Distribution of natural resources

Are people born at this time in the US entitled to any free share of natural resources such as land, energy sources, water? How was it in the past?

 

No

Same as it is now.

 

Does it mean that people have to buy natural resources with money, received from production, which is equivalent to goods, services produced (a product of combination of natural resources and labor)?
Is the US capitalism feudalism in essence? Lords (capitalists) appropriate lets say 70% of production surplus made by serfs (workers); with the 30% the latter are allowed to keep they have to pay lords for natural resources needed for survival and there supposed to be left like 5 % of the surplus for their personal use, constituting the meaning of their lives, with which they can buy other human labor products for personal satisfaction. If we omit production from the system surfs would only do services to lords in exchange for resources needed for survival (and maybe a little for personal satisfaction). If we take a step further when lords don't need that much service, redundant surfs would have to be eliminated. Is that right?

 

Natural resources are distributed according to nature. What your rights are depend largely on where you live based on the laws and what is there. I can't have a water well. If I moved a mile south, three miles west, ten miles north or east, I could have a well. I can't have a coal mine because I do not live in an area where there is a lot of coal to be had, but nature says I could mine uranium here while the po-po says I cannot.

 

Do you have an opinion on this political opinion thread?

 

Are you implying that serfs don't have to buy non-human labor products from the lords with money earned in production?

 

Those who own the land own the resources. It's been this way for 1,000's of years.

 

I am saying that bananas are a natural resource, but not in Alaska; potable groundwater is a natural resource, but not on some islands.

 

I understand that what is available varies depending on the location, but that's of peripheral importance to our discussion. The central point was that all the resources are owned by a small group of people.

 

Are they really? How many people in the US own real estate? I am guessing that number isn't a small group.

 

I was not quite sure. So in your opinion communism already almost exists in america in distribution of natural resources and it's only in the production sector that rich own all of equipment and keep for themselves much of the surplus? But wait, land is not allocated freely to everyone, you have to buy it; from whom?

 

No. However, if the landless engage in production they must pay income and consumption taxes so that government can spend the resulting revenue on services and infrastructure that will allow the landowners to charge higher rents, sell their land for more money, and get richer as a result. Tax the poor and spend the revenue on things that will make the rich richer, that is the name of the game, and it has been played this way for a very long time.

 

Just because something has been done a certain way for thousands of years doesn't mean that it is a good way to do them … chattel slavery was also practiced for thousands of years … doesn't make it right.

 

Doesn't answer the question of why some people are forced to pay other people for what nature provided for free.

Excluding others from what nature freely provided is what should have a cost attached to it … land value taxation is the solution.

 

Even if everyone owned the small plot of land that they lived on, this would not eliminate their dependency upon the natural resource not available at their location and necessary to their sustenance. The only fair thing to do is collect the entire natural rent of land and divide equally to the citizens as a citizens dividend. That way nobody gets more than they deserve,and on the flip side, nobody gets less then they deserve.

 

Actually the BLM manages what the U.S. Gubmint controls and "Sort of Owns" although the land does belong to the people we have long lost many of our right to harvest, say, mineral via regulatory, restrictions and EPA guidelines. Thats why we have seen NG, oil and shale production all but stop during the OBarry era. Only a few states are grandfathered in "Mineral Rights" whereas you can lease your land to say Shell, BP or exxon for extraction/production of energy for a percentage of the market value, one example would be N Dakota.

Short version do we own resources, Yes and No, you may sit on a billion cubic acres of crude, but unless the Gubmint gives you permission it just sits there.

 

Things are done a specific way for a reason...it works. As far as chattel slavery, much of the muslim world still practices it.
We American citizens are owned in part by the poor who we support against our will....MILLIONS of them. We get absolutely nothing in return for the tax dollars used for them by confiscation.

 

What makes you think a lot of people don't own more than a "small plot of land"?

- - - Updated - - -

It has a great cost to it. Apparently you have never gotten a quote for a new roof.

- - - Updated - - -

You but it from the person who currently owns it. It is not communism to own things. Communism is giving people the benefits of not owning anything.

 

Extraction operations impact people who are not part of the decision making for the operation, who don't get direct benefit of the operation, who have a right to clean air and water on their own property, etc., etc.

So, yes, we require such operations to pass some hurdles to ensure the rights of those who stand to be impacted.

 

What the heck does that mean?

I can tell you that if you want my property, I will ask to be compensated.

And, I don't know anywhere in the US that doesn't tax real estate based on its value.

 

Your terminology and rambling sentences are making it hard for me to figure out what you are saying.

We are capitalist. We view employees as a resource - steel manufacturers need a bunch of iron, some employees, some electricity, some water, etc.

So, yes, when employers don't need employees, they offer less for employees and when they need less iron, they offer less for iron. Supply and demand. Capitalism.

 

OK, so the corollary is that we have to provide a little more protection for employees than we provide for iron.

That comes in the form of regulation on employers (how they treat and compensate employees) and in the form of direct attention to citizens (how they get food, housing, health care, etc.).

This, of course, raises discussion between those who would like to see employees more like iron and those who like to see employees more like human citizens of America.

 

They aren't. They don't grow naturally. All bananas are grown by humans.

Potable water is a natural resource. And it is being privatized so that greedy, privileged parasites can charge for it.

 

But we now know a better way of managing labor relations than with whips and fetters, just as we know a better way of administering possession and use of land than appropriating it as private property.

It's the rich who own our rights to liberty, not the poor, as proved by the fact that the 10% or so of the population that is poor get perhaps 4% of GDP for doing nothing, while the 1% that are rich get about 40%.

We get a lot for our tax dollars -- but also have to pay landowners for it.

 

Hell yeah I want my share. A piece of all oil production in the US. I also want 40 acres, a mule, and an Indian reservation with a casino on it.