Who should own them and why?
Should everyone have a share in the production and distribution of our natural resources and why or why not?
Is this an inherent right for everyone as humans or is this a right to the individuals through an emphasis on social rights with the sole purpose of stability?
IMO It's always been whoever has been the strongest able to exploit and keep the resources that has won out. If the people are the strongest and decide that the natural resources should be owned exploited for the benefit of all it's called communism and everybody agrees that is a bad thing so it goes back round to whoever is the strongest or whoever can persuade everybody they have the right to those resources. How was it decided who owned the United States and that some should have the right to cut down all the trees or dig up the coal. You had a chance to make sure everybody have equal opportunity, what happened?
I don't know how alaska did it, but no one has to pay taxes up there. I always assumed it was because of the oil income.
All my area has to offer up is silica sand.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.
Originally Posted by flopstock
Norway set up a fund from the excess profits generated by the oil and gas industries to be used for it's future
The Government Pension Fund of Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The UK used North sea oil revues to finance tax cuts for people who didn't need it and generally cover up the reality of us being bankrupt. The animus aimed at the prospect of scottish independence is largely due to the uncomfortable fact we have most of the oil off our coasts, if we keep the revenues we are a very wealthy country.
I think that natural resources should go to the people of the lands they are in. They should be used for the good of the people, Norway is a good example.
I'd dissected a short piece from "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" by Marx and had shown it's relationship to Trudy Govier's article entitled "The Right to Eat and the Duty to Work" and how all of it highlights Elie Maynard Adams claims that we've perverted our value language to fit our societies apparent greed driven goals that ultimately places no humanistic thought in social policy but now is lost. My wireless mouse has decided it didn't like what I had to say.
Well, perhaps the main reason was America's growing need for individual freedom and property that unleashed the Bourgeoisie movement toward capitalism. The country grew from dreams of "endless possibilities and wealth" that is still true today. This perhaps all entirely to do with some sort of self assurance that had failed to develop out of a fundamental grounding in humanistic thinking through cultural development. The naturalist views that were presupposed in the declaration of independence and the values interpreted within it further perpetuated the societies association with wealth as being the fundamental means to acheive their freedom both as individuals and a society.
These values are viewed by Americans as their only way of connecting with each other without feeling the need to understand where values come from has lead to the subjectivism that frames the discussions between multiculturalism and civic unity that further exacerbate the fear and racism that has grew along with it.
All of it being a continuous struggle between the rich and the poor. Which of course is the result of perhaps a social lag that is inevitable with any cultural change.
Everyone preaches high moral values and ethics but the truth is that if such were overly prevalent in America we would have publicly funded health care, an unconditional welfare system, education provided to everyone, and the security of not being completely neglected after the age 0f what is soon to be 75. Non of that is the case so what we have are a load of self-interest groups all claiming to be superior in their views without the intellectual capacity to verify it, which is this religious right horse crap of a movement that's going through the states atm.
And if Romney wins office this is going to turn into a hell pit.
I was listening to NPR this morning and in it was a report done by so and so that said when Americans were asked if they attended church every week 48% said yes compared to only 20% of their European counterparts.
On the face of it this would imply that Americans are more religious.
But upon further discovery, after asking Americans what they did each week in an hour by hour detailed manner they discovered that only roughly 24% attended church every week.
What's more, the sociologist invited to the show suggested that Americans when asked such a question interprets it to mean "Are you the type of person to go to church?"
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks