Due to the shutdown, people can no longer access federal lands. What happened before the land was a national park? Seems to me that lack of guards has nothing to do with access, or at least it shouldn't. Whose property is it anyway? The taxpayers'. Ability to protect it from what? Ourselves? Who is in charge here? Is our them?
When we establish a national park, is it predicated upon the ability to provide professional supervision? Why? In the absence of federal law enforcement, are we not allowed to live our lives? Are we barred access from our national treasures? What would happen if the park service were to be given permanent furloughs? Permanent shutdown?
The entire situation is a power grab by the federal government, and the fact that we have allowed it to come this far is outlandish. It is the perfect example of how dysfunctional government is and why they shouldn't be in the business of running anything.
When police go on strike, do they close the streets? The city Hall? When no lifeguards are at the beach, do they close the beach, or do they post a sign describing how you must swim at your own risk if you insist upon swimming? Federal officials have no moral authority to close a park simply because they cannot man the park.
When federal furloughs prevent park services from running, what is to stop the park from remaining open without services? Are there not rangers currently barricading the entries? Those park rangers can respond to distress calls instead of blocking entry. It might even be possible to let visitors know that dangerous conditions exist that prevent officials from responding right away. Further, county sheriffs are constitutionally responsible for protecting life and property anywhere in their counties. One might presume that a sheriff's office might respond to calls about violence or vandalism at the park.
The only reason to shut a park at this point in our society would be to exert power over patronage. The ability to close private companies down on private land is something that only a bureaucrat could enjoy. Common sense dictates that these private companies might actually provide sufficient community supervision in the absence of park officials, but then we might just discover that these rangers might not be needed so much after all.
The fact that certain companies are allowed to remain open while others are shuttered is suspect as well. Upscale hotels in parks remain open because they are "leased" while common concessionaires are closed? Never underestimate the power of elites to find loopholes that exempt them from the plight of the common man. Coincidence that one in question is in Feinstein's neck of the woods?
Regardless of political persuasion, it is entirely obvious that the American people are victims of political gamesmanship. The party in power limits access in hopes that it will blow up in the face of the minority party because the minority power chose to use the only remaining leverage that it had. The truth is that there was no need to negatively impact anyone. Open air monuments need not be closed, and parks could remain open if not for average voters wanting to actually visit--the goal being to anger them to vote out those being blamed for their exclusion of course. The people currently guarding the parks to prevent access should be providing the services and ensuring access to land the taxpayers pay taxes to enjoy.
As Americans, our ability to enjoy our land ought not depend upon the government's ability to ensure our own safe conduct, and local law enforcement can already protect life and property. Welcome to the world of being a political pawn. Now let's hope our brothers and sisters wake up, rebuke the administration's efforts to restrict access, and speak loud and clear that we will never be caged. No exceptions.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/national-park-rangers-ordered-to-keep-visitors-out/
No comments:
Post a Comment