Improvement. Even buying an empty lot and reselling it is an improvement because you had to bring your value into the purchase. Same with the next buyer. I 'm not sure about all cases, but I know where Pueblo Indians had established permanence and farms, we not only respected most of those communities we helped protect them from other nomadic tribes. Nomadic peoples tend to pillage. After all the have little infrastructure to store and tend to live closer to starvation. The creation of national parks is nationalistic not capitalistic. We enjoy them at our expense but not our decisions. Most are run like military installations.

Thank you

Thanks for the clarification.
I don't know how it works in state-to-federal government transactions. I don't know if anybody knows.
Just keep in mind, [A] no government gets money to buy things from anywhere except taxes and fees. [B] Do they decide that they get what they say they need? Remember 20th Century Motor Co!
Governments are omnivorous monsters, devouring anything in their paths, and most of what they leave behind is deep footprints and poop.

My point exactly. The natives were managing the valley to produce a specific set of plants to harvest and attract game. Inefficient use of land to be sure, but still a claim wouldn't you say? To truly be respected should not their ownership be recognized?

You might find this nonsense I reposted from Farcebook to be interesting in re this subject.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/f3...

I suspect you have in mind the active taking of land away from individuals, and that's not really where I'm going here. I might be using the wrong term - that's why I said federal ownership of land "seems like a form of" eminent domain. The end-result is the same: a property the people can never own because the government does. I gave examples: Washington DC and military bases. I'm not really up on the subject, but I imagine a state simply cedes control of this territory to the federal government to create these zones. Not sure what the mechanism is for national parks. Just saying the federal government does need to own land, and they do need to get it from somewhere, and that amounts to a taking even if it looks like a give-away, and it is necessary because otherwise we can't even have functional government offices.

One thing I find interesting for in studying the history of the valley is the reference to the "native" people who were there before the Europeans. Apparently they were fighting over the property rights long before us. The question is what initiates a property right. Force? Productive ability? What would have happened if the Europeans had respected the land rights of the first people there. Apparently they had a system of production in place that the new comers did not appreciate. Once property rights are not respected a viscious cycle begins until that respect is restored.

I also have high expectations. One of them is that a member raising an unfamiliar subject inform those he wishes to engage in discussion and pose a question that can be covered in this forum in a day or two.
I read the article you posted, and was curious about which subject, of the many in the article, you were interested in discussing. The question "what do you think?" remains too broad. Your revised questions are better.
Should it have been dammed? I have no idea - there's no way to wrap my mind around every single element of that decision. In general, if done correctly, I am in favor of hydroelectricity.
National Parks? My very first philosophy teacher - a escapee from Soviet Russia - said that the very first thing that should be done in discussion is to define the terms, so we know what we are talking about. So....
National Parks. Who originally owned the land? How was it acquired? How are its various facilities maintained? Who has access? Who makes the rules, who can influence those rules, and how? in shorter words, what is a National Park?
When I know what you'd like to talk about, I'll see about breaking the time free to talk about how that relates to Objectivism. There's lots to talk about here.

Lionel -
WHAT?! "eminent domain is necessary"??!" defend that statement, if you can. I don't think it can be done without twisting yourself into a collectivist pretzel.

As the hundreds of millions of bodies created in its name would suggest.

The greater good is a slippery slope.

Should the landowner or the government protect the property claim?

As long as it is for the greater good, eminent domain is necessary, just like fraud and the initiation of force against innocent individuals are also necessary. Necessary, to break the bonds of limited government. Necessary, to negate individual rights one by one. Necessary, for statism to flourish.

This is the philosophy section of this site, so I have high expectations.

The Hetch Hetchy question requires the reader to inform themselves about it and come up with an opinion.

Some simple questions to think about. Should it have been dammed? Should we have National Parks? Then, how do you reconcile your answers with your thoughts on objectivism?

National parks seem like a form of eminent domain. Eminent domain is necessary, but ought to be kept to a minimum in order to maximize the freedom of the people to enjoy their pursuit of life, liberty, and property.
I've got no issue with the fed gov carving up a chunk of land for a military base - it's a necessary function. Ditto for something like Washington DC office space. However, I think you're getting into frivolity when you're declaring tens of thousands of acres off limits because "it looks pretty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lan...

Excerpt: "As of March 2012, out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government..."

I don't think the founders would approve.

"What on your thoughts on Hetch Hetchy?" is a huge question. Do you want to know what I think about National Parks and Monuments generally? on the dam/restore this canyon specifically? On the selling of electric power from the dam machinations?
We could talk about even these questions for days [and probably will] but how about starting with a smaller, more specific question?
point for asking for our "thoughts" rather than our "feelings" or "beliefs". [If you don't know, that's the little number to the left of your name. You get them for saying something interesting, bringing up an interesting topic, and sometimes for a brilliant turn of phrase. It's not a "like", it's a "may I have some more, please?".

The National Parks are completely counter to AR values. I love the national parks, but the first thing I would do as president would be to sell them to the highest bidder.

TMI. can you give us the situation in a paragraph please?