something has to be given back

[Ray Zee]

it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth. that wealth being the large trees of our forests. the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all. at least that which was on public land. so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.
or is that just capitalism and each had their chance at the pie.

[luv_the_game]

I would never disagree with you on a poker related topic, but I think that you are missing something here.

If you live in a building, drive a car, etc. you have taken your piece of these pies. You use the things that these big businesses provide. How would houses be built if someone wasn't cutting down trees? There wouldn't even be playing cards for that matter. These busineses that you say need to give something back already do. Jobs, taxes, and products that are needed or wanted by enough people to make them money. Not to mention that most big businesses use a portion of their profits in charitable endeavors that benefit all of us directly or indirectly.

I'm not at all saying that there should be no regulation, on the business that you you refer too. Far from it. I just think it is somewhat disingenuous to look at these businesses as all take without looking at the people who utilize there product. That includes everyone. They use our natural resources to provide the products we want/need.

[warlockjd]

If you are refering to the raping of Wyoming (or Montana?) for minerals as detailed in 'Bushwacked", I agree 100%. If the water's not drinkable, for all the ranchers' animals, it needs to be fixed by the polluters. Will never happen with current administration.

[Zeno]

An example:

Counties receive a certain dispersement of money from the logging of public lands in the respective counties of Oregon (I am sure this is also true in many states). Part of this is from National Forest land and also the defunct O&C lands (in Oregon) or BLM lands etc. This money goes into the general fund and is wasted on fraudulent and stupid ideas pushed on the population by mountebanks and conniving politicians.

The same thing is true with oil and mineral revenues and lease payments for drilling on pubic lands etc. When I worked in Alaska in the 1970's I did not have to paid any income tax because of the windfall of oil revenue (actually you did pay - you just got it all back at the end of the year when you filed).

Public timber helps everyone with overall cheaper housing and wood products.

I love trees. I always have as I grew up playing in the wet and soggy forests of Western Oregon. I also like a roof over my head.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Govt has gone from being by and for the people to being by and for the corporation. This is true for the environment, individual legal rights (to sue for example), gun control (to allow corporations to sell weapons with highly suspect gaming benefits), media (to wipe out the small broadcaster), etc, etc.

America is no longer run by the communities we live in, it is run by the corporations.

[Mucking Idiot]

There are those around the world and even in the US who use the bare minimun of resources and these are usually the same people who benefit the least from our industrial machine.
We rape and reap, make no doubt about it.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses were destroying wealth instead of adding value in the mind of the consumer, they would go broke.


[ QUOTE ]
the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but why are those that would do nothing with them more rightful than those who would turn our resouces into finished goods? A capitalist system runs on the fact that consumers will do what is in their best interest. The average consumer would rather have cheap stuff than stuff that was produced in a environmentally conscious way.

[ QUOTE ]
so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the use of natural resources always leaves everyone less rich. I believe that most of the time they are converted into more valuable goods.

That said, I think it should be the government's responsibility to restrain society from the worst excesses, but the decisions and burdens will always fall to the consumer. This can be done through regulation of production methods or adding taxes on things that are the worst resource drainers. The big problem with these methods are that any tax that falls back to the consumer will be regressive in nature as poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on things like gasoline. The government should be much more protective of our public land, unfortunately more people will base their vote on their economic position than environmental policy. I think the masses generally like talking about protecting the environment better, but most will not be willing to make sacrifices.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is clear to me that the govt and big business over the centuries have taken away some of everyone wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If businesses were destroying wealth instead of adding value in the mind of the consumer, they would go broke.


[ QUOTE ]
the huge minerals that are now depleted. oil reserves. open land, etc. these things belonged to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but why are those that would do nothing with them more rightful than those who would turn our resouces into finished goods? A capitalist system runs on the fact that consumers will do what is in their best interest. The average consumer would rather have cheap stuff than stuff that was produced in a environmentally conscious way.

[ QUOTE ]
so doesnt somewhere the govt has an obligation to make things right. as the taking away of these tangible assets leaves everyone slightly less rich.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the use of natural resources always leaves everyone less rich. I believe that most of the time they are converted into more valuable goods.

That said, I think it should be the government's responsibility to restrain society from the worst excesses, but the decisions and burdens will always fall to the consumer. This can be done through regulation of production methods or adding taxes on things that are the worst resource drainers. The big problem with these methods are that any tax that falls back to the consumer will be regressive in nature as poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on things like gasoline. The government should be much more protective of our public land, unfortunately more people will base their vote on their economic position than environmental policy. I think the masses generally like talking about protecting the environment better, but most will not be willing to make sacrifices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't agree more. When things are consumed in large quantities, it is quite conspicuous. This happens with corporations and government ... you cannot help but notice.

However, all the "little" things individuals consume (by choice) always seem forgotton in the grand scheme. The fact of the matter is that mass production is inherently more efficient than each individual grabbing his share. Furthermore it is more fair as the benefits are available on a wider scale.

With that being said, it is important to recognize the benefits of protecting things in their natural state. Unfortunately, those who want such protection seems to be in the minority (even more of a minority if actions speak louder than words). Such a minority often borders on the vigilant (i.e. tree spikers) and a lot of resources are wasted on fighting a losing war.

The best tact is to cooperate and use all available resources more wisely. The first thing that must go is the opinion that there is an absolute right to preservation. In the world we live in, that is just not a possibility. Therefore, tough choices must be made. These choices would be better for all if the conservationists could work with their "enemies" rather than against.

That being said, I WISH WE COULD PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, but then again, I wish we had 150 million less people in the U.S. to make this possible. The real problem is overpopulation, and to accommodate everyone, we have to make tough choices.

Ray, I live in Los Angeles and it is the most depressing place I know. Just 30 years ago, a lot of the San Gabriel Valley had ranches and orchards, and "small town" feeling. Now, there are houses crammed in every nook and the suburbs continue to sprawl.

With the rate of population growth and immigration influx, I can only imagine what Montana will be like in 20 more years.

[Ray Zee]

but part of this is that the resources are on public land. so when they take and produce from them all people have theopportunity to purchase these goods but arent they in fact subsidising the companies with their own wealth.
wouldnt it be the same if someone cut down your house and made toys with the wood. then would you say they made products we all benefit from.
so wouldnt taking the forest from the people and giving it to the companies robbing the people. they get to buy back from the companies that which was theirs to start with.

[Ray Zee]

but enven though the counties get some money back from the logging say, the overall result is that in most cases the govt. does lose money in a timber sale. so in effect they are literally giving away our land for free to the companies. sure some get jobs and we get a little cheaper lumber but is it worth it. wouldnt charging the real price for it and making houses a little more expensive better in the long run.
i know you like your roof even if it leaks with a little drivel of rain.