Yellowstone I take the time to walk around
National Park
Meadow and think about the tremendous leap that mankind made
when, for the
first time, it was decided to set aside a great place forever and
for
everyone.

I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your
housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone
Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot
of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much
more
efficiently

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more
cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education
in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why
don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school
buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before
fly-fishing.

Um, well, you may agree with me, but if I understand your position
above, I
don't agree with you - not saying that your position is wrong or
"bad," just
that it isn't mine. I feel that there is _too much_ "public" land
in the USA,
not that there shouldn't be ANY "public" land or that having
"public" land is
the equivalent of communism, socialism, etc. What I am against in
such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution
to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its
authors never
contemplated - the definition of "navigable" water being disputed
not because of
a barrier to commerce on that water, but because a relative few wish
to use it
for their own reasons, subsidized by the majority.

Excellent (and virutally always overlooked) point. Clearly, the
framers of the U.S. constitution never intended that the use of public
lands should be restricted to the use of EVERYBODY when it is easy,
profitable, and much more equitable to open it up to just the wealthy.
Even a cursory glance at the constitution should suffice to make it
obvious that the intention behind the reservation of public lands was
anything but making them available to the minuscule minority that
constitues the unwashed masses when the vast bulk of the wealthiest
elite is in such great need.

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the
amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the
public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad
a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in
effect.

Well, good God, no! I mean, the very thought that "the public" needs
any more room that what is required for them to stand shoulder to
shoulder......in the absence of legitimate vehicles, for God's
sake!....is to be laughed at. It is merely yet another example of the
"public" citizenry's shocking abuses at the expense of the much
maligned and overburdened poor little rich kids. It is simply
disgusting to contemplate the depth and breadth to which to insane
fiction that the "public" has a right to or need for the lands that
were set aside for the use of the "public" have penetrated into the
"public" consciousness.

IOW,
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts
of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another
member of the
public's property

No duh! Obviously! I mean, that would require some sort of
distinction between "public" and "private", ainna? And God only knows
where a trip down THAT path would lead!

and certainly, members of "the public" in general are somehow
"entitled" to lay claim to these amounts of land.

Well, I for one, am certain that you might think that particular piece
of gibberish could mean something.

It is not the responsibility
of all to subsidize this broad level recreational
activities/availability of a
few.

No, that much is certainly true. Once again, why limit the use of
public lands to the 290,000,000 or so members of "the public" when
opening it up to ALL of the Dean family would require nothing more
than abandoning the silly principles on which this corporation was
founded?

And further, the argument of setting aside land for future
generations is
perfectly valid, but such a setting aside doesn't mean that the
current
generation is entitled to subsidized usage.

Ah, and here we come to the real beauty of it all. If, indeed, we set
it aside for future generations while excluding the current generation
of minority users (that is to say, the "public") then it becomes clear
that by simply continuing this process indefinitely we can guarantee
that the rapacious minority (otherwise known as "the public") can be
forever prevented from despoiling "public" land while at the same time
keeping it available for the widespread use of the vast private
majority of wealthy stewards.

HTH,

Immensely.

By the way, we've been wondering.......did you participate in any
organized team athletics while in college.......um.....besides being
anchor man on your frat's Comatose High School Chick Gangbang Team,
that is?

Seriously though.......tell us a little bit about yourself. What do
you do for a living? What's your home phone number? Where do your
children go to school?

Wolfgang