4 ms·

In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a hig

In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a higher price and distribute that money equally to citizens.

bpodgursky 7y ago
Do you also want to charge disneyland rates for beach access? For national parks? The only people who benefit from them are the ones who live near. You realize that most land in the country, period, was bought and given away for nominal prices, right? Farmland in the midwest is privately owned and was (almost) given away. Your house is built on land that was sold to homesteaders on the cheap. The point of government isn't short-term profit maximization. The only functional difference here is that grazing land wasn't as easy to manage if you privatized individual tracts. Those grazing rights have existed for generations, and the entire system was set up with the presumption that those were perpetual rights.
- Retric 7y ago
  National parks get visitors from across the country, with individual parks getting up to 15 million visitors. Beach and river access are similarly popular nationwide. However, people must both live near and own cattle to benifit from this subsidy limiting things to 18,000 permits nationwide for 155 million acres. Charging market rates to parks thus has little upside for the general public as a large fraction visit parks, rivers etc. However, charging market rates for grazing is a net benefit to both the general public and ranchers outside the area. Finally, cows are actively harming the ecosystem in that area so there is a multitude of hidden costs to these subsidies.
syrrim 7y ago
And the people who eat cows, who can get beef for cheaper. And the people who eat things besides beef, for which demand is displaced. Of wait, that's everyone.
grogenaut 7y ago
You forget burning man and all the other people who use blm land. It's not all ranches. It's forests and deserts and watershed. It's just tons of land.

bpodgursky 7y ago

Do you also want to charge disneyland rates for beach access? For national parks? The only people who benefit from them are the ones who live near. You realize that most land in the country, period, was bought and given away for nominal prices, right? Farmland in the midwest is privately owned and was (almost) given away. Your house is built on land that was sold to homesteaders on the cheap. The point of government isn't short-term profit maximization. The only functional difference here is that grazing land wasn't as easy to manage if you privatized individual tracts. Those grazing rights have existed for generations, and the entire system was set up with the presumption that those were perpetual rights.

Retric 7y ago
National parks get visitors from across the country, with individual parks getting up to 15 million visitors. Beach and river access are similarly popular nationwide. However, people must both live near and own cattle to benifit from this subsidy limiting things to 18,000 permits nationwide for 155 million acres. Charging market rates to parks thus has little upside for the general public as a large fraction visit parks, rivers etc. However, charging market rates for grazing is a net benefit to both the general public and ranchers outside the area. Finally, cows are actively harming the ecosystem in that area so there is a multitude of hidden costs to these subsidies.

syrrim 7y ago

And the people who eat cows, who can get beef for cheaper. And the people who eat things besides beef, for which demand is displaced. Of wait, that's everyone.

grogenaut 7y ago

You forget burning man and all the other people who use blm land. It's not all ranches. It's forests and deserts and watershed. It's just tons of land.