All resources should be community resources. It does the most good for everyone and thus makes the most sense.

Curious if you think this theoretical mine should be highly taxed for the privilege of extracting resources that they have no inherent right to, or if you think the way to go is the more libertarian belief of "taxes = bad".

I think I can actually agree with that statement.

I think whoever currently owns the land should own the mineral rights as well. My family owns 10 acres here in Oklahoma and has for the last 26 years that weve lived here, most likely sitting on oil with all the pumps going up all over the neighborhood, and yet now that the last remaining, locally living, member of the family who owned the land probably 50 years ago before it became a neighborhood has died somebody elsewhere is reaping all the profits, with the natural gas water and oil there is a lot to be made.

Never advocated for a state at all. Talking pure socialism baby, for the people by the people. Whoever wants to run this hypothetical lithium mine runs it. Whoever wants to oversee it oversees it. Whoever wants to watch dog the people running it watches them and reports to the rest of the people. Whoever wants to work it works it. Keep everything transparent and I honestly don’t believe anything would go terribly wrong. Companies fuck over workers currently because it will make the heads more money. If there’s no one to get ahead of, this problem takes care of itself. The end question is just left to their devices (and not educated by media/elementary programming etc) whether you think people are selfish or would work for the whole.

Without monetary incentive to continue dangerous practices, people would have the ability to actually stop them. Without a legal system that can be bought, people would have a real voice. There’s no reason for subterfuge. There’s no reason for dishonesty. There’s no reason to continue a practice harmful to the planet. Most scarcities are manufactured. And no I have never been to a superfund site.

How did they get that way? Why aren’t those companies being held responsible? Why were they even allowed to practice irresponsibly in the first place. My argument is that I don’t believe that would even happen without private ownership, wealth incentive, and service to self being monetarily incentivized.

We just agreed. That’s my point. I believe communal or full societal ownership of the people and decisions made by the people would curb most of the economic and environmental catastrophes that we have witnessed over the last century.

I agree on this as well. But I kinda think the majority of people are actively taught not to think for themselves. I think that’s easy to change without a state and with communal ownership.

NorCal is fairly Libertarian and property rights and resource right/control via the citizen is viewed as a positive. Any state incursion is a negative.

Cops, Sheriff, and other state actors are very much devalued. Those entities won't enter private property during harvest season. Generally these are accessed via dirt roads and are well off the paved streets so approaching vehicles are easy to spot/hear, especially with eyes out during harvest, and they will be shot at.

Generally, they are also alerted which dirt roads are guarded, etc, as cops are also cousins, uncles, and neighbors.

Basically, Hella F No to any state's right over resources.

the very first problems any system of governance has is that not everybody wants to be governed the same way, if at all. so right off the bad you're talking about a spectrum/plurality of governance models that you'll want, and probably some sort of overarching meta model of governance over this spectrum. otherwise you'll always be trying to cram everyone into a single ill-fitting model - and this just doesn't work sustainably, nor would you want to achieve it if you even could because it would come at the cost of individual capability for original thought.

so that's the first hurdle. figuring out how to fract people to systems of governance via the means of self-selection.

and then on top of this comes the realization that you'll want to adapt your rules as time goes on, in your governing system (that is part of a bunch of them, covering everybody). again, the same problem pops up. how do you account for differences of opinion when you mutate your rules? using the same approach you enable self-selection out of those systems if the rules are mutated to be no longer acceptable. or alternately enable the "old cohort" to fork to a spectrum of cohorts depending on where they are relative to the new rule mutation. in other words, if you're gonna make a large breaking change in your gov, you may want to consider forking your gov at this point and letting people go to the one they want.

self-selection is the key here because you minimize the complaints of coercion. it's also the means by which you'd evolve your gov. you need a market of govs.

anyway, as this relates to land and property ownership, if you wanted that model then everyone else in that area would have to want it to. same deal with surface mining rights, water rights, etc. it seems self-evident to me that these are of "the commons" and i'd prefer to be governed by rules that consider them that.

So .. socialism? Well, yes, we need a little bit of socialism as raw capitalism descends into a deeply striated society of haves and have-nots. Putting artificial time limits on things is risky business. We as a whole are best service by preventing monopolies (so that a single or small number of entities don't own all the minerals) and taxes with moderate social programs so that everyone benefits from the extraction of the resources.

Sorry, I am a little over caffeinated i think. Basically the point is putting arbitrary limits on ownership is probably not the right type of solution. It is better to let the market demands of a limited capitalist system define how things play out naturally. The limited system being key.

You don’t own land...you rent

Naw. Possession should be the whole of the law. Possession and magnamity. Share the wealth. Don't abdicate responsibility to a central authority.

Uh, stop the mofos?

Is this a joke?

Bending over and spreading my cheeks.

Sure