This is way over my head. I see what you mean, liqwid, this is kinda squishy. I really, really support having business run on a state level as much as possible. I see what you mean by looking at each state to see what works and what doesn’t. I’ve never called Obama a socialist, but I have to say that what I remember from my econ classes, his tax program seems to fit that bill.

You’re letting your weak grasp of the facts show.

Seriously doubting the proposition that the land of Alaska is unwanted and/or unsaleable is far from a “weak grasp of facts”.

This land is in the middle of nowhere.

So Alaska doesn’t mind that the federal government owns most of their state?

We both know the answer to that question is no, “middle of nowhere” or not.

Royalties on the exploitation of that land hardly seem on par with socialism, where government owns the means of production.

“Royalties”, “fees” – it’s all a redistribution tax paid by industry to “the people” for use of “the people’s land”.

If this was in Russia or even Canada, there wouldn’t be any question as to what to call such a situation.

Are we taking the anarchy right now and opposing all taxes as a knee-jerk reaction?

Not at all. As someone who has watched you argue against this very argument tactic for years now, I expected a better line of argument.

Personally, I prefer that the state own no property outside of military, state government offices, road right of ways, and the like. Private property as opposed to government property, which is hardly the province of the anarchist.

Better that those royalties should go directly back to the taxpayers than be used to expand the size of government.

There is some merit to that, but then again – the state government’s role is expanded by the policy alone.

The University of Texas has a permanent fund from royalties. The dividend it pays goes only to help lower the cost of education, and then only for students in the UT system.

Alaska’s permanent fund could do either of two things, return money to taxpayers or pay it into the state’s general fund to lower taxes. Either way the only thing that is happening is the people are paying less in taxes. Paying less in taxes is not socialism.

Since Sarah didn’t establish the permanent fund she’s not responsible for it and the law that set it up was pretty specific about how the fund operated. She’s just following the law that was established when she was in high school.

For her to do otherwise would be a criminal act.

Saying that returning money to taxpayers is socialism means that the IRS is the biggest socialist operation in the world.

Bullwinkle – And capitalism doesn’t?

Kind of a weak argument.

That is a weak argument.

It’s yours.

Socialism says the government owns ALL the land and everything on it. Big difference.

So, fine then. No one of you gets to call any Democrat a socialist ever again. Or Marxist.

Even the Democrats who call themselves socialist usually don’t take it as far as the government owning all of the land and everything on it.

Meanwhile, some of the rest of us will continue to recognize that there are creeping degrees of socialism and will continue calling a spade a spade. Republican endorsed policy or not.

di butler – I think that if Sarah went against this policy, Likwid, she would be strung up.

No doubt about it. The people of America have shown that they love getting something for nothing from the government and that’s a tough nut to crack.

But Palin enthusiastically supports this policy and therein lies the difference. She doesn’t fight it, she doesn’t go along to get along (politics being the art of compromise), she doesn’t even call it for what it is, but rather she supports it. And then she goes further to harangue Obama for his “redistribution” ideas.

Now I support the woman on most issues and will vote for her and McCain next week here in the important fraud-infested state of Ohio, but the woman is a bit of a hypocrite on this one.

I’d prefer to just leave the poor Alaskan people alone.

By all means, through the wonders and strengths of federalism, Alaskans have the right to make any policy they wish. It’s their state. They can have the state own the land and then charge the producers “royalties” for extracting resources. They can kid themselves that they are getting something “back”, when they’re really just taking money they did nothing to earn. And we, as energy consumers, will continue to pay for it in higher energy costs.

That said, I hope the conversation about Alaska, the other 45 states, and four commonwealths do not stop. Far from leaving them alone, let’s examine what they are doing, see what works, and decide whether or not we want such policies in our own states closer to home. We have 50 grand experiments to examine.

robert108 – Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the State(meaning the entire country, not just one part of it).

I’ll remember that as you call Obama a Marxist. Funny that you don’t hold him or any other Democrat to the same standards. What’s that about?

robert108, I could take you and your positions – scratch that; your arguments – a bit more seriously if I didn’t believe you to be a dishonest partisan. That we usually fall on the same side in issues of politics won’t change that.

First, the permanent dividend fund was set up in Alaska in 1976. Palin was still in high school.

That’s immaterial as to whether or not Palin supports the policy.

That’s immaterial as to whether or not Palin supports the policy.

What policy, socialism? Nothing here says she supports socialism. What’s your point?

The law that established the fund.

Alaska takes in $1.84 in federal taxes for every $1.00 they pay.

Why are the citizens of that state getting money “back”?

Rob – If the state “owns” the land because nobody else wants it, is that really socialism?

I can’t believe that nobody wants to own the land in Alaska, so therefore the state government gets it by default. Seeing as how the state is in a constant battle with the feds over their onerous ownership of the state, the proposition carries little weight.

In any regard, where is everybody else’s check? If we’re going down the “everybody owns it” route, every American citizen owns 69.1% of Alaska. It’s not fair, but then again – the precedent has been set.

Also, if the oil companies want to build a massive pipeline across the entire state shouldn’t the taxpayers get something in exchange for all that right of way?

Are road right of ways next?

I’m thankful that West Virginia doesn’t play the “permanent dividend fund” with coal, seeing as how it powers almost the entire Midwest. It would be just another redistributionist tax.

Bullwinkle – Either way the only thing that is happening is the people are paying less in taxes.

Business pays a tax. “The people” are receiving that tax. Far from “paying less”, the state is just shuffling the tax bill to the producers.

Paying less in taxes is not socialism.

Socialism defines who owns the land, who gets the profits (via the “fee”, “dividend fund”, or whatever they decide to call it), who pays, and what is lost. The answers are “the people”, “the people”, business, and private property freedom.

Since Sarah didn’t establish the permanent fund she’s not responsible for it…

I’ve yet to see anybody argue that Palin is responsible for this scheme. What is at issue here is that she supports it.

Saying that returning money to taxpayers is socialism means that the IRS is the biggest socialist operation in the world.

Now you’re talking and thinking like a socialist!

The key phrase that jumps out at me: “returning money”. That’s how Democrats talk when they bring up raising taxes. It’s always “returning” the money or “recovering” the money, when the fact of the matter is that government isn’t returning anything. They’re redistributing it.

That oil in the ground is useless until the capital, genius, and work goes into getting it out of the ground. “The people” of Alaska – the average family along with the two year old baby – do nothing to extract that resource. They just “own” the land of Alaska in the mindset that everybody is a shareholder.

Such a thing has a name, you know…

The Whistler – What’s your solution Lik, give the oil away?

The same solution I always have – private enterprise, private ownership, private property. No state control, no state ownership, no state property.

And with the oil companies, such a thing means that you can publicly buy your own private shares.

Socialism defines who owns the land, who gets the profits (via the “fee”, “dividend fund”, or whatever they decide to call it), who pays, and what is lost. The answers are “the people”, “the people”, business, and private property freedom.

And capitalism doesn’t?

Kind of a weak argument.

Socialism says the government owns ALL the land and everything on it. Big difference.

I’ll remember that as you call Obama a Marxist.

Wrong again; Marxism does involve the State owning everything; it is the most radical form of socialism. There are much milder types of socialism, like Fabian socialism, where the State only owns the major means of production, like heavy industries, leaving smaller businesses in the hands of private individuals. This form is the one pretty much practiced in England. I call Obama a Marxist because he believes in Marxist ideology. The giveaway was his statement to Joe the Plumber wherein he said that sharing the wealth would be “better for everybody”. Marx believed unequal compensation was the source of all unhappiness and unrest, and so wanted equal outcomes for all the proletariat.
You confuse ideology with action here, maybe deliberately. You obviously regard Alaska’s oil revenue fund socialistic, but that doesn’t make it socialism. I disagree with you on that, for my previously stated reasons.
I don’t care what you believe I am, btw. That was a bit of unnecessary personal attack that has nothing to do with the facts here.
You are welcome to continue in your animus; it’s your problem, not mine.

I can’t believe that nobody wants to own the land in Alaska, so therefore the state government gets it by default. Seeing as how the state is in a constant battle with the feds over their onerous ownership of the state, the proposition carries little weight.

You’re letting your weak grasp of the facts show.

This land is in the middle of nowhere. Royalties on the exploitation of that land hardly seem on par with socialism, where government owns the means of production. Are we taking the anarchy right now and opposing all taxes as a knee-jerk reaction?

Better that those royalties should go directly back to the taxpayers than be used to expand the size of government.

there is an ‘n’ in dividend.

i think the point i that any executive can run a state with that much extra cash on hand. it’s like shooting wildlife from a helicopter. easy peasy.