[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But America has 'democracy' too, so I don't really buy that it's state democracy that is responsible for keeping the land available for public use. How do you know corporations would destroy the land in Sweden?

In any case, how is this supposed to show that private ownership of land on a *free market* (this isn't to suggest that in a free society all land would be privately owned--I think there would be public land too, albeit not owned by the government) would lead to environmental disaster? I am asking what structural incentives, exactly, make government in a centralized statist democracy function 'well' and corporations not well. Given that both corporations in a state capitalist society and centralized government in state democracy are essentially powerful elites that don't have to answer to the demands of the public.