|Mike writes, in post 50, "Private property and government "ownership" and control of property and natural resources are not analogous. The second describes collectivism pure and simple. In this respect Alaska law does not differ in principle from nationalization. Of course it's "legal". My original question was "..how does Alaska law differ from any other nationalization of private property scheme?"|
I agree with the first sentence, as I've said, government does not have property rights. But acquiring, and even holding land or buildings or other objects in a form of custody - as commons - can be valid - i.e., moral and legal. Think of the land under a court house, the court house building, the police cars, military bases, etc. I would be a cry for anarchy to claim that there is no such thing as a valid government custody.
In the case of Alaska, the land may have been acquired, and initially held, in a valid form, but when it wasn't privatized and was used to extort money from those who developed it, it became an example of collectivism.
The term "nationalization" should be reserved for invalid (i.e., immoral and illegal), acquisition of what had been valid property. Not the invalid holding since "nationalization" refers to the act of taking.
In other states, like Wyoming, they have been transferring all state held mineral rights to the citizens through either auctions (where the section of land has probable deposits) or a lottery. With the lottery, anyone can select the particular section they are interested in from those being given away that month. It may be a piece of land with no more value than goat pasture and the 'winner' won't even get that use out of it. They pay the filing fee ($10 when I lived there), and the winner for each section was selected at the end of the month by a blind drawing. One day every single section of land in the state, where the mineral rights were in custody of the state, will have been auctioned off or given away and all mineral rights will be in the hands of people. That seems like a reasonable way to move mineral rights from state custody into private property.
I hope that's coherent :-)
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/02, 9:09am)