RoR: Forum

Steve Wolfer (post 52):

Again, the government doesn't have property rights like a human - as Bill pointed out, the best that they can aspire to is a legal and moral custodian for humans within their jurisdiction.

Corporations, though not human, have property rights -- derived from the humans who own the corporation. What is so different about a government having property rights, derived from the citizens whom a legitimate government is suppose to serve? Yes, I recognize there are differences, but are the similarities irrelevant?

As the custodian, the proper thing to do would be to privatize a portion of the land and/or mineral rights at that time - hence to make it into property for the humans behind the pipe-line.

So how do they privatize it? Give it away or sell it to the highest bidders? If the latter, aren't the citizens and/or their representatives qua custodians entitled to the money or set a minimum bid? Leasing the mineral rights in exchange for future royalties could also result in money for the citizens. What makes you think the oil companies or pipeline builders or financiers would rather buy than lease? (I can think of reasons why leasing might be a more attractive option to them than buying.) Why can't "the humans behind the pipe-line" be the citizens of Alaska? That is in fact the way the citizens of Alaska view their situation. From a site I linked above:

Public opinion strongly favors the Dividend program. Indeed, in 1999, with oil prices going as low as $9 per barrel and Alaska's oil consultant Daniel Yergin forecasting low prices "for the foreseeable future", the State put an advisory vote before Alaskans, asking if government could spend "some" part of Permanent Fund earning for government purposes. Gov. Knowles, Lt. Gov. Ulmer, and many other elected officials urged a 'yes' vote. Campaign spending greatly favored the "Yes" side. The public voted "No" by nearly 84%. [Oil prices rose dramatically, starting about two weeks after Yergin's prediction, to above $60 per barrel, though the quantity produced continues to fall.]. Many Alaskans now think of it as a "permanent dividend fund,' much to the dismay of 'original intent' advocates.

I am all for privatization, if it's feasible. Like was done for the Trans-Alaskan pipeline, a special purpose entity was set up and a consortium of oil companies joined. It has also been a great success. I'm also for the optimal deal for the citizens, and if selling isn't the optimal way, then it shouldn't be done. With an exception for Steve noted below, I find the objections to government ever owning property to be, frankly, knee-jerk. Should all the national parks be auctioned off? I can understand the reaction given the kinds of governments we have now. Practical judgment is important. However, I thought this was a philosophical discussion.

What if a wealthy party wants to donate property to a government, e.g. for a museum or historic site which could produce revenue and with stipulation that the government retain ownership. It has been done. What is the government suppose to do? Refuse it? Accept it and then sell it in disregard of the stipulation?

Steve Wolfer (post 54):

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.

That's my principle, too, although your application of it seems narrower.

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.

To what extortion do you refer?

I'm not claiming the Alaska case is wholly proper, but that it is far, far from what Mike E. called it -- a nationalization.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/02, 4:02pm)

Post 61

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 5:13pm

Merlin, in the discussion about Alaska and government 'property', writes, "Corporations, though not human, have property rights -- derived from the humans who own the corporation. What is so different about a government having property rights, derived from the citizens whom a legitimate government is suppose to serve? Yes, I recognize there are differences, but are the similarities irrelevant?

Actually, corporations don't have property rights - not ethical property rights, i.e., individual rights - they have legal rights but that's a different kettle of fish. The only property rights that exist in the corporate world derive from the individuals that own the corporation - even though the law, for convenience, treats the corporation as an individual.

The difference between rights in the world of ethics and the rights in the world of law is at the root of many a misunderstanding.

It is a good question though - for example, if we can delegate the right to self-defense to the government, can we delegate a right to own property? Well, property is an individual right expressed as an action and in a category that is required if the right to live has any meaning. When we delegate to government the right of self-defense, it obviously includes the right to hold land, buildings, equipment, etc., as needed to perform the defense of individual rights.

But, here is the problem. If they 'own' anything outside of the area of defending individual rights (unless they acquired it for nothing and it costs nothing to maintain and it doesn't compete with private concerns), then they are violating individual rights. As soon as that slippery slope is approached there is no stopping till arrival at socialism.

Merlin goes on to write, "So how do they privatize it? Give it away or sell it to the highest bidders? If the latter, aren't the citizens and/or their representatives qua custodians entitled to the money or set a minimum bid? Leasing the mineral rights in exchange for future royalties could also result in money for the citizens. What makes you think the oil companies or pipeline builders or financiers would rather buy than lease? (I can think of reasons why leasing might be a more attractive option to them than buying.) Why can't "the humans behind the pipe-line" be the citizens of Alaska? That is in fact the way the citizens of Alaska view their situation."

The mechanism isn't a matter of philosophy as long as it is no longer in the hands of the government. For them to hold anything, other than the mechanism of protecting individual rights, is to be in competition with private parties, or withholding resources that should be available, and probably taxing citizens to hold onto that resource. The revenue generated by the sale should of course be immediate tax payer relief towards the one legitimate expense, protecting individual rights. The fact that a majority of citizens might want the state to retain the mineral rights doesn't make it right (they might also want government to give them 'free' medical services). So, the reasons that "the humans behind the pipe-line" can't be the citizens of Alaska is that we don't want government to own or control the means of production.

Merlin asks about the government following the "optimal" solution - and I'm all in favor of making the most reasonable, the most optimal choice, but only within the scope of what is proper for government. And on the question Merlin asks, "What if a wealthy party wants to donate property to a government, e.g. for a museum or historic site which could produce revenue and with stipulation that the government retain ownership. It has been done. What is the government suppose to do? Refuse it? Accept it and then sell it in disregard of the stipulation? If MoveOn.Org or Bill Gates made a donation to the state of Alaska that put them into some kind of business, like broadcasting educational programs, should the state accept it? No, because we want a government that protects individual rights, does not own or control the means of production, and does not compete with private enterprise. Often the mistake is in thinking that government has some special magic that allows it to do something with resources that wouldn't be done better with private enterprise.

Merlin, the extortion I referred to are the taxes that are paid to the state by the oil companies (or to be accurate, by the corporate share holders) that will give the citizens those $1,200 checks. There is also the threat of force and taxation used to continue the existing limitations on the use and the buying and selling of the mineral rights that are locked up in the existing 'agreements' between the government and the oil companies. The government shouldn't be in the business of making shoes, providing health care or extracting oil and gas.

Here is the short answer: Free enterprise will provide energy, shoes, education, or any other product or service better than government. And it isn't right for the government to stray from the area of protecting individual rights because it can not do so without violating someone's rights in the doing.

Post 62

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 5:20pm

Merlin writes:

Should all the national parks be auctioned off?

Yes. The government has no more business being in the recreation industry than it does being in the oil industry. These are economic concerns and are the purview of private citizens and organizations. The government's sole legitimate purpose is to insure the freedom and rights of its citizens. It is from this perspective that Mike classifies Alaska's involvement in the ownership and revenue-sharing of oil production in the state as tantamount to nationalization.

Merlin, do you not accept Rand's argument that government should be barred from all economic arenas? Once you open the door to a single breach of this clear line, you end up - well, where we are today - on the steady slope down towards ever increasing control of every aspect of our lives by the state. Soon, the government is going to control and dictate the medical service that we can receive. What do you call this pending proposal? It seems like nationalization of medicine to me.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 63

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 11:18pm

Steve Wolfer wrote:

The only property rights that exist in the corporate world derive from the individuals that own the corporation - even though the law, for convenience, treats the corporation as an individual.

I'm glad you agree with what I said in #60.

So, the reasons that "the humans behind the pipe-line" can't be the citizens of Alaska is that we don't want government to own or control the means of production.

It's not a case of the citizens of Alaska owning or controlling the means of production. It's a case of their owning a natural resource. The means of production are owned by the oil companies, pipeline companies, etc.

The mechanism isn't a matter of philosophy as long as it is no longer in the hands of the government. For them to hold anything, other than the mechanism of protecting individual rights, is to be in competition with private parties, or withholding resources that should be available, and probably taxing citizens to hold onto that resource. The revenue generated by the sale should of course be immediate tax payer relief towards the one legitimate expense, protecting individual rights.

What you are objecting to is a non-coercive sustainable revenue source -- royalties to a government as a natural resource owner -- to pay the cost of government. When the main government revenue source in today's world is coercive, i.e. taxes, I'm truly astounded.

Alaska is one of the few states that has no personal income tax, and the annual Permanent Fund Dividend makes in effect a negative income tax. In other words, you prefer coercive taxation over the government owning something it obtained non-coercively (see my next paragraph). I am astounded!

Merlin, the extortion I referred to are the taxes that are paid to the state by the oil companies (or to be accurate, by the corporate share holders) that will give the citizens those $1,200 checks.

I disagree. The primary source of the money is the royalties which the oil companies voluntarily agreed to pay in the 1970's in order to get the Trans-Alaskan pipeline built, be able to explore for and extract oil on the North Slope and get it to market. These agreed-to royalties are linked to the price of crude oil. Its high price in recent years has resulted in unexpectedly high revenues to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was created for the benefit of Alaskan citizens/residents, qua natural resource owners. The state government acted to distribute a part of those high revenues to citizens/residents a little earlier than they otherwise would.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/02, 11:49pm)

Post 64

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 11:27pm

I asked: "Should all the national parks be auctioned off?"

Jeff replied:

Yes. The government has no more business being in the recreation industry than it does being in the oil industry.

I have far more important priorities for changing government than selling off national parks. I don't regard a state-owned museum or park financed by admission fees paid by those who choose to go there as a violation of my rights. I have not argued for the government being in the oil industry and competing against private sector oil companies.

Merlin, do you not accept Rand's argument that government should be barred from all economic arenas?

I hold that the government should not in general own means of production beyond those needed to perform its proper functions. But it is impossible to separate government and economics entirely. The government must buy, for example, its military equipment, police cars, food to feed soldiers, buy or rent property, compete in the labor market, and so on in order to perform its proper functions. Those functions cost. You have a simple choice. Do you prefer the cost of government be financed by coercive taxation or in another way? I support the latter. Jeff, do you reject Rand's arguments against coercive taxation?

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/02, 11:54pm)

Post 65

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 1:34am

The Sub-Ideal is Unreal*

Merlin, you have made two minor, but fatal flaws. First, you have allowed your argument to be made on the terms of government ownership. Now, this is not untrue. The government purchased Alaska from Russia. It holds the title. It administers the land. But you should have used the term state, which refers to the entity - the public - which stands behind the government, and whose agent the government is. The term government is simply too objectionable. You make the perfectly reasonable point that ideally, as much property as possible would be privately held. You are astonished that while you maintain this point in common with your attackers, they fail to see the common ground. You have used a dirty word, and so far as you continue to use it you will be misunderstood. Why?

This brings us to the second point. For many Objectivists and especially libertarians, the unideal is unreal. Extant law and government aren't in need of correction to such thinkers. Extant law is so invalid as not to exist. Law, for such people, does not gain legitimacy in usage. Law springs full blown from the forehead, not of Zeus, but of Athena.

Of course, this was not Rand's view. Rand held that government was legitimate - i.e., that one must work from within the system to change it, and must obey it even when it was wrong - so long as there was freedom of speech and emigration and there was no imprisonment for political crimes. Yes, the proper principal for law is that it exists to safeguard individual rights. But the rule of law is more important than any single issue or fact of law. The "privatist absolutists" scream in indignation that "government can't own property" and they laugh in derision if you counter "but, it does." You have fact on your side - and they have right on theirs. Right doesn't only make law in their eyes - it makes reality. Men did once own slaves, and it was even thought proper to reimburse slave holders for their losses when slavery was abolished. A reasonable and debatable policy. But not only would have your current opponents have opposed that policy, they would have denied that slave owners owned slaves in the first place. The moral for them is primary. The sub-ideal is not only wrong - it is unreal.

Yes, you are absolutely right that, using my terms, there is land which is state or publicly owned which has not been nationalized - seized - from its prior owners. (If one should object that Alaska was owned by its natives, one must ask, even the mountain slopes of areas in which no tribe resided?) But having the temerity to state this inconvenient fact puts you on the side of the devil here. Facts and established law do not matter to the armchair legalist. He has his cross and his garlic and if you do not flee from his talismans he has his curses, and his screams, as a last resort.

-----

*Small would call this a "title."

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/03, 3:31pm)

Post 66

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 1:35am

Merlin writes:

Jeff, do you reject Rand's arguments against coercive taxation?

No. But what have I said that gives you the idea that I might???

Merlin, are you suggesting that a proper way to finance the US government is to cede them ownership of all lands and resources and then collect leasehold fees from private citizens and organizations that wish to use them as the "non-coercive" means of funding you allude to? If that is not what you are implying, then I'm at a loss to understand your point.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 67

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 1:55am

Ted writes:

But not only would have your current opponents have opposed that policy, they would have denied that slave owners owned slaves in the first place. The moral for them is primary. The sub-ideal is not only wrong - it is unreal.

Ted:

Usually I can follow your line of reasoning fairly well, but this statement is a show-stopper for me. I'm not sure if I'm one of the people that you are describing here, but regardless, I do not believe that this applies to anyone who is participating in this discussion. You can attempt to define the argument in terms of realism vs. idealism if you like, but I think you are way off base here. No one is arguing from a position of ignoring reality.

However, I will agree with you that I'm in the camp of principles and rights having moral primacy over whatever arbitrary acts my fellow men may choose to execute in existential fact!

[Maybe I'm missing some sort of joke cast in sarcasm here, and if so, I'm sorry!??]

Ted writes:

Small would call this a "title."

Damn right I would! Feel free to call me Jeff. :-)

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 68

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 6:47am

Ted, thank you for the satire. Delightful. I gave you a token of appreciation.

Post 69

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 6:54am

I wrote: "Jeff, do you reject Rand's arguments against coercive taxation?"

Jeff replied:

No. But what have I said that gives you the idea that I might???

My question was a tit-for-tat for your asking me if I accept Rand's argument that government should be barred from all economic arenas (whatever the last two words mean). Onto your question, I offered you a choice -- do you prefer the cost of government be financed by coercive taxation or in another way? You argued against another way -- the government of Alaska receiving royalties from owning natural resources that were obtained non-coercively.

I apologize if you think I hit below the belt. My intent was a counter-punch, but not an illegal one.

Merlin, are you suggesting that a proper way to finance the US government is to cede them ownership of all lands and resources and then collect leasehold fees from private citizens and organizations that wish to use them as the "non-coercive" means of funding you allude to? If that is not what you are implying, then I'm at a loss to understand your point.

I didn't say anything about ceding ownership of all lands to the government. On the other hand, you said (1) all the national parks should be auctioned off, and (2) government has no business being in the recreation industry. You said these are "economic concerns" that belong only in the private sector. Well, my position is that financing government is an "economic concern." I don't mind that the government gets revenue from its national parks. I don't mind that the city of Chicago collects rent from the concessionaires at O'Hare airport and fees from the privately-owned airlines that use O'Hare. I don't mind that states have lotteries that compete with private sector gambling. I don't mind paying tolls used to maintain roads. I don't mind that states and municipalities sell bonds in the capital markets in competition with private companies. These are ways of financing government non-coercively. Of course, I do hold that governments do a lot that they shouldn't, and I do mind being subject to coercive taxation to finance such activities.

Post 70

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:41am

Merlin writing to me says, "...you prefer coercive taxation over the government owning something it obtained non-coercively (see my next paragraph). I am astounded!"

Government by it's nature is coercive - they can't do anything that doesn't involve confiscation, giving away what was confiscated (they don't have anything to give away that they don't first confiscate), imprisoning, prohibiting, projecting or threatening to project force, taxing (a form of confiscation). This is just what a government is and the reason to restrain their behaviors very carefully with the correct laws - laws built on principles. There is only one desirable product that a government can create - an environment that respects individual rights. So, back to that Alaskan land. Did government pay for the land? With whose money? Was the money given to the government voluntarily or confiscated? Is it proper for government to have a monopoly on natural resources? Is it proper for government - the one lawful agent of force and source of all law - to be competing in the market place?

Air, water, land, minerals, oil, gas - these are all natural resources - only totalitarians would be in favor of them being under the control of government. Please tell me what principle you are using to pluck Alaskan mineral rights out as an exception. If it is okay for them to be a part of the energy industry, then why can't they be part of the medical health industry or shoe manufacturing? Is all that is required the envisioning of situation where it provides revenues that the politicians use to replace taxes? Then why not just jump directly to communism, where all the people own all the property and there are NO taxes ever.

It looks to me like you are quite willing to throw the guiding principles of free enterprise and individual rights out the window as long as it lowers a tax bill and is some how magically only applicable to oil and gas mineral rights in Alaska.

Post 71

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 9:30am

Ted,

Your enviable skills as a wordsmith were wasted in post 65. You painted some strange bogey-man that doesn't exist, launched an ad homineum attack on the bogey-man and never addressed the real issue. I can't recognize ANY opponent in this thread from you description - it is nonsense. Who here advocates throwing all laws and all government out? Who here is guilty of some kind of Pavlovian response to the word "government" as opposed to the word "state"? Where is the claim, in this thread or from its participants, that the system can't or shouldn't be changed from within? If I just missed that, do me the favor of pointing it out.

Look where you wrote to Merlin, "You make the perfectly reasonable point that ideally, as much property as possible would be privately held." Ted, the whole issue at question is that he DOES NOT want to return mineral rights to the private sector. He wants and justifies governments being in business - at least in this area.

You wrote, "Yes, the proper principal for law is that it exists to safeguard individual rights. But the rule of law is more important than any single issue or fact of law." First, no one said otherwise. The arguments here are about the propriety, the rightness, of laws that let Alaska be in business by holding mineral rights. Can't those laws be discussed in regards to their relation to individual rights? Are you saying that any suggestion of changing those laws threatens the rule of law?

You attack goes into full screech mode at that point, where you write: "The "privatist absolutists" scream and in indignation that "government can't property" and they laugh in derision if you counter "but, it does." You have fact on your side - and they have right on theirs. Right doesn't only make law in their eyes - it makes reality." I've been using a definition of property rights that is compatible with Rands. What does it mean to say "facts on your side" - does that mean that possession is tantamount to moral and legal ownership? Or is it saying that because current usage includes talking about government as 'owning' property makes it philosophically correct? I suspect that there is a confusion between "property" as an individual right and "property" as the term used to describe current legal status of something.

You say, "Men did once own slaves, and it was even thought proper to reimburse slave holders for their losses when slavery was abolished. A reasonable and debatable policy. But not only would have your current opponents have opposed that policy, they would have denied that slave owners owned slaves in the first place. The moral for them is primary." Wow, that is over the top. I have to smile because in other threads I've been accused of being an appeaser in the question of foreign intervention (and wrongly so), but I can't even imagine the twisted logic of appeasing slave owners by confiscating tax money from others to bribe the slave owners. And do I believe that slave owners did not own other people - they controlled them, but ownership is about valid title - not mere possession. There can be no such thing as a right to violate a right - so how in the fuck would any individual claim the right to own another person? If the moral isn't primary to the political you end up with immoral political systems: Like business being run by government - communism being the end of that logical chain - like allowing slavery.

Ted writes, "Yes, you are absolutely right that, using my terms, there is land which is publicly owned which has not been nationalized - seized - from its prior owners." Mike used the term "nationalize" but I pointed out that term didn't apply and I pointed out that the issue is HOLDING the mineral rights as opposed to putting them into private hands. Holding them means government is in business.

Ted goes on to write, "(If one should object that Alaska was owned by its natives, one must ask, even the mountain slopes of areas in which no tribe resided?) But having the temerity to state this inconvenient fact puts you on the side of the devil here." Straw man argument - again, this is about whether or not the government should be in business and whether or not individual property rights can be held by a government.

Ted the writes, "Facts and established law do not matter to the armchair legalist." Ted must have been standing up rather than sitting when he typed that :-)

Post 72

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 11:08am

Steve Wolfer:

There is only one desirable product that a government can create - an environment that respects individual rights.

How is that government financed? The following seems to be the case according to you. Whatever method used is coercive, and it doesn't matter which one is used. It is coercive by definition. Whether the money is collected at gun-point or given voluntarily doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the oil companies voluntarily signed an agreement to pay royalties to the government of Alaska in order to build a pipeline, explore, drill, and extract oil on the North Slope, the legal property of the state of Alaska. (Oil companies similarly pay royalties to private landowners in order to explore, drill, and extract oil.)

Is it proper for government to have a monopoly on natural resources?

If it's proper for you to have a monopoly on mineral rights on your own land, then why is not proper for a proper government (one that respects individual rights like you say) to have a monopoly on mineral rights on its own land. Or do you believe there simply isn't such as a thing as a proper government and you are therefore being contradictory?

Is it proper for government - the one lawful agent of force and source of all law - to be competing in the market place?

Do you live in some kind of fantasy world where the government can run without people (that requires competing in the labor market), w/o ever borrowing money even short-term (that requires competing in the capital markets), w/o ever raising money period (that requires competing with others who want to raise money).

Air, water, land, minerals, oil, gas - these are all natural resources - only totalitarians would be in favor of them being under the control of government.

Are you resorting to name-calling because you have nothing else worth saying? I have not said all natural resources, only those on government property.

Please tell me what principle you are using to pluck Alaskan mineral rights out as an exception. If it is okay for them to be a part of the energy industry, then why can't they be part of the medical health industry or shoe manufacturing?

I didn't say the government of Alaska should be part of the energy industry -- itself exploring, drilling, extracting, refining and marketing. I haven't said those activities are proper government functions. I described it only as a natural resource owner. If oil is found on land you own, you have a natural monopoly on it. But there is no such thing as a natural monopoly to provide medical care or manufacture shoes.

Suppose somebody gets the idea that there is oil on government land. What is proper to you? Anybody whatsoever can go after it? No compensation to, or permission from, the government or the people it represents is required?

Then why not just jump directly to communism, where all the people own all the property and there are NO taxes ever.

This is, of course, an absurd straw man. It's the kind of thing some people say when they have nothing else worth saying. It also directly contradicts what I've said.

It looks to me like you are quite willing to throw the guiding principles of free enterprise and individual rights out the window as long as it lowers a tax bill and is some how magically only applicable to oil and gas mineral rights in Alaska.

You have yet to say whose rights were violated when oil was tapped at Prudhoe Bay. I've also put narrow constraints on my position, but you ignore them.

Post 73

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 11:25am

Merlin writes:

If it's proper for you to have a monopoly on mineral rights on your own land, then why is not proper for a proper government [...] to have a monopoly on mineral rights on its own land.

Merlin:

The answer lies in the nature of a government. A government does not earn its "income" which it is then free to dispose of in any way it sees fit - such as purchasing Alaska for its own benefit. Alaska was purchased with the tax dollars of the US citizens and we are the rightful owners of that property. While it may have made defensive sense to expand the US boundaries to the West coast and to acquire Alaska, it was then proper that the government make the land available to citizens who could put it into productive use. This could have been and (still should be) done in a number of ways. The homesteading of the West is one method. Auctioning off the land to the highest bidder is another, with the fees received going to offset the original purchase price of the land. But, how the land is distributed to the citizenry is an irrelevant technicality. The important issue is that the land belongs to citizens and should be distributed to them in some form or another. This is the only method of maximizing productive use. The alternative is what we now see: vast mineral and oil reserves going unutilized while we, the citizens of the US, are held hostage to high energy prices and made to support our enemies through the purchase of their oil. There is nothing moral regarding this outcome.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 74

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 11:53am

Merlin keeps saying "voluntary" when referring to the royalty arrangement between oil companies and the Alaskan government. As if a deal between the government enforced and held monopoly on the mineral rights, by a government who did not put those rights into private hands, ie, into the free market, a government requiring 'permission' to make a pipe line, could ever be called "voluntary."

He doesn't believe that the Alaskan government is a participant in the energy business.

He thinks that because governments need to hire people and borrow money to fulfill the defense of individual rights, that it also okay to be in competition in the supply of mineral rights or other areas of the economy.

He says it is okay to have a mineral rights monopoly on your own land (his words) - showing that he doesn't understand the concept of monopoly. I can say that I have a monopoly on shoes made from my factory, if I'm willing to use the word monopoly in a way that makes no sense.

When I point out that advocating government ownership of all natural resources would be a totalitarian position he accuses me of name-calling and points out that he is only advocating for some natural resource ownership by government.
------

If anyone else wants to reply to Merlin, feel free. I don't believe he is grasping, or responding to, the arguments I've made and I don't see any reason to just repeat them.

Post 75

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 12:38pm

Jeff wrote:

Merlin writes:
If it's proper for you to have a monopoly on mineral rights on your own land, then why is not proper for a proper government [...] to have a monopoly on mineral rights on its own land.
Merlin:
The answer lies in the nature of a government. A government does not earn its "income" which it is then free to dispose of in any way it sees fit - such as purchasing Alaska for its own benefit. Alaska was purchased with the tax dollars of the US citizens and we are the rightful owners of that property.

I have not defended the purchase of Alaska in 1867. I entered this dialogue (post 31) in response to a false assertion made about recent events in Alaska.

You talk about homesteading in Alaska or selling the land by auction. Who would buy and who would bid? I bet oil companies would not want to buy, and even if they had an interest, they would deeply discount the purchase price. It's a very risky long term venture with many years until positive cash flows might obtain. I bet oil companies would want a lease. Buying has too big a downside risk (and reduces upside potential for the seller). Leasing has far less downside risk and (gives more upside potential for the lessor.) Also, leasing is a far better arrangement cash flow wise. The oil companies probably have better alternatives for the free investment cash flow they do have. I also question if the Alaska government would want to sell, ceding all responsibility for what ultimately happens to the land. Above I said I sought the optimal solution, not simply whatever most easily satisfies pre-conceived notions held by someone with little knowlege about what is in fact optimal when far more facts are taken into account.

This is the only method of maximizing productive use.

Very questionable. See above just as a start.

The alternative is what we now see: vast mineral and oil reserves going unutilized while we, the citizens of the US, are held hostage to high energy prices and made to support our enemies through the purchase of their oil.

This is due to the federal government, not the Alaska state government. Opening ANWR is favored by Alaskans. Your remark also went far beyond the scope of what I wrote and you quoted. I don't consider the current federal government to be a "proper government" in the sense I used it.

Post 76

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 12:48pm

Steve Wolfer:

Merlin keeps saying "voluntary" when referring to the royalty arrangement between oil companies and the Alaskan government. As if a deal between the government enforced and held monopoly on the mineral rights, by a government who did not put those rights into private hands, ie, into the free market, a government requiring 'permission' to make a pipe line, could ever be called "voluntary."

Did the Alaskan government put guns to the heads of the people who signed the contracts that enabled building the Trans-Alaska pipeline and opened up the Prudhoe Bay area? Were they threatened with jail terms if they didn't sign? There is your tactic again. If government is involved, it's coercive by definition. The facts don't matter to you.

He says it is okay to have a mineral rights monopoly on your own land (his words) - showing that he doesn't understand the concept of monopoly. I can say that I have a monopoly on shoes made from my factory, if I'm willing to use the word monopoly in a way that makes no sense.

"Monopoly" has multiple meanings. I used it one way, meaning a monopoly resource owner, which is quite consistent with a market economy (see Israel Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship). In economics the usual meaning of "monopoly" is characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service provided by a firm and a lack of viable substitute goods. Does the Alaskan government have a monopoly on crude oil in that sense? No, crude oil is a commodity, extracted and widely traded in many places around the world. The market is extremely competitive.

If anyone else wants to reply to Merlin, feel free. I don't believe he is grasping, or responding to, the arguments I've made and I don't see any reason to just repeat them.

Ditto to you.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/03, 3:48pm)

Post 77

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 1:41pm

OK Merlin, you win. I'm convinced that the current setup regarding state-ownership of vast tracts of the US is not only the best possible arrangement in practical terms, but also the model of morality and an example of the principles of individualism, freedom and rights in action. Objectivism has finally won! Hurray for the home team!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 78

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 7:30pm

I have a problem with Sarah Palin initiating an ethical investigation into her own behavior. It reminds me of the 911 Commission, where the Executive Power took some of the responsibility for looking into itself.

This is not what the Founders intended with the "separation of powers"

Ed

Post 79

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:26pm