Why the State should own natural resources.

[Magistermilitum]

It's simple. Natural resources are basic to the survival of any society, and to allow any one faction or class or individual to have a corner on that is to give him or her or them a dagger and let them point it at the rest of us.

No, for the good of any Republic, let the State own the most essential natural resources, such as oil, gold, etc. Then let the State contract out the rights to drill, etc. This is a far more effective way of regulating the use of such things and issues like pollution than through laws or agency regulations, since it would impact what the rich really understand: money. If you make them understand that their profits will improve when they behave themselves, they will have an incentive to do so.

 

[Magistermilitum]

I also think that private ownership of firearms should be restricted to citizens who own property. If you don't own property, your purpose in getting arms is to steal it. Naturally, we shouldn't let you have the chance.

 

[gauchecritic]

Why do I have the feeling that this is exactly how MiAmico would present himself on those 'other' boards?

 

[Guest]

Indeed.

I've been wondering about the identity of this new Lit member.

 

[cloudy]

Indeed.

I've been wondering about the identity of this new Lit member.

Not enough ellipses.

 

[impressive]

It's simple. Natural resources are basic to the survival of any society, and to allow any one faction or class or individual to have a corner on that is to give him or her or them a dagger and let them point it at the rest of us.

No, for the good of any Republic, let the State own the most essential natural resources, such as oil, gold, etc. Then let the State contract out the rights to drill, etc. This is a far more effective way of regulating the use of such things and issues like pollution than through laws or agency regulations, since it would impact what the rich really understand: money. If you make them understand that their profits will improve when they behave themselves, they will have an incentive to do so.

The same argument could be made about:

• information / books
• money / wealth
• religion / faith
• liberty

Oh, wait ...

 

[Safe_Bet]

Indeed.

I've been wondering about the identity of this new Lit member.

Gimme a T.....Gimme a R..... Gimme a O....

(Gimme a break - I used to be a cheerleader)

 

[R. Richard]

It's simple. Natural resources are basic to the survival of any society, and to allow any one faction or class or individual to have a corner on that is to give him or her or them a dagger and let them point it at the rest of us.

No, for the good of any Republic, let the State own the most essential natural resources, such as oil, gold, etc. Then let the State contract out the rights to drill, etc. This is a far more effective way of regulating the use of such things and issues like pollution than through laws or agency regulations, since it would impact what the rich really understand: money. If you make them understand that their profits will improve when they behave themselves, they will have an incentive to do so.

Take a trip to Cape Cod. Go all the way out to the end of the cape and see the sand dunes. The sand dunes are there because the are the remnants of what was once public grazing land for the early settlers of the cape. Since everyone owned the public grazing lands, the people overgrazed the land until it was a sand dune waste. The people running the cape, back in those days gave speeches about not overgrazing, but did nothing else. Politics doesn't work. Private ownership does. Go and look and learn.

 

[neonlyte]

Why do I have the feeling that this is exactly how MiAmico would present himself on those 'other' boards?

nah... it's grammatically up wind.

My first thought was subjoe, but I don't think he could keep a straight face this long.

 

[xssve]

Amicus would never condone state ownership of natural resources, he would advocate their ownership by the private/corporate supermen who would exploit it for personal gain in their heroic struggle against the parasitic commoner.

 

[rgraham666]

Amicus would never condone state ownership of natural resources, he would advocate their ownership by the private/corporate supermen who would exploit it for personal gain in their heroic struggle against the parasitic commoner.

What's the difference?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not enough ellipses.

yeah but he could have been lying about all those ellipses.


"Magister", hahaha!

 

[off2bed]

Stop breathing my air. You haven't paid your air bill in three months, so I'm cutting you off.

If we can't privately own natural resources, then all property rights are dead. Where do you draw the line?

Whether this is a troll thread or not, there really are people in the world (some of them are heads of state) who believe natural resources are the property of the State.

 

[xssve]

What's the difference?

In amicus oversimplifed universe, the state represents the parasitic commoner, the socialist leaches who feed of the honest enterprise of the corporate superman.

i.e., the state is the enemy in amicus's paradigm, it represents the collective that fails to recognize his natural superiority and conspires to rob him of his natural inheritance as a member of the master race.

 

[xssve]

Stop breathing my air. You haven't paid your air bill in three months, so I'm cutting you off.

If we can't privately own natural resources, then all property rights are dead. Where do you draw the line?

Whether this is a troll thread or not, there really are people in the world (some of them are heads of state) who believe natural resources are the property of the State.

Nobody owns property, at best you just possess, occupy and manage it until you're dead.

Resources belong to the living, which includes those not yet alive, but for practical purposes, excludes those who have already enjoyed them and moved on.

The question here is, I believe, one of management: i.e., is it a given resource to be treated as as finite personal property, i.e., dominion, or as a trust for current and future generations, stewardship?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You seem to forget that the government once owned all the resources then sold them for cash.

Now the government sells chunks of the economy to corporations and professions.

Next up they'll sell you.

 

[gauchecritic]

Take a trip to Cape Cod. Go all the way out to the end of the cape and see the sand dunes. The sand dunes are there because the are the remnants of what was once public grazing land for the early settlers of the cape. Since everyone owned the public grazing lands, the people overgrazed the land until it was a sand dune waste. The people running the cape, back in those days gave speeches about not overgrazing, but did nothing else. Politics doesn't work. Private ownership does. Go and look and learn.

That's right. The private owners could have made a shitload of cash out of grazing rights and have gained basic control of market prices for beef etc. Then, when this wasn't economical they could've built condos or parking lots or anything. So who's laughing now? Not the free-grazers that's for sure.

 

[xssve]

You seem to forget that the government once owned all the resources then sold them for cash.

Now the government sells chunks of the economy to corporations and professions.

Next up they'll sell you.

It may seem so, but this is not the case I assure you. This is framed as a purely theoretical debate over what the governments role ought to be - what the government, federal state and local, has actually done as a mater of historical record is a separate issue, without forgoing the probability that the study of same might shed light on the various pros and cons of public vs private management.

 

[xssve]

That's right. The private owners could have made a shitload of cash out of grazing rights and have gained basic control of market prices for beef etc. Then, when this wasn't economical they could've built condos or parking lots or anything. So who's laughing now? Not the free-grazers that's for sure.

Overuse (the tragedy of the commons) vs. misuse.

The tragedy of the commons is, oddly enough, an argument based on Malthusian principles, which are presumed to apply only to common interests, and not to corporate/private interests, substituting the allure of short term gain for Malthusian depletion.

I might cite Love Canal or Bhopal India as well known counter examples, and with a little digging I'm quite certain you can find many excellent examples much closer to home.

 

[gauchecritic]

Overuse (the tragedy of the commons) vs. misuse.

The tragedy of the commons is, oddly enough, an argument based on Malthusian principles, which are presumed to apply only to common interests, and not to corporate/private interests, substituting the allure of short term gain for Malthusian depletion.

I might cite Love Canal or Bhopal India as well known counter examples, and with a little digging I'm quite certain you can find many excellent examples much closer to home.

That's what I get for not using smilies. I'm not sure what your point is xss. (or are you just fence sitting?)

 

[neonlyte]

Take a trip to Cape Cod. Go all the way out to the end of the cape and see the sand dunes. The sand dunes are there because the are the remnants of what was once public grazing land for the early settlers of the cape. Since everyone owned the public grazing lands, the people overgrazed the land until it was a sand dune waste. The people running the cape, back in those days gave speeches about not overgrazing, but did nothing else. Politics doesn't work. Private ownership does. Go and look and learn.

What a load of bollocks, RR

Shit! You make it sound like the USA is the size of Littlehampton. Spend some years on an exposed peninsular. Watch what 'climate' does to shore lines. Don't give me bull shit about Indians and Rebels... the early settlers had a whole continent at their disposal for grazing. The deforestization of Cape Cod had fuck all to do with grazing!

From National Park Service .gov
From the air, outer Cape Cod appears to be a flooded landscape – a narrow arm of glacial outwash and moraine thrust 60 miles into the North Atlantic Ocean; fringed by thousands of acres of tidal marshes; peppered with over 30 freshwater ponds. Hydrologists call it "the sand pile in the ocean" because this image best describes the Cape’s permeable soils infiltrated by seawater from both Cape Cod Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Atop this saline groundwater floats a thin lens of freshwater sustained solely by precipitation that falls on the land surface. Fresh surface water resources, kettle ponds, dune ponds, vernal pools and the low-salinity upper reaches of estuaries, depend on fresh ground water. For the past 18,000 years of the Cape’s post-glacial existence, the sea has dominated the local environment. Strong winds and salt spray stress even the hardy pitch pines and bear oaks, with a clear gradient of decreasing plant height and vigor as one approaches the Atlantic bluffs. The proximity and influence of the ocean is even evident in the ionic composition of the Park’s kettle ponds, essentially containing very dilute seawater. The dominant vegetation of outer Cape Cod’s forests, mostly pitch pine and black oak, has changed little over the past 9000 years, with the very important exception of almost total deforestation by European settlers from 1650 to 1900. Surviving artifacts of the extensive deforestation include globally rare heathland plant communities. These original pine-oak forests burned frequently, creating a mosaic of open and wooded habitats. Over the past 100 years much of the upland forest has grown back, especially on National Seashore lands which are protected from housing development. However, with fire suppression, the seashore's current forests are much less diverse than the prehistoric forests. Besides early deforestation, more modern human activities have altered the environment in various ways: suppressing natural fires, restricting tidal flow into coastal salt marshes, potentially loading surface waters with polluting nutrients and, from more distant pollutant sources, even changing the chemistry of precipitation. However, water quality to date remains high in freshwater ponds, estuaries and seashore beaches. Seashore staff monitor park terrestrial and water resources intensively in an effort to understand change and avoid or mitigate human-caused damage. The Park is also active in the restoration of human-disturbed habitats.

Just in case you still want to argue, the New England settlers transported sheep, not cattle. Cattle didn't arrive in Cape Cod until the latter 18C (Texas Long Horns - a derivative of a Spanish cattle breed) Cape Cod has been much the same for 9000 years.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

But the horse is out of the barn in the case of America....except for resources on Federal lands, navigable waterways, and the continental shelf.

When the Federal Government controls resources it means that Dick Cheney and Halliburton get to cherry pick the resources they want for little or no cost to them. Everyone else gets to eat shit...until Halliburton finds a use for shit.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Next up they'll sell you.

You're first.

 

[rgraham666]

Who'd want him?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Who'd want him?

Got a garden? = Manure is great fertilizer!