RoR: Forum

The rumor is abroad that Palin's youngest child is really her daughter's. I don't believe it, but I'm still waiting to hear that the daughter's boyfriend is the father of both.

This has been thoroughly rebutted. The baby is Palin's 17 year old daughter's. She'll be marrying the father soon.

Man, those Palins like to have babies!

Post 41

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 3:09pm

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/234157/516/1017/581734

Post 42

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 3:20pm

Ted, you have my sympathy. I can only imagine how difficult if must be for an intelligent, knowledgeable man of principle to find himself supporting McCain-Palin.SW

To call me a supporter of McCain Palin is like calling me a supporter of amputation or chemotherapy. Yes, I suppose, when the alternative is gangrene or malignancy. But not something I'd do for fun. And a bit less self-deluding than the homeopath, or the Libertarian, who, in essence, chooses prayer as his medicine.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/01, 3:47pm)

Post 43

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 3:32pm

Ted writes:

And a bit less self-deluding that the homeopath, or the Libertarian, who, in essence, chooses prayer as his medicine.

I guess, based upon the outcry in another forum topic regarding using prayer in lieu of medicine, then most people here must be in favor of locking up all homeopaths and libertarians. (Only half a joke. :-()

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 44

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 4:35pm

"Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check." (link)

However, I doubt this was what Mike Erickson meant by "Palin give-away". "

That's exactly what I was talking about. Why do you doubt that's what I meant, is there another give-away I'm not aware of yet?

Post 45

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 4:53pm

Mike Erickson wrote:

That's exactly what I was talking about. Why do you doubt that's what I meant, is there another give-away I'm not aware of yet?

Like I explain in the addenda in post #37 I wasn't aware of the tax increase and $1200 checks when I first responded. I can't read your mind, and you were hardly specific. In any case, there was no nationalization like you claimed, and I definitely favor distributing the tax increase to all residents/citizens rather than the politicians spending it at their discretion. If there is ever going to be less government, there needs to be less money getting into the hands of politicians.

Post 46

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 9:15pm

Apparently, Sarah Palin doesn't believe in any form of birth control.

What kind of mother names her daughter BRISTOL?

Post 47

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 10:39pm

Did your mother bear you on principal, or by mistake, Chris?

Post 48

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 12:31am

Just a word about the government's "ownership" of land.

The Alaskan government can certainly claim to own the land, but it does not own it by any rational principal of property acquisition. Has the government improved the land, mixed its labor with or it or used it for a productive purpose? No.

The best that can be said is that the government is the custodian of the land prior to anyone's productive acquisition of it. The oil companies are the proper owners of the land on which they have mined a valuable source of energy, and the government's taxing of the companies' production is therefore an expropriation of the product of their labor.

- Bill

Post 49

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 3:38am

Bill Dwyer wrote:

The Alaskan government can certainly claim to own the land, but it does not own it by any rational principal of property acquisition. Has the government improved the land, mixed its labor with or it or used it for a productive purpose? No.

It's not a clear-cut "no" in my view. The Alaskan government (along with the federal government) allowed building of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Has the Trans-Alaska pipeline not been productive?
Consider the following analogy. Suppose Bill Dwyer owns a large expanse of land, undeveloped and inherited. With your permission, an oil company explores it, then drills and strikes oil. You personally do not improve the land, mix your labor with it, or use it for a productive purpose. Should that imply you have no rights to any money from extracting the oil?

The best that can be said is that the government is the custodian of the land prior to anyone's productive acquisition of it. The oil companies are the proper owners of the land on which they have mined a valuable source of energy, and the government's taxing of the companies' production is therefore an expropriation of the product of their labor.

I will extend my analogy. The oil company is who tapped the oil deposit. Should you therefore forfeit ownership of your land and not be entitled to any of the revenues from the oil? If you did receive any of the oil revenue, would you be expropriating the product of the oil company's labor?

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/02, 3:42am)

Post 50

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 4:30am

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 expect no coherent answer.

Post 51

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 4:59am

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 expect no coherent answer.

The first sentence is a mere assertion with no justification provided. Bill Dwyer at least tried to justify his assertions.

Joint ownership of a business is a collective effort. Does that make it "collectivism"?

Whose private property did the Alaskan government nationalize?

I expect no coherent answer.

Please tell us what you know about the oil and natural gas production tax legislation Alaska passed in 2006. (It was passed before Palin became governor, but it was modified since she became governor.) What was its purpose? Was it a nationalization?

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/02, 6:32am)

Post 52

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 8:46am

In post 49 Merlin writes, "Consider the following analogy. Suppose Bill Dwyer owns a large expanse of land, undeveloped and inherited. With your permission, an oil company explores it, then drills and strikes oil. You [Bill Dwyer] personally do not improve the land, mix your labor with it, or use it for a productive purpose. Should that imply you have no rights to any money from extracting the oil?"

The anology doesn't hold for the following reasons: 1) A government doesn't have rights - including property rights - while Bill does, 2) Bill inherited the land, presumably from someone who had valid ownership and therefore acquired proper title, 3) Bill worked as a partner to the oil company - supplying the land which was properly owned, which is a valid contribution.

Merlin writes, "The Alaskan government (along with the federal government) allowed building of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Has the Trans-Alaska pipeline not been productive?"

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. They "allowed" building of the pipe-line - what else can a government do? It is required to block actions that violate individual rights and to take no such action otherwise. 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.

Final point, explaining that government doesn't "own" property, Bill wrote, "Has the government improved the land, mixed its labor with or it or used it for a productive purpose? No." Although he is technically correct in this instance, it could be misleading. A government agency often does improve land with added labor and use the land for a productive purpose (say, putting up a court house), but it still is a government and not a person and it doesn't have property rights.

Post 53

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 8:55am

"The first sentence is a mere assertion with no justification provided. Bill Dwyer at least tried to justify his assertions."

The justification is the principle of limited government powers (that minimal government thing??). Bill is a scholar! and a philosopher! He's one of the best writers on this forum. If he would only run for office, I would vote for him.

Corporations do not have monopoly coercive powers over large territories. Call them a "collective" if you will. The are simply contractual agreements between individuals.

Actually, I believe most of the territory of Alaska is considered the property of the Bureau of Land Management, no longer open to homesteading. Held in reserve (for what purpose?? blank out). I lived and worked in Alaska (north of Fairbanks) in 1979-80.

Post 54

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 9:05am

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)

Post 55

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 9:42am

Wow - Luke, first tell him that only complete ASSHOLES ever send anything in all caps.

Post 56

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 10:33am

I think that McCain has made a very good choice in Palin, and one which will probably decide the election in his favor.

1) McCain presents himself as a maverick and Palin's straight-talk/anti-system image nicely complements it.
2) Her anti-abortion and anti-environmentalist views will help retain the far right of the party, while her non-PC rhetoric and system-fighting persona will play well with the general population.
3)Her lack of inexperience in government can become an issue only if McCain is judged unable to finish his term, and this is far from certain. Obama's lack of experience is at the forefront of his campaign and it will weigh much more against him relatively.

As the campaign goes on, McCain will certainly expose the far left politics of Obama and Biden and once this occurs our choice then becomes one between the maverick/patriot and his system-fighting protege and a socialist/fascist and his plagiarist sidekick.

My prediction is McCain/Palin by 4%-8%.

Post 57

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 12:18pm

"I hope that's coherent :-)"

I like it. I especially like your description of the way they do it in Wyoming. Wish I could get my wife to agree to moving there, some nonsense about long winters, snow and 40 below, blah, blah. I guess the growing season isn't long enough. Sigh. I guess we'll move to S. Cal when I retire.

Post 58

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 12:23pm

1) McCain presents himself as a maverick and Palin's straight-talk/anti-system image nicely complements it.

My parents asked me what I thought of the Palin pick. I said a few things that I had seen about her on the net and then said that I thought McCain picked her because of his own feeling that he is a bit of a maverick and she fits in with how he sees himself.

Post 59

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 1:41pm