The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[Foxfyre]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

A strong economy and a market that will correct itself requires three elements.

1. A government strong enough to recognize and secure our unalienable rights as the Founders defined unalienable rights,.

2. A government wise enough to impose just enough regulation/law to prevent us from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

3. A free market allowed to rise and fall on supply and demand unhindered by excessive government subsidy, manipulation, or regulation.

Not one of these components compromises libertarian values, at least those embraced by the Founders.

The only problem with libertarianism comes when it is looked at as synonymous with anarachy or when it would prohibit the local community from forming the sort of society it wishes to have even that means restricting some freedoms.

 

[dblack]

For instance, I'm a long time Libertarian voter that for the first time, plans to vote for the Republican nominee for President. Why would you desire to change that by badmouthing those who agree with you on so many of the really important points?

I couldn't disagree more with this view. I guess you're simply trusting the sales pitch, but I'm looking at his record. Supporting Romney at this stage in the game sabotages everything we've worked for. It makes a clear statement that no matter what we say in the primaries, Republican candidates can ignore our values once nominated. That will be the takeaway and it will essentially nullify libertarian efforts to steer Republicans toward better policy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it will essentially nullify libertarian efforts to steer Republicans toward better policy.

not 1/100th as much as voting for Obama.

The only long run solution is to create more and more conservative libertarians. Moreover, Republicans smartly picked Romney over Paul because it yields a more libertarian result in the end given that Romney can win while Paul can't.

 

[dblack]

it will essentially nullify libertarian efforts to steer Republicans toward better policy.

not 1/100th as much as voting for Obama.

It would be approximately the same - which is why we shouldn't do that either.

The only long run solution is to create more and more conservative libertarians.

Nah.. the solution is to create more and more libertarian conservatives, as well as more libertarian liberals and more libertarian independents. Blindly supporting any one party is the surest way to have our values ignored.

 

[LibertyForAll]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

A strong economy and a market that will correct itself requires three elements.

1. A government strong enough to recognize and secure our unalienable rights as the Founders defined unalienable rights,.

2. A government wise enough to impose just enough regulation/law to prevent us from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

3. A free market allowed to rise and fall on supply and demand unhindered by excessive government subsidy, manipulation, or regulation.

Not one of these components compromises libertarian values, at least those embraced by the Founders.

The only problem with libertarianism comes when it is looked at as synonymous with anarachy or when it would prohibit the local community from forming the sort of society it wishes to have even that means restricting some freedoms.

Libertarianism would never prohibit a local community from forming the society they wish. This is sniperfire's line of reasoning and it's fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism would prevent the majority from gaining too much power, this doesn't mean that the majorities rights are being violated because the majority doesn't have the right to impose it's will on the minority. I agree with most of your post but I feel this is an important distinction to make.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only problem with libertarianism comes when it is looked at as synonymous with anarachy

good point, liberals create the anarchy strawman so they can pretend to themselves that they have a good point. In reality even Milton Friedman recognized what he called "neighboorhood effects" ( local pollution from a multinational company, for example) that should be regulated by government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nah.. the solution is to create more and more libertarian conservatives, as well as more libertarian liberals and more libertarian independents.

no idea what a libertarian liberal or independent is? A liberal is mostly for more and more government while an independent is for flip flopping and little more

Blindly supporting any one party is the surest way to have our values ignored.

not if the Party is the most libertarian party.

 

[eflatminor]

For instance, I'm a long time Libertarian voter that for the first time, plans to vote for the Republican nominee for President. Why would you desire to change that by badmouthing those who agree with you on so many of the really important points?

I couldn't disagree more with this view. I guess you're simply trusting the sales pitch, but I'm looking at his record. Supporting Romney at this stage in the game sabotages everything we've worked for. It makes a clear statement that no matter what we say in the primaries, Republican candidates can ignore our values once nominated. That will be the takeaway and it will essentially nullify libertarian efforts to steer Republicans toward better policy.

I understand, and frankly respect, your point of view here. The only reason I'm planning to vote R this time is because I feel that allowing Obama to win re-election would be worse for everything we've worked for than sending a message to the Rs by voting for Gary Johnson.

My opinion is that as long as we stay strong in the House and Senate primaries (and local elections), we'll continue to steer Republicans toward better policies. When it comes to the White House, Obama is the first President in my lifetime whose policies are so diametrically opposed to mine, that I'm willing to vote for the Republican, even though it's someone I suspect we both agree is a pretty stinky choice. For me, Obama is that bad.

That said, there's still time until the election. I reserve the right to change my mind and vote L as I have in the past. We'll see.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

A strong economy and a market that will correct itself requires three elements.

1. A government strong enough to recognize and secure our unalienable rights as the Founders defined unalienable rights,.

2. A government wise enough to impose just enough regulation/law to prevent us from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

3. A free market allowed to rise and fall on supply and demand unhindered by excessive government subsidy, manipulation, or regulation.

Not one of these components compromises libertarian values, at least those embraced by the Founders.

The only problem with libertarianism comes when it is looked at as synonymous with anarachy or when it would prohibit the local community from forming the sort of society it wishes to have even that means restricting some freedoms.

Libertarianism would never prohibit a local community from forming the society they wish. This is sniperfire's line of reasoning and it's fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism would prevent the majority from gaining too much power, this doesn't mean that the majorities rights are being violated because the majority doesn't have the right to impose it's will on the minority. I agree with most of your post but I feel this is an important distinction to make.

Libertarianism in its most extreme form would. For instance, that pesky creche on the Courthouse lawn. A truly free people would be able to vote to have it there or not have it there as they wanted. Libertarianism to the extreme would not allow it any more than extreme Leftism would allow it. Also extreme Libertarians object to zoning laws or any restrictions on how property owners will use their property. I know because I have had heated debates with a number of them right here at USMB. A people truly free to organize their society as they want it would be able to include what they enjoyed having and exclude what they didn't want so long as they don't violate anybody's unalienable rights,.

As long as this is a mutual agreement at the local level, it is not an infringement on anybody's rights. From the Federal level or even from the State level in some instances, it can be an infringement on what were intended to be unalienable rights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm willing to vote for the Republican, even though it's someone I suspect we both agree is a pretty stinky choice. For me, Obama is that bad.

how can it be a stinky choice when Republicans put Thomas Roberts Scalia and Alito on the Court. You don't seem to understand that if Romney gets just one more on the whole treasonous liberal structure could begin to crumble like a house of cards.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm willing to vote for the Republican, even though it's someone I suspect we both agree is a pretty stinky choice. For me, Obama is that bad.

how can it be a stinky choice when Republicans put Thomas Roberts Scalia and Alito on the Court. You don't seem to understand that if Romney gets just one more on the whole treasonous liberal structure could begin to crumble like a house of cards.

You've actually hit upon the main reason why I will likely vote for Romney - judges. I sure hope you're right about who he appoints and the possible outcome for the central planners.

The stinky factor comes in with so many of his other policies, which I view as big government meddling.

 

[LibertyForAll]

A strong economy and a market that will correct itself requires three elements.

1. A government strong enough to recognize and secure our unalienable rights as the Founders defined unalienable rights,.

2. A government wise enough to impose just enough regulation/law to prevent us from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

3. A free market allowed to rise and fall on supply and demand unhindered by excessive government subsidy, manipulation, or regulation.

Not one of these components compromises libertarian values, at least those embraced by the Founders.

The only problem with libertarianism comes when it is looked at as synonymous with anarachy or when it would prohibit the local community from forming the sort of society it wishes to have even that means restricting some freedoms.

Libertarianism would never prohibit a local community from forming the society they wish. This is sniperfire's line of reasoning and it's fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism would prevent the majority from gaining too much power, this doesn't mean that the majorities rights are being violated because the majority doesn't have the right to impose it's will on the minority. I agree with most of your post but I feel this is an important distinction to make.

Libertarianism in its most extreme form would. For instance, that pesky creche on the Courthouse lawn. A truly free people would be able to vote to have it there or not have it there as they wanted. Libertarianism to the extreme would not allow it any more than extreme Leftism would allow it. Also extreme Libertarians object to zoning laws or any restrictions on how property owners will use their property. I know because I have had heated debates with a number of them right here at USMB. A people truly free to organize their society as they want it would be able to include what they enjoyed having and exclude what they didn't want so long as they don't violate anybody's unalienable rights,.

As long as this is a mutual agreement at the local level, it is not an infringement on anybody's rights. From the Federal level or even from the State level in some instances, it can be an infringement on what were intended to be unalienable rights.

A local government can infringe upon the rights of the individual and it is the purpose of the federal government to step in and disallow that from happening. If a local government decides that all public speeches must pass through the local committee before being allowed then this is a clear violation of my first amendment,even if the majority of the locals decide that this is what they want. The federal government is supposed to be the last recourse for the protection of our civil liberties and that in my opinion is why it so egregious when they violate them themselves. When the fed does it we have no other recourse except to attempt to change the fed.

In my opinion libertarians who oppose zoning laws haven't thought things through. No man is an island and what one does will in some way affect another. Zoning laws minimize the impact of an individuals decisions on the rights of innocents. Where you draw the line is debatable but in the end that type of discussion is the meat and potatoes of local government.

You say a truly free people would be able to vote on a creche but who is free when all are subjected to the rule of the majority? This time its a creche but next time it's about who should pay more taxes. You may feel like you are winning when you are part of the majority but at some point you won't be and what then?

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Libertarianism would never prohibit a local community from forming the society they wish. This is sniperfire's line of reasoning and it's fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism would prevent the majority from gaining too much power, this doesn't mean that the majorities rights are being violated because the majority doesn't have the right to impose it's will on the minority. I agree with most of your post but I feel this is an important distinction to make.

Libertarianism in its most extreme form would. For instance, that pesky creche on the Courthouse lawn. A truly free people would be able to vote to have it there or not have it there as they wanted. Libertarianism to the extreme would not allow it any more than extreme Leftism would allow it. Also extreme Libertarians object to zoning laws or any restrictions on how property owners will use their property. I know because I have had heated debates with a number of them right here at USMB. A people truly free to organize their society as they want it would be able to include what they enjoyed having and exclude what they didn't want so long as they don't violate anybody's unalienable rights,.

As long as this is a mutual agreement at the local level, it is not an infringement on anybody's rights. From the Federal level or even from the State level in some instances, it can be an infringement on what were intended to be unalienable rights.

A local government can infringe upon the rights of the individual and it is the purpose of the federal government to step in and disallow that from happening. If a local government decides that all public speeches must pass through the local committee before being allowed then this is a clear violation of my first amendment,even if the majority of the locals decide that this is what they want. The federal government is supposed to be the last recourse for the protection of our civil liberties and that in my opinion is why it so egregious when they violate them themselves. When the fed does it we have no other recourse except to attempt to change the fed.

In my opinion libertarians who oppose zoning laws haven't thought things through. No man is an island and what one does will in some way affect another. Zoning laws minimize the impact of an individuals decisions on the rights of innocents. Where you draw the line is debatable but in the end that type of discussion is the meat and potatoes of local government.

You say a truly free people would be able to vote on a creche but who is free when all are subjected to the rule of the majority? This time its a creche but next time it's about who should pay more taxes. You may feel like you are winning when you are part of the majority but at some point you won't be and what then?

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

I was quite specific that nobody's unalienable rights would be infringed.

But there you go. You don't want any public adornment on public lands because that would fit YOUR definition of religious dominance. And thereby you would restrict the right of the people to have whatever adornment they wished to have. And THAT is a major flaw in application of extreme Libertarianism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm willing to vote for the Republican, even though it's someone I suspect we both agree is a pretty stinky choice. For me, Obama is that bad.

how can it be a stinky choice when Republicans put Thomas Roberts Scalia and Alito on the Court. You don't seem to understand that if Romney gets just one more on the whole treasonous liberal structure could begin to crumble like a house of cards.

You've actually hit upon the main reason why I will likely vote for Romney - judges. I sure hope you're right about who he appoints and the possible outcome for the central planners.

The stinky factor comes in with so many of his other policies, which I view as big government meddling.

yes but consider that the odds look very good for Republicans in Congress too ( if only by virtue of which party's seats are up this time, not to mention BOs depression) so a Tea Party Congress against Romney will get us a great deal further than a Tea party Congress against Obama. We've looking at a possible sea change.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Libertarianism in its most extreme form would. For instance, that pesky creche on the Courthouse lawn. A truly free people would be able to vote to have it there or not have it there as they wanted. Libertarianism to the extreme would not allow it any more than extreme Leftism would allow it. Also extreme Libertarians object to zoning laws or any restrictions on how property owners will use their property. I know because I have had heated debates with a number of them right here at USMB. A people truly free to organize their society as they want it would be able to include what they enjoyed having and exclude what they didn't want so long as they don't violate anybody's unalienable rights,.

As long as this is a mutual agreement at the local level, it is not an infringement on anybody's rights. From the Federal level or even from the State level in some instances, it can be an infringement on what were intended to be unalienable rights.

A local government can infringe upon the rights of the individual and it is the purpose of the federal government to step in and disallow that from happening. If a local government decides that all public speeches must pass through the local committee before being allowed then this is a clear violation of my first amendment,even if the majority of the locals decide that this is what they want. The federal government is supposed to be the last recourse for the protection of our civil liberties and that in my opinion is why it so egregious when they violate them themselves. When the fed does it we have no other recourse except to attempt to change the fed.

In my opinion libertarians who oppose zoning laws haven't thought things through. No man is an island and what one does will in some way affect another. Zoning laws minimize the impact of an individuals decisions on the rights of innocents. Where you draw the line is debatable but in the end that type of discussion is the meat and potatoes of local government.

You say a truly free people would be able to vote on a creche but who is free when all are subjected to the rule of the majority? This time its a creche but next time it's about who should pay more taxes. You may feel like you are winning when you are part of the majority but at some point you won't be and what then?

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

I was quite specific that nobody's unalienable rights would be infringed.

But there you go. You don't want any public adornment on public lands because that would fit YOUR definition of religious dominance. And thereby you would restrict the right of the people to have whatever adornment they wished to have. And THAT is a major flaw in application of extreme Libertarianism.

The state sponsoring a religion is an affront to the other religions not represented. If you pass a specific law that says that a creche is allowed you are also saying that a star of david is not allowed. Why is it not allowed? Because it is not a creche. This is religious descrimination. Libertarianism protects the rights of all by not allowing this situation to occur. If you want to have a law then it would have to be a law that would allow all religions equal time and equal space and then we would just have a big mess on our hands.

 

[Foxfyre]

A local government can infringe upon the rights of the individual and it is the purpose of the federal government to step in and disallow that from happening. If a local government decides that all public speeches must pass through the local committee before being allowed then this is a clear violation of my first amendment,even if the majority of the locals decide that this is what they want. The federal government is supposed to be the last recourse for the protection of our civil liberties and that in my opinion is why it so egregious when they violate them themselves. When the fed does it we have no other recourse except to attempt to change the fed.

In my opinion libertarians who oppose zoning laws haven't thought things through. No man is an island and what one does will in some way affect another. Zoning laws minimize the impact of an individuals decisions on the rights of innocents. Where you draw the line is debatable but in the end that type of discussion is the meat and potatoes of local government.

You say a truly free people would be able to vote on a creche but who is free when all are subjected to the rule of the majority? This time its a creche but next time it's about who should pay more taxes. You may feel like you are winning when you are part of the majority but at some point you won't be and what then?

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

I was quite specific that nobody's unalienable rights would be infringed.

But there you go. You don't want any public adornment on public lands because that would fit YOUR definition of religious dominance. And thereby you would restrict the right of the people to have whatever adornment they wished to have. And THAT is a major flaw in application of extreme Libertarianism.

The state sponsoring a religion is an affront to the other religions not represented. If you pass a specific law that says that a creche is allowed you are also saying that a star of david is not allowed. Why is it not allowed? Because it is not a creche. This is religious descrimination. Libertarianism protects the rights of all by not allowing this situation to occur. If you want to have a law then it would have to be a law that would allow all religions equal time and equal space and then we would just have a big mess on our hands.

I am not speaking of any state sponsored religion. I am talking about the people of a community being able to place a creche on THEIR courthouse lawn if that is what they want to do. I am talking about the people of a community owning their own government rather than having some outsider, like you, telling them what sort of government they must have. I am focused on the people of any community being able to demonstrate their own values and have the kind of environment and aesthetics that is pleasing to them, short of violating anybody's unalienable rights.

A creche on a courthouse lawn, at the will of the people, violates nobody's rights.

You see I am a true libertarian/aka classical liberal/aka modern American conservative. And I can see a violation of all those principles in the extreme libertarianism that you are suggesting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was quite specific that nobody's unalienable rights would be infringed.

But there you go. You don't want any public adornment on public lands because that would fit YOUR definition of religious dominance. And thereby you would restrict the right of the people to have whatever adornment they wished to have. And THAT is a major flaw in application of extreme Libertarianism.

The only caveat here Fox, is that there should be few, if any public lands.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was quite specific that nobody's unalienable rights would be infringed.

But there you go. You don't want any public adornment on public lands because that would fit YOUR definition of religious dominance. And thereby you would restrict the right of the people to have whatever adornment they wished to have. And THAT is a major flaw in application of extreme Libertarianism.

The only caveat here Fox, is that there should be few, if any public lands.

Again, I think it should be decided by the people. First the citizens of Wyoming, for instance, should agree that Yellowstone be preserved for all future generations and not be privatized. And then there should be a national referendum of the people to support it as a National Park or preserve. Once that passes, then there is no problem with Yellowstone being fundedf by the people's treasury from now on. It is their choice and not a power given to the government to do on its own initiative.

There are so many wonderful national treasures that should be preserved for all generations. Carlsbad Caverns, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, etc. And I think we all see those as national treasures and do not mind a small amount of our taxes going to maintain, preserve, and protect them. The Federal Government can always petition the people and sell them on the concept. But ultimately it should be the will of the people and not the prerogative of the governent to set aside public lands.

But a courthouse and the lawn surrounding it certainly something the local people would choose. We've all probably voted on bond issues to build or update or add on to the local courthouse. But it belongs to the people. And they should be able to put a creche on it if they want one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

except religion is really a trivial and specific issue nowadays. A far broader mark might be a central government limited to spending 15%of GDP by a clear Constitutional Amendment

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, I think it should be decided by the people. First the citizens of Wyoming, for instance, should agree that Yellowstone be preserved for all future generations and not be privatized. And then there should be a national referendum of the people to support it as a National Park or preserve. Once that passes, then there is no problem with Yellowstone being fundedf by the people's treasury from now on. It is their choice and not a power given to the government to do on its own initiative.

I love Yellowstone, I worked there in my late teens and embraced it.

But you have the wrong idea. I worked for a concession company in Old Faithful Lodge as a waiter. It was a government contract so there was no competition. We served crappy food at outrageous prices. People paid because they had no other option. Bribes to the right government hacks ensured the company looter rights.

Once you left the park and went into West Yellowstone (Montana,) things changed - for the better. There was no destruction of the lands, but the roads were maintained and there was competition for services. Lodging was cheaper and eating establishments plentiful.

Yellowstone is an example of everything that's wrong with government ownership. I assure you that Disney or other private owners would not have let the park burn, the way the idiot envirowackos of the department of interior did.

83% of Yellowstone is not accessible to humans. Of the 17% that is, this includes the wilderness areas. Yellowstone would be far better off if it were privatized.

There are so many wonderful national treasures that should be preserved for all generations. Carlsbad Caverns, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, etc.

The question is whether the government is the only, or even the best steward of these assets.

And I think we all see those as national treasures and do not mind a small amount of our taxes going to maintain, preserve, and protect them. The Federal Government can always petition the people and sell them on the concept. But ultimately it should be the will of the people and not the prerogative of the governent to set aside public lands.

There are no "public" lands. There are government lands. The government owns and controls these lands. The public has no say at all over them.

But a courthouse and the lawn surrounding it certainly something the local people would choose. We've all probably voted on bond issues to build or update or add on to the local courthouse. But it belongs to the people. And they should be able to put a creche on it if they want one.

Honestly, I think courthouses are a place that issues of law should be decided. I object to them being ornate mansions erected to honor our ruling caste.