Alaska is Russia

[AVG-JOE]

Alaska has the largest land area of any of the 50 states exceeding the area of many countries. Its fewer than 700,000 people gives it the lowest population density of any state or country in the developed world. 97% of the land is government owned, and it is true that since oil exploration began there in the 1960's and the Alaska Permanent Fund was established, the state is retaining mineral rights to that land. The state does not own or claim any part of the mineral rights for most private property in Alaska, but private property in Alaska is a tiny tiny percentage of the whole. To compare how Alaska handles their mineral rights with states where most land is private property is not a fair comparison, legally, morally, or practically.

Now for your earlier 'moral question'. I am a modern conservative aka classical liberal basing my ideology and philosophy on certain principles advocated by John Locke, Adam Smith, and others. If a person is to be truly free, the person must be able to own, hold, and utilize the fruits of his own labor and that includes his property. Whenever government assumes the power to take whatever property it wants and give it to whomever it wants for whatever reason, there is no freedom, no personal liberty. There is no moral justification to confiscate wealth from Citizen A who ethically earned or acquired it and give that to Citizen B. To do so is certain to corrupt those in government who distribute the wealth and those who receive it from government. And that is immoral.

This is a hard concept to convey... I am NOT an advocate of government usurping the rights of any individual regarding the fruits of their labor or their property.

On the other hand, I think it is just plain wrong for a European Corporation to have more say so in how, when and what to do with the profits from the harvest of timber in Washington State, simply because they paid a bunch of cash to a politician in Washington DC.

Do you see the difference?

I think we're probably going to wind up on the same side of the fence in this discussion. The Alaska situation is a two-edged sword. On one hand, the state does control its resources and does pass on a nice dividend to each qualified Alaskan resident each year; however because government does own and control so much of the land, the development of private enterprise is limited, restricted, and this has contributed to other problems.

I am a small government, lots of freedom, and, unless there is a compelling reason for intervention, letting the chips fall where they may person. I think it should be illegal with teeth in the consequences for anybody in government, local, state, or federal to take a payoff from anybody or to trade any kind of favor for money. I'm sure there are smart people in this forum who will see that my view is overly simplistic here--I could use a lot of words to explain why and expand on the possible exceptions I could see as pertinent--but for now, I think you probably get my drift. Hopefully you will understand the principle I'm trying to convey.

The whole world is a two edge sword with regards to the harvest of its resources. On the one hand, what better use for them than by the planets indigenous life-forms to make a better life for themselves and their spawn? On the other hand, to harvest them irresponsibly simply because one can, solely to have the means to show off a gold-plated toilet, is a slap in the face to ones neighbors, and should be recognized as such, by government intervention if necessary.

Unfortunately, the three things required for free-market utopia: respect, responsibility and love, no form of government has ever shown an ability to effectively legislate (and probably never will). The next best thing is effective management of available resources with focus on a long-term strategy.

Nobody said sharing this world would be easy, but if we learn how, our children will reach for the stars.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a hard concept to convey... I am NOT an advocate of government usurping the rights of any individual regarding the fruits of their labor or their property.

On the other hand, I think it is just plain wrong for a European Corporation to have more say so in how, when and what to do with the profits from the harvest of timber in Washington State, simply because they paid a bunch of cash to a politician in Washington DC.

Do you see the difference?

I think we're probably going to wind up on the same side of the fence in this discussion. The Alaska situation is a two-edged sword. On one hand, the state does control its resources and does pass on a nice dividend to each qualified Alaskan resident each year; however because government does own and control so much of the land, the development of private enterprise is limited, restricted, and this has contributed to other problems.

I am a small government, lots of freedom, and, unless there is a compelling reason for intervention, letting the chips fall where they may person. I think it should be illegal with teeth in the consequences for anybody in government, local, state, or federal to take a payoff from anybody or to trade any kind of favor for money. I'm sure there are smart people in this forum who will see that my view is overly simplistic here--I could use a lot of words to explain why and expand on the possible exceptions I could see as pertinent--but for now, I think you probably get my drift. Hopefully you will understand the principle I'm trying to convey.

The whole world is a two edge sword with regards to the harvest of its resources. On the one hand, what better use for them than by the planets indigenous life-forms to make a better life for themselves and their spawn? On the other hand, to harvest them irresponsibly simply because one can, solely to have the means to show off a gold-plated toilet, is a slap in the face to ones neighbors, and should be recognized as such, by government intervention if necessary.

Unfortunately, the three things required for free-market utopia: respect, responsibility and love, no form of government has ever shown an ability to effectively legislate (and probably never will). The next best thing is effective management of available resources with focus on a long-term strategy.

Nobody said sharing this world would be easy, but if we learn how, our children will reach for the stars.

Well that 'eternal optimist' as the tag line for my screen name here is not just an empty phrase. I look at how this country got from point A to the present. And it did it by burning dirty coal, pumping noxious gasses into the air, fouling rivers, lakes, and oceans, and decimating to extinction a few species and almost to extinction many others.l But the more prosperous we became, the more we demanded clean air to breath, clean water to drink, swim, and fish in, clean soil where our children played, appreciation and protection of God's creatures, and preservation of the aesthetic beauty of our great land.

You see this phenomenon through the world wherever people have achieved freedom, civil rights, prosperity and a high standard of living.

It is in the world's poorest, most oppressed people who are now doing most of the polluting. It worsens as they begin to discover ways to exploit their resources and begin the process of climbing out of poverty. But is it unreasonable to believe the end result will be a much cleaner and appreciated world as we have here?

It seems to me the way to preserve our planet for our posterity is to promote freedom, liberty, human rights, and prosperity as quickly as possible. And to do that, we have to allow people to exploit their resources as we exploited ours to get from that Point A to now.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think we're probably going to wind up on the same side of the fence in this discussion. The Alaska situation is a two-edged sword. On one hand, the state does control its resources and does pass on a nice dividend to each qualified Alaskan resident each year; however because government does own and control so much of the land, the development of private enterprise is limited, restricted, and this has contributed to other problems.

I am a small government, lots of freedom, and, unless there is a compelling reason for intervention, letting the chips fall where they may person. I think it should be illegal with teeth in the consequences for anybody in government, local, state, or federal to take a payoff from anybody or to trade any kind of favor for money. I'm sure there are smart people in this forum who will see that my view is overly simplistic here--I could use a lot of words to explain why and expand on the possible exceptions I could see as pertinent--but for now, I think you probably get my drift. Hopefully you will understand the principle I'm trying to convey.

The whole world is a two edge sword with regards to the harvest of its resources. On the one hand, what better use for them than by the planets indigenous life-forms to make a better life for themselves and their spawn? On the other hand, to harvest them irresponsibly simply because one can, solely to have the means to show off a gold-plated toilet, is a slap in the face to ones neighbors, and should be recognized as such, by government intervention if necessary.

Unfortunately, the three things required for free-market utopia: respect, responsibility and love, no form of government has ever shown an ability to effectively legislate (and probably never will). The next best thing is effective management of available resources with focus on a long-term strategy.

Nobody said sharing this world would be easy, but if we learn how, our children will reach for the stars.

Well that 'eternal optimist' as the tag line for my screen name here is not just an empty phrase. I look at how this country got from point A to the present. And it did it by burning dirty coal, pumping noxious gasses into the air, fouling rivers, lakes, and oceans, and decimating to extinction a few species and almost to extinction many others.l But the more prosperous we became, the more we demanded clean air to breath, clean water to drink, swim, and fish in, clean soil where our children played, appreciation and protection of God's creatures, and preservation of the aesthetic beauty of our great land.

You see this phenomenon through the world wherever people have achieved freedom, civil rights, prosperity and a high standard of living.

It is in the world's poorest, most oppressed people who are now doing most of the polluting. It worsens as they begin to discover ways to exploit their resources and begin the process of climbing out of poverty. But is it unreasonable to believe the end result will be a much cleaner and appreciated world as we have here?

It seems to me the way to preserve our planet for our posterity is to promote freedom, liberty, human rights, and prosperity as quickly as possible. And to do that, we have to allow people to exploit their resources as we exploited ours to get from that Point A to now.

If we agree that freedom from greedy corporations in America is just as important as freedom from greedy kings and juntas in the third world, you have my vote Foxfyre.

-Joe

 

[Foxfyre]

If we agree that freedom from greedy corporations in America is just as important as freedom from greedy kings and juntas in the third world, you have my vote Foxfyre.

-Joe

I'm probably not going to be able to agree with you on that one. Darn. We were doing so well too.

However, if you would agree that government applying the appropriate anti-trust and similar regulation to make sure everybody has a fair chance to compete and otherwise refuse to use the people's money to manipulate anybody, that would take care of any 'greed' problem, then we might still be traveling the same road here.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If we agree that freedom from greedy corporations in America is just as important as freedom from greedy kings and juntas in the third world, you have my vote Foxfyre.

-Joe

I'm probably not going to be able to agree with you on that one. Darn. We were doing so well too.

However, if you would agree that government applying the appropriate anti-trust and similar regulation to make sure everybody has a fair chance to compete and otherwise refuse to use the people's money to manipulate anybody, that would take care of any 'greed' problem, then we might still be traveling the same road here.

Praise the Lord and pass the

 

[Foxfyre]

If we agree that freedom from greedy corporations in America is just as important as freedom from greedy kings and juntas in the third world, you have my vote Foxfyre.

-Joe

I'm probably not going to be able to agree with you on that one. Darn. We were doing so well too.

However, if you would agree that government applying the appropriate anti-trust and similar regulation to make sure everybody has a fair chance to compete and otherwise refuse to use the people's money to manipulate anybody, that would take care of any 'greed' problem, then we might still be traveling the same road here.

Praise the Lord and pass the

Well sh*t. I'm not gonna be able to get a good fight out of you, huh. But then I suspected we were probably pretty much on the same side of the fence here.

A happy and prosperous New Year to you Joe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm probably not going to be able to agree with you on that one. Darn. We were doing so well too.

However, if you would agree that government applying the appropriate anti-trust and similar regulation to make sure everybody has a fair chance to compete and otherwise refuse to use the people's money to manipulate anybody, that would take care of any 'greed' problem, then we might still be traveling the same road here.

Praise the Lord and pass the

Well sh*t. I'm not gonna be able to get a good fight out of you, huh. But then I suspected we were probably pretty much on the same side of the fence here.

A happy and prosperous New Year to you Joe.

One 'classic' liberal to another, eh Brother!

-Cheers!​

 

[Meister]

In Russia, Chukotka people have more help from the government, receive social benefits, free medical care, free education.
I am Alaska Native would like to have more of government

You have enough government.

 

[xotoxi]

I'm all for it.

That way, Sarah Palin could become President of Russia, ensuring its implosion and collapse instead of our country.

Plus, Sarah would no longer need to strain her eyes trying to see Russia.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

 

[Foxfyre]

Well yeah. I think at least some of us came to realize that this wasn't a real topic. But it has generated a bit of interesting discussion. Only a bit though.

 

[mudwhistle]

Me either. Stuff like this has no easy answers and falls into the damned if we do, and damned if we don't category.

My point is that I don't think the USA should be imposing our ethics on Japan. However, if Japan was so unwise as to hunt whales to extinction then I'd expect a serious decline in Toyota sales in the USA.

Would you expect a decline in sales enough to warrant government intervention in those Toyota sales?

I don't think Toyota is too big to fail.....unless they were into building huge gas-guzzlers.....or at least had the image that they were.

Buy the way...it should be obvious to anyone [except liberals] that the takeover of GM and Chrysler was just a ploy to get rid of Hummers and other SUVs.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well yeah. I think at least some of us came to realize that this wasn't a real topic. But it has generated a bit of interesting discussion. Only a bit though.

No...it's a good topic.....now we can't ignore the fact that many Russians desire Alaska and want to take it back. Not just the government but the people seem to feel this way. I wouldn't be surprised if this rumor was started in their schools and floated in their media on a regular basis.....even though the idea is preposterous.

 

[Russian]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame.
And most importantly, we would be close to the Canadians, Americans, would have been neighbors forever, and would be gone hostility and freshness in our relationship.

 

[mudwhistle]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame

That's why you lost Alaska in the first place I presume.

Selling off land to pay your debts.

Sorry....no sale dude....well maybe to a Democrat.

You're gonna have to keep infiltrating our government and trying to take it from within.

 

[editec]

Contract for the sale was invalid because the price of 7.2 million dollars for this area is ridiculous.

Do you even know what a contract is?

we know all
Alaska, opened in 1732 Russian expedition led by Fyodorov and Gvozdev, was the possession of Russia in North America
Even as pioneers, we (Russia) have the right to this territory.

Oh, I get it now, you're a TROLLsky.

 

[Meister]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame.
And most importantly, we would be close to the Canadians, Americans, would have been neighbors forever, and would be gone hostility and freshness in our relationship.

I guess you didn't know about the oil production, and oil reserve we have up there. Might want to raise the ante just a tad there, buckwheat

 

[mudwhistle]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame.
And most importantly, we would be close to the Canadians, Americans, would have been neighbors forever, and would be gone hostility and freshness in our relationship.

I guess you didn't know about the oil production, and oil reserve we have up there. Might want to raise the ante just a tad there, buckwheat

To be honest...Canada would have more claim to Alaska then anyone.

 

[Russian]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame.
And most importantly, we would be close to the Canadians, Americans, would have been neighbors forever, and would be gone hostility and freshness in our relationship.

I guess you didn't know about the oil production, and oil reserve we have up there. Might want to raise the ante just a tad there, buckwheat

The Washington Post
By Steven Pearlstein
The timing couldn't be better. The market value of Alaska's 4.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, plus the gas, timber and copper, are at or near all-time highs, while Russia is flush with $50 billion in petrodollars it doesn't know how to invest.

The fact that recently the U.S. Congress quite seriously discussed the project to offer Russia to buy Alaska back, but for the $ 1 trillion.

 

[mudwhistle]

U.S. could solve many of their financial and political problems if it decided to sell Alaska back to Russia.
A price of $ 1 trillion, should be enough for you. And the profit from the transaction of $ 7.2 million invested Seward put even Carlyle Group shame.
And most importantly, we would be close to the Canadians, Americans, would have been neighbors forever, and would be gone hostility and freshness in our relationship.

I guess you didn't know about the oil production, and oil reserve we have up there. Might want to raise the ante just a tad there, buckwheat

The Washington Post
By Steven Pearlstein
The timing couldn't be better. The market value of Alaska's 4.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, plus the gas, timber and copper, are at or near all-time highs, while Russia is flush with $50 billion in petrodollars it doesn't know how to invest.

The fact that recently the U.S. Congress quite seriously discussed the project to offer Russia to buy Alaska back, but for the $ 1 trillion.

Judging by the Commie-bastards we have in the Democrat Party I wouldn't be surprised one bit.