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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
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.
Well you can certainly have your own perspective, I just disagree 100% with it and will use whatever means I have to make sure that the tiny bits of nature we have left are preserved to the extent possible. Some aluminum "art" in the middle of nowhere is a perversion and should be garbage collected. That's my view, which I will use dollars and my vote toward.
We might just have agree to disagree. I have literally seen tens of thousands of pounds of garbage dumped on public land.
The idea that some out of the way and moderately interesting art is a priority is laughable.
> I have literally seen tens of thousands of pounds of garbage dumped on public land.
Yes, and they shouldn't be.
> The idea that some out of the way and moderately interesting art is a priority is laughable.
I don't think it's that interesting, but besides that I don't follow your rationale. Because some people litter against the rules, we shouldn't clean up this thing someone put on federal lands? Even so, wouldn't large pieces of litter take priority over smaller ones simply due to human nature?
I really feel like you're stretching here. Frankly, it's interesting to watch people defend some thing they just found out about and have no attachment to.
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.