Yes to Legalized Gay Sex and No to Unleashed Dogs in Amsterdam's Public Parks

The Dutch government is legalizing gay sexual activity in its public parks, but will take criminal action against dog owners who allow their dogs to wander on them without keeping them on a leash.

While I'm all for getting the government out of our bedrooms and free speech on government-owned, government-funded parks, the problem with this scenario is that they are, more or less, public property. In other words, the "people" own the parks. To break it down even further, the government is the owner, and not truly the citizens of Amsterdam.

The Dutch may be tolerant of trade-offs regarding those state-controlled, state-run, state-owned properties, but the issue here is whether the state should be owning those parks in the first place. This latest episode showcases the need to abolish government-run, government-owned properties and hand them over to the free market. Besides, most parks, even here in the U.S., are not that clean, and at just about every park I've gone to, I've seen litter on the ground. The government employees of those parks do a lousy job of cleaning them up. You can smell the air of bureaucracy when you're at the grounds, and none of the park rangers are nice, cordial, and even helpful as well.

But this is a very contentious yet important issue to consider. Why should they be owned by the state? Answer: in the eyes of the statists, it's because the free market can't handle this problem, but the state can. Who decides what and who benefits from that decisions? Answer: the government, not the "customers" (taxpayers) whom the state is supposed to serve.

As for the Dutch, the bigger questions are of the following: why are the Dutch putting up with that crap by allowing their tax dollars to fund these government-owned, government-operated institutions? What tangible benefits, if any, are they getting out of the entire thing?

The Dutch should be pursuing private property rights in lieu of this decision, but, in the interim, the state shouldn't be in the business of deciding what can or cannot be transpiring on the grounds of these parks.