Re: Oh and PS Knapper
No, the shame has nothing whatsoever to do with "being forced to pay for others." It is about support of natural and cultural heritage and if it could be done without tax money, that would be great. If being forced to pay for others were my issue, why stop your disgruntle feelings with National Parks, battlefields, monuments? You should feel that way about all taxes, government services and organizations - heck, government in general. You are forced to pay for others bukoo with any government service, organization or program. For instance, I don't have children in school, yet I have to pay property taxes for the operation of schools. I guess I believe schools are good and being "forced to pay" isn't really a bad thing.
Yup! I do believe government is in too much of our lives.
However, I did read your response where you oppose campground renovations and conference centers specifically rather than the whole idea of a park.
Now Knapper! Really??? Why do you have to try to spin what I said
I surely don't oppose any of those things and you should feel shame for your attemped spin. What I said was I believe those things should be user fee based. Not subsidised by the tax payer.
Per my example(again) If the cost of eletric for the averge campsite is $3. I think the user of that campsite should pay that $3 at a min. I don't think the tax payer should be on the hook for any of it.
You did imply that they are free when you said " I believe those should be a use fee," and they certainly are not free and there is a use fee just as there is an entry fee for most all National Parks.
No I didn't Knapper.(shame again)
What I implied is the user fee should cover expenses and the tax payer shouldn't have to subsidise it. If some conference center or campground(or whatever) can't bring in enough revenue to cover expenses then it shouldn't be built.