5 ms·

Just thinking the same thing. There's no rule the you must clamp down the the first instance of a violation. Leave it be, and leave the rule in place. If there

Just thinking the same thing. There's no rule the you must clamp down the the first instance of a violation. Leave it be, and leave the rule in place. If there's an epidemic of monoliths being planted on federal land, then you uproot them all and say "this is why we can't have nice things." Until or unless that happens, just leave it alone.

ericmay 6y ago
Eh, it's not good enough to get that kind of treatment.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  What isn't good to get that kind of treatment. The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. Nothing wrong with changing the law to further that goal. Just give the monolith a permit to make it legit.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? Maybe we can set up a Starbucks next to it and some bathrooms too. It's the famous monolith! Come one come all! > The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. I don't see how litter in my national parks is improving my quality of life.
    - xboxnolifes 6y ago
      > You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? On the other hand, you didn't know it existed until 2 hours ago and now you want it removed.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        Yep, you're exactly right. I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, however.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Simply put, I think it is cool and would like to to stick around. For what it is worth, here are a few points to consider. There already is art Throughout the wilderness and I think it is great. Sometimes the art is as simple as a statue or plaque commemorating a historic location, other times it is DIY art like this. The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Also, as far as I can tell, this isn’t in a national park, but on federal BLM land Used for hunting and off-roading.
      - cowboysauce 6y ago
        > The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. The national parks service philosophy is very preservationist. They advise people to follow guidelines that are literally called “leave no trace”. Their mission statement uses the word preserve in the first sentence. Hell, part of the reason why Big Bend national park never became an international park (among many others) was because the parks service disagreed with the laxer, conservationist approach that Mexican authorities favored. >The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Those modifications are done carefully to have as little impact on the environment and a lot of types of recreation are completed banned in national parks, hunting being the obvious one. The use of vehicles (including bicycles) is completely banned in federally designated wilderness. What steps did whoever installed this take to make sure that this thing isn’t going to leech metals into an ephemeral watering hole used by wildlife?
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I agree that the NapS is ver preservationist, compared to the blm, where the monolith is located. For what it is worth 66/75 of national parks permit hunting. https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-and-fish-and-wildlife-refuges https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-...
      - 6y ago
ajharrison 6y ago
We don’t live in a reasonable world. The world we live in is increasingly more black and white.
Geminidog 6y ago
There is a rule for the first instance of the violation. The law applies to all instances of the violation, first, last and everything in between. The thing is the reason why a lot of people are ok with this art thing is because it's not just the first instance of it, but because it's currently quite interesting and tasteful. These are vague qualitative aspects that are hard to define with law and will change over time. Better to have a simple law everyone can understand and agree on then to find some perfect law that fits with our complicated, blurry and inconsistent definition of morality. The more complicated a set of laws are the more likely people will be able to find loop holes to exploit.

ericmay 6y ago

Eh, it's not good enough to get that kind of treatment.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
What isn't good to get that kind of treatment. The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. Nothing wrong with changing the law to further that goal. Just give the monolith a permit to make it legit.
- ericmay 6y ago
  You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? Maybe we can set up a Starbucks next to it and some bathrooms too. It's the famous monolith! Come one come all! > The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. I don't see how litter in my national parks is improving my quality of life.
  - xboxnolifes 6y ago
    > You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? On the other hand, you didn't know it existed until 2 hours ago and now you want it removed.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Yep, you're exactly right. I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, however.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Simply put, I think it is cool and would like to to stick around. For what it is worth, here are a few points to consider. There already is art Throughout the wilderness and I think it is great. Sometimes the art is as simple as a statue or plaque commemorating a historic location, other times it is DIY art like this. The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Also, as far as I can tell, this isn’t in a national park, but on federal BLM land Used for hunting and off-roading.
    - cowboysauce 6y ago
      > The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. The national parks service philosophy is very preservationist. They advise people to follow guidelines that are literally called “leave no trace”. Their mission statement uses the word preserve in the first sentence. Hell, part of the reason why Big Bend national park never became an international park (among many others) was because the parks service disagreed with the laxer, conservationist approach that Mexican authorities favored. >The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Those modifications are done carefully to have as little impact on the environment and a lot of types of recreation are completed banned in national parks, hunting being the obvious one. The use of vehicles (including bicycles) is completely banned in federally designated wilderness. What steps did whoever installed this take to make sure that this thing isn’t going to leech metals into an ephemeral watering hole used by wildlife?
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I agree that the NapS is ver preservationist, compared to the blm, where the monolith is located. For what it is worth 66/75 of national parks permit hunting. https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-and-fish-and-wildlife-refuges https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-...
    - 6y ago

ajharrison 6y ago

We don’t live in a reasonable world. The world we live in is increasingly more black and white.

Geminidog 6y ago

There is a rule for the first instance of the violation. The law applies to all instances of the violation, first, last and everything in between. The thing is the reason why a lot of people are ok with this art thing is because it's not just the first instance of it, but because it's currently quite interesting and tasteful. These are vague qualitative aspects that are hard to define with law and will change over time. Better to have a simple law everyone can understand and agree on then to find some perfect law that fits with our complicated, blurry and inconsistent definition of morality. The more complicated a set of laws are the more likely people will be able to find loop holes to exploit.