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.