Alaska is Russia

[Athabasca]

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

How about instead you do more to earn more for yourself? Some of us are getting quite tired of paying the way for parasites.

I'm not a parasite, I live in the land of their ancestors, and you come to us and exploit our nature oil gas, we do not get revenue from oil companies throw a little bit like a dog.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

How about instead you do more to earn more for yourself? Some of us are getting quite tired of paying the way for parasites.

I'm not a parasite, I live in the land of their ancestors, and you come to us and exploit our nature oil gas, we do not get revenue from oil companies throw a little bit like a dog.

Excuse me....when did it become YOUR natural gas???

I figure it belongs to whomever pulls it out of the ground. Everyone knows that it does you no good if you can't produce it yourself.

 

[Athabasca]

Our ancestors hunted elk fished. You have established laws do not give privileges to indigenous people. I must buy a license along with everyone else.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

He Karmil Trolla

 

[AVG-JOE]

How about instead you do more to earn more for yourself? Some of us are getting quite tired of paying the way for parasites.

I'm not a parasite, I live in the land of their ancestors, and you come to us and exploit our nature oil gas, we do not get revenue from oil companies throw a little bit like a dog.

Excuse me....when did it become YOUR natural gas???

I figure it belongs to whomever pulls it out of the ground. Everyone knows that it does you no good it you can't produce it yourself.

THAT attitude is what is wrong with Western 'Civilization'. The resources of a region should belong to the people who have to live there during and after their harvest.

Just because Might makes Right doesn't mean it should.

As soon as Western 'Civilization' begins to show respect for the other kids on the playground, her children will be free to reach for the stars.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not a parasite, I live in the land of their ancestors, and you come to us and exploit our nature oil gas, we do not get revenue from oil companies throw a little bit like a dog.

Excuse me....when did it become YOUR natural gas???

I figure it belongs to whomever pulls it out of the ground. Everyone knows that it does you no good it you can't produce it yourself.

THAT attitude is what is wrong with Western 'Civilization'. The resources of a region should belong to the people who have to live there during and after their harvest.

Just because Might makes Right doesn't mean it should.

As soon as Western 'Civilization' begins to show respect for the other kids on the playground, her children will be free to reach for the stars.

So I guess you'd better drain your gas tank because that shit don't belong to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not a parasite, I live in the land of their ancestors, and you come to us and exploit our nature oil gas, we do not get revenue from oil companies throw a little bit like a dog.

Excuse me....when did it become YOUR natural gas???

I figure it belongs to whomever pulls it out of the ground. Everyone knows that it does you no good it you can't produce it yourself.

THAT attitude is what is wrong with Western 'Civilization'. The resources of a region should belong to the people who have to live there during and after their harvest.

Just because Might makes Right doesn't mean it should.

As soon as Western 'Civilization' begins to show respect for the other kids on the playground, her children will be free to reach for the stars.

The resources whether they be great farmland, abundant wildlife, great water, hot springs, diamonds, gold, silver, oil, natural gas or whatever belong to whomever owns the land. The owner of the land has the right to sell rights to those rescources to others, thus land may be exchanged with or without mineral rights and the owner may or may not elect to retain royalty interests in the resources exchanged. I own a small amount of royalty interest in a couple of Texas oil leases and have never lived on that land or even visited it so far as I know. I have absolutely no say on what is done with the land or its resources, but if anybody extracts any oil or natural gas from that land, they have to pay a teeny percentage of whatever is extracted to me. If I owned the mineral rights to that land I could sell or lease those to whomever I pleased for whatever amount I could get, but all activity is still up to the owner of the land to permit or not as he chooses. If I own the land and the mineral rights I can call the shots any way I want to so long as I don't violate the law or tread on the rights of my neighbors.

The fact that you move into my neighborhood does not give you any legitimate claim to the resources on my property, nor should any government require me to share them with you.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Excuse me....when did it become YOUR natural gas???

I figure it belongs to whomever pulls it out of the ground. Everyone knows that it does you no good it you can't produce it yourself.

THAT attitude is what is wrong with Western 'Civilization'. The resources of a region should belong to the people who have to live there during and after their harvest.

Just because Might makes Right doesn't mean it should.

As soon as Western 'Civilization' begins to show respect for the other kids on the playground, her children will be free to reach for the stars.

The resources whether they be great farmland, abundant wildlife, great water, hot springs, diamonds, gold, silver, oil, natural gas or whatever belong to whomever owns the land. The owner of the land has the right to sell rights to those rescources to others, thus land may be exchanged with or without mineral rights and the owner may or may not elect to retain royalty interests in the resources exchanged. I own a small amount of royalty interest in a couple of Texas oil leases and have never lived on that land or even visited it so far as I know. I have absolutely no say on what is done with the land or its resources, but if anybody extracts any oil or natural gas from that land, they have to pay a teeny percentage of whatever is extracted to me. If I owned the mineral rights to that land I could sell or lease those to whomever I pleased for whatever amount I could get, but all activity is still up to the owner of the land to permit or not as he chooses. If I own the land and the mineral rights I can call the shots any way I want to so long as I don't violate the law or tread on the rights of my neighbors.

The fact that you move into my neighborhood does not give you any legitimate claim to the resources on my property, nor should any government require me to share them with you.

O.k. then, a moral question.

Some dude owns the land. How did he get it? Bought it fair and square from some other dude.

How did he get the land? Bought it fair and square from yet another dude.

Sounds great until you trace the title back to the first dude to ever sell it because the odds are good that he took it at gunpoint.

Morally then, who really owns the land and its resources? Is it not just loaned to this generation by the next? Do we have the right to exploit the resources of this planet without regard to the people who will come to live here after we are gone?

 

[AVG-JOE]

If a moral question doesn't suit you, let's go for a legal one...

The People of The Great State of Alaska were smart enough to claim ownership of the oil resources of their state.

Proof?

Alaska Permanent Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samson]

Morally then, who really owns the land and its resources? Is it not just loaned to this generation by the next? Do we have the right to exploit the resources of this planet without regard to the people who will come to live here after we are gone?

I thought this question's been settled.

Is there no EPA? Is there no UN?

When we speak of "exploiting resources," I'm always a little astonished that anyone would expect anyone to do anything with resources BUT EXPLOIT THEM.....this is, after all, what makes them RESOURCES?

I'm also a little taken back at the readiness anyone with resources is able to morally dictate to others how they should morally manage their resources.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Morally then, who really owns the land and its resources? Is it not just loaned to this generation by the next? Do we have the right to exploit the resources of this planet without regard to the people who will come to live here after we are gone?

I thought this question's been settled.

Is there no EPA? Is there no UN?

When we speak of "exploiting resources," I'm always a little astonished that anyone would expect anyone to do anything with resources BUT EXPLOIT THEM.....this is, after all, what makes them RESOURCES?

I'm also a little taken back at the readiness anyone with resources is able to morally dictate to others how they should morally manage their resources.

To me the difference between responsible harvesting of resources and exploitation of resources is in the how and the why.

Example: Strip mining for immediate profit verses more expensive harvesting methods that keep responsibility to the environment high on the list of priorities.

And yes, my use of the word 'exploit' in this context is a bit wrong, now that you mention it.

 

[Foxfyre]

If a moral question doesn't suit you, let's go for a legal one...

The People of The Great State of Alaska were smart enough to claim ownership of the oil resources of their state.

Proof?

Alaska Permanent Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[Samson]

Morally then, who really owns the land and its resources? Is it not just loaned to this generation by the next? Do we have the right to exploit the resources of this planet without regard to the people who will come to live here after we are gone?

I thought this question's been settled.

Is there no EPA? Is there no UN?

When we speak of "exploiting resources," I'm always a little astonished that anyone would expect anyone to do anything with resources BUT EXPLOIT THEM.....this is, after all, what makes them RESOURCES?

I'm also a little taken back at the readiness anyone with resources is able to morally dictate to others how they should morally manage their resources.

To me the difference between responsible harvesting of resources and exploitation of resources is in the how and the why.

Example: Strip mining for immediate profit verses more expensive harvesting methods that keep responsibility to the environment high on the list of priorities.

And yes, my use of the word 'exploit' in this context is a bit wrong, now that you mention it.

I think the best modern example of whatever we're talking about would be over-fishing and whaling. Sure, Whales are a resource for Japanese who eat them. However, Americans eat almost no whale. Complicating the issue is that there is no whale farm, or, ranch if you prefer, so whales are harvested in international oceans.

I'd expect the Japanese to take a pragmatic approach to harvesting this resource, and ensure that they don't cause it to become extinct.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought this question's been settled.

Is there no EPA? Is there no UN?

When we speak of "exploiting resources," I'm always a little astonished that anyone would expect anyone to do anything with resources BUT EXPLOIT THEM.....this is, after all, what makes them RESOURCES?

I'm also a little taken back at the readiness anyone with resources is able to morally dictate to others how they should morally manage their resources.

To me the difference between responsible harvesting of resources and exploitation of resources is in the how and the why.

Example: Strip mining for immediate profit verses more expensive harvesting methods that keep responsibility to the environment high on the list of priorities.

And yes, my use of the word 'exploit' in this context is a bit wrong, now that you mention it.

I think the best modern example of whatever we're talking about would be over-fishing and whaling. Sure, Whales are a resource for Japanese who eat them. However, Americans eat almost no whale. Complicating the issue is that there is no whale farm, or, ranch if you prefer, so whales are harvested in international oceans.

I'd expect the Japanese to take a pragmatic approach to harvesting this resource, and ensure that they don't cause it to become extinct.

So the USA takes an ethical approach to preserve and protect a species, something which has been a USA policy for a very long time now.

So what is our responsibility for Japan's policy? If they reject our suggestion that they adopt policies to preserve and protect species, do we do anything? If so, what?

 

[Samson]

To me the difference between responsible harvesting of resources and exploitation of resources is in the how and the why.

Example: Strip mining for immediate profit verses more expensive harvesting methods that keep responsibility to the environment high on the list of priorities.

And yes, my use of the word 'exploit' in this context is a bit wrong, now that you mention it.

I think the best modern example of whatever we're talking about would be over-fishing and whaling. Sure, Whales are a resource for Japanese who eat them. However, Americans eat almost no whale. Complicating the issue is that there is no whale farm, or, ranch if you prefer, so whales are harvested in international oceans.

I'd expect the Japanese to take a pragmatic approach to harvesting this resource, and ensure that they don't cause it to become extinct.

So the USA takes an ethical approach to preserve and protect a species, something which has been a USA policy for a very long time now.

So what is our responsibility for Japan's policy? If they reject our suggestion that they adopt policies to preserve and protect species, do we do anything? If so, what?

Well, I'm not for nuking them over a damn whale.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the best modern example of whatever we're talking about would be over-fishing and whaling. Sure, Whales are a resource for Japanese who eat them. However, Americans eat almost no whale. Complicating the issue is that there is no whale farm, or, ranch if you prefer, so whales are harvested in international oceans.

I'd expect the Japanese to take a pragmatic approach to harvesting this resource, and ensure that they don't cause it to become extinct.

So the USA takes an ethical approach to preserve and protect a species, something which has been a USA policy for a very long time now.

So what is our responsibility for Japan's policy? If they reject our suggestion that they adopt policies to preserve and protect species, do we do anything? If so, what?

Well, I'm not for nuking them over a damn whale.

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

 

[AVG-JOE]

If a moral question doesn't suit you, let's go for a legal one...

The People of The Great State of Alaska were smart enough to claim ownership of the oil resources of their state.

Proof?

Alaska Permanent Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

 

[Samson]

So the USA takes an ethical approach to preserve and protect a species, something which has been a USA policy for a very long time now.

So what is our responsibility for Japan's policy? If they reject our suggestion that they adopt policies to preserve and protect species, do we do anything? If so, what?

Well, I'm not for nuking them over a damn whale.

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well, I'm not for nuking them over a damn whale.

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?

 

[Foxfyre]

If a moral question doesn't suit you, let's go for a legal one...

The People of The Great State of Alaska were smart enough to claim ownership of the oil resources of their state.

Proof?

Alaska Permanent Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.