Kinda funny to a libertarian to watch this stuff debated. I guess a libertarian would say 'well, the rock belongs to the US, which belongs to the people, of which I am a person, so the rock belongs to me, so I can do anything I want there'. I guess in some respects, as a citizen you could go around doing anything you want on public land. After all, it's for the people to use, so go ahead and knock over rock formations.
I'm not a very good libertarian some times. I lose my libertarian credentials when I see someone do stuff like this that has no benefit, direct or otherwise to the rest of the people in the country. I would put the probability of that rock falling on someone within the next 500 years at 1 x 10^36 plus or minus two std dev. All it represents is destruction of a natural resource for no purpose, despite his 'safety' message. If he was concerned about safety, we have park rangers already assigned to the park. As a libertarian I would do away with the rangers, and let the rocks fall where they may. If someone is underneath it when it goes over, then Darwin puts another notch on his belt.
Reservoirs, roads, highways, shops, restaurants, and other development serves a purpose to the people, even though they do affect the nature around them, sometimes to a detriment. This action by the Scout leaders was simply malicious, and took away from the value of the park on the whole. I don't think it did anything to improve safety, and surely provided no other extenuating benefit.
