In Alaska:
Nov. 2nd, 2008 08:32 amIn Alaska, they define the natural resources as belonging to the people of Alaska. The government of Alaska leases these mineral and oil rights out to corporations, who pay the State for the right to use those resources. From that fund, every Alaskan gets a check.
In Alaska, the People collectively own the means of production, and the State administers it for the benefits of the People.
And Palin has the chutzpah to call Obama a socialist? Alaska isn't socialist -- it's communist. At least partially. While Alaska doesn't have a centrally controlled economy, as one would in a fully communist setting, collective ownership of the means of production, administered by the State for the benefit of the People is one of the fundamental communist concepts.
It's a concept which, in general, I agree with. I believe that there are many things which are in "the commons", and things in the public domain belong to the public. And that one of the things for which we create governments is to control and regulate the commons so that no one entity manages to deny other people access to them. Things like "the electromagnetic spectrum", "public domain intellectual works and inventions", and, yes, "natural resources" belong in "the commons", and so I don't have a problem with how Alaska handles their mineral wealth, particularly. But it seems downright hypocritical for Palin to be throwing around words like "socialist", "communist", and "Marxist", and using them with a pejorative tone, when Palin fits those definitions better than Obama.
In Alaska, the People collectively own the means of production, and the State administers it for the benefits of the People.
And Palin has the chutzpah to call Obama a socialist? Alaska isn't socialist -- it's communist. At least partially. While Alaska doesn't have a centrally controlled economy, as one would in a fully communist setting, collective ownership of the means of production, administered by the State for the benefit of the People is one of the fundamental communist concepts.
It's a concept which, in general, I agree with. I believe that there are many things which are in "the commons", and things in the public domain belong to the public. And that one of the things for which we create governments is to control and regulate the commons so that no one entity manages to deny other people access to them. Things like "the electromagnetic spectrum", "public domain intellectual works and inventions", and, yes, "natural resources" belong in "the commons", and so I don't have a problem with how Alaska handles their mineral wealth, particularly. But it seems downright hypocritical for Palin to be throwing around words like "socialist", "communist", and "Marxist", and using them with a pejorative tone, when Palin fits those definitions better than Obama.