• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska the "Most Perfect State" as Palin claims?

I'd consider it textbook socialism... it's the state claiming collective ownership over the resources a private firm actually owns. Are people arguing that this form of socialism is good socialism, or are they arguing that it's not socialism?

I am confused
 
megaprogman said:
Thing is, I have never heard of a definition of a capitalism that allows a government to participate in the market as a supplier, my understanding is that it is supposed to be pretty much transactions between private actors (unless its something like the military obviously, but even then the government is a consumer, not a supplier). Also there is a spectre of communally owned property in this oil deal which I am pretty sure is not capitalistic (unless it was through stock).

Have to split hairs a bit here, but I want to make sure I point out where the lines are drawn, given my understanding and many of the arguments I have seen in the capitalism vs socialism debate.
Click to expand...

It's collective ownership... it's not capitalism. The capitalistic market is just exploiting the resource to maximize profit, and that's the only role capitalism is playing to knowledge.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. But maybe it should. Why must government operate with any of our resources as a money-losing proposition? Isn't that really more socialistic than the alternative? Where everything government does is subsidized? How about a post office that makes money; waterparks that turn a profit; state parks that operate profitably and turn some of that money back to their tax base? Maybe we should change the model. Ha! (This is quite interesting to muddle with.)
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that people don't trust the government to operate in that fashion... it's inefficient. The government would spend it, not give it back. It's kind of like giving an drunk a beer, or something like that...
 
American said:
Alaska as a State should be able to do whatever its voters want it to. Palin has a right to love her state if she wants to.
Click to expand...
Does that include receiving more money from Pork spending than any US State? Including pay it's citizens for doing nothing from money received from US Tax-payers? Whether you like it or not, oil arrangements in Alaska make the State very rich and that money comes from the US public.

Arizona receives the smallest share of Pork funds and is the "most perfect" Conservative State. In comparison, Alaska isn't a Conservative State in relation to the lower forty-eight. It's not the most "perfect" in how it runs or in how much welfare-state funding it gets from the Federal Government.
MaggieD said:
I cannot imagine why you would call it a subsidized socialist utopia?
Click to expand...
As a State, it receives the most in Pork spending, which transfers wealth from US tax-payers to Alaskan citizens and because the State pays it's own citizens for doing nothing, which is a transfers wealth from US workers to Alaskans for doing nothing. Can you imagine Texas paying it's citizens just for "living there?"

That is not a "perfect" model for a State. I'm just questioning the "perfect" argument.
 
SheWolf said:
I'd consider it textbook socialism... it's the state claiming collective ownership over the resources a private firm actually owns. Are people arguing that this form of socialism is good socialism, or are they arguing that it's not socialism?

I am confused
Click to expand...

The Fed owns all land
States have boundaries between which they share land with the fed and can govern - some parcels of land are in a different 'mode' of ownership - more under the guidance of the state or more under the guidance of the fed.

A company can purchase land or 'rent' from the state and/or fed for use - and to do so *and* drill on it there's a series of legal issues that need to be seen.

The state - *any state* has the right to decide to forgo a drilling company as a middle-man and they can, with their budget, drill on the land itself. Ignoring details - when you look at the basics - this works the same way as building a public museum, road or school. With public-appropriations for the benefit of the public.

So it's only right that if a state uses appropriations, taxes and fees of its people to pursue a means of revenue - that those people get paid in return.

Right now the issue in Alaska is that it's not *new* - they have profited. They used money from their people to fund various drilling enterprises, made a deal to pay the citizen of the state, and that deal is continuing because they're still profiting eventhough the people are no longer giving up their own money to fund it.''

But overall - the Federal Government is superior and that includes issues of land-ownershpi and rights.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I hate the reasoning "government should run like a business" when talking about proper rolls and necessities of government.
Click to expand...
Exactly..

I hate when people say that you need to know how to run a company, to know how to run the government... The people in the government should know the Constitution, know how a bill becomes a law, and be effective at governing and at writing bills and laws. I don't really give a f**k if they have ever had a federal EIN, or even know the different between a balance sheet and financial statement.
 
Alaska is a state with a small population and a lot of oil money. The policy, according to what I've read on this thread, is sharing the oil revenue collectively. It sounds a lot like... like.. what's that country again? In South America... Oh, yes! Venezuela, that's it.

So, Palin and her fellow Alaska pols are like Hugo Chavez.
 
The idea that Alaska is socialist to a certain extent isn't one that I've heard before, although thinking about it, it does make some sense.

The irony is certainly lost on Palin, sadly.
 
I don't have a problem with federally owned land in Alaska. For one thing there are beautiful National Parks.
 
American said:
And the opposite is according to???? I'm waiting. Where have you ever read that Washington was suppose to buy up all the land in the US? I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

well, patience in a virtue.

but, i think you have this debate thing a little confused. you see, how it works? one guy makes an assertion such as "The Federal govt was supposed to be Washington, DC and various military bases". if the second guy accepts that assertion, then, of course, we all Pass Go, Collect our $200 and Go Back To Start. If on the other hand, the second guy ask "Oh yeah! sez who?" then the first guy is obliged to show that his assertion has some provenance.

here is where it gets tricky.... the second guy cannot show the provenance of an assertion that he has not made! that would be like showing the water in a bucket that does not exist.

so, you see, if you want anyone to take what you say seriously, it is incumbent upon you to show that the statement has any merit. where did you get the idea that the federal government, as proxy for the American people, is restricted in owning land to the District Of Columbia?

as you begin your research, try to recall the that District Of Colombia did not exist until about a quarter of a century AFTER the federal government was created.

i will try to be as patient as you have been.

geo.
 
SheWolf said:
I'd like to go to Alaska some day. But for once, it actually sounds kind of appealing to live there... almost 2,000 dollars a year just to live there...
Click to expand...

AND....

The latest census data show there are 114 single men for every 100 single women in Alaska, compared to 86 single men for every 100 single women nationally (and 80 to 100 in New York State.)
Click to expand...
N.Y. Times

(exits, singing.... "Noooooooorrrrrrrth to Ala..aska!...)
geo.
 
SheWolf said:
It's collective ownership... it's not capitalism. The capitalistic market is just exploiting the resource to maximize profit, and that's the only role capitalism is playing to knowledge.
Click to expand...

there is nothing about capitalism that disallows group ownership... in fact, capitalism, strictly speaking, IS group ownership. you know, you give some money to that fella over there that owns a factory and you buy a portion of ownership in that factory.

geo.
 
SheWolf said:
I'd consider it textbook socialism... it's the state claiming collective ownership over the resources a private firm actually owns. Are people arguing that this form of socialism is good socialism, or are they arguing that it's not socialism?

I am confused
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm also confused by the difference between corporate socialism and individual socialism.
Aunt Spiker said:
So it's only right that if a state uses appropriations, taxes and fees of its people to pursue a means of revenue - that those people get paid in return.
Click to expand...
What "taxes?" Alaska is so wealthy from oil it doesn't have sales or income tax.

Alaskans are getting their free money from US tax-payers, not from their own income.
 
BDBoop said:
You don't have to slog through it, you have no bragging rights. ;)
Click to expand...

plenty of bitching rights though... was 'sposed to be a la nina year... dry... and we wait and wait for the cold air and rain from alaska to stop!

geo.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Alaska is a state with a small population and a lot of oil money. The policy, according to what I've read on this thread, is sharing the oil revenue collectively. It sounds a lot like... like.. what's that country again? In South America... Oh, yes! Venezuela, that's it.

So, Palin and her fellow Alaska pols are like Hugo Chavez.
Click to expand...

Wow, citizens in Venezuela get checks from big oil? Why is Hugo demonized so much?
 
joe six-pack said:
At a Tea-Party rally in Wasilla, Palin told the crowd that the rest of the country can learn from Alaska, which she called the "most perfect State in America." Link There is a YouTube link in the article, if you have some issue with it. But I want to question whether or not that Statement is true, even by Right-Wing standards.

Since Alaska became a State in 1959, it has received a fortune in royalties from oil drilled on federal land and subsidies. It has accumulated so much, in fact, that Alaska not only has no need for income or sales tax, but the state actually pays residents an annual stipend--last year $1,850.28 a head--just for living there. That's socialism.

US Tax-payer's wealth is transferred through oil subsidies to Alaskan criticizes, who get money for nothing. Alaska receives the most in Federal pork-project funding out any US State Link, think about that; it is a welfare State. By what stretch of imagination is Alaska a perfect State, when in reality it's a subsidized socialist utopia?

As a note: I don't think all subsidies are bad, but they are "big government."
Click to expand...

Great post!

Alaska is a welfare state -- Palin fans go into full denial mode when they find this out.

She failed at running a state that is basically supported by the Federal Government. Although it's a huge land mass, Alaska's population is essentially a medium-sized county.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom