Thanks for replying!
Personally, I’m on the fence about natural resources. On the one hand, I’ve had it described to me as a sort of treasure hunt. And when you go hunting for treasure, you’ll likely have to share a cut of the profits with the owner of the property on which that treasure was found. I know a guy who does this as a hobby, which is where the analogy came from. He actually once found a gold ring when he was metal-detecting a farmer’s land. The farmer asked for a small cut of the money that my friend pawned the ring for. My friend, being very liberal, reminded me of that situation once when we were discussing politics and the issue of natural resource extraction came up. I thought his analogy sounded pretty sensible, to be honest.
At the same time, you’re absolutely correct about the labor that goes into pulling that oil out of the ground and the processes that take place after (transportation, refinement, etc.). The benefits the state reaps from those processes (job creation, in particular) could be considered compensation in and of itself, I suppose. Plus, the ownership of that oil isn’t as settled as Palin makes it sound. Why should the oil only belong to Alaskan citizens? Why not all Americans since Alaska is part of the U.S.?
Anyways, I’m sort of on the fence about that issue, and it certainly seems relevant to the income inequality issue, hence why I asked for your perspective. I’ll have to give it more thought.
“Otherwise they shouldn’t be let out of prison. Because free felons with no opportunities become the responsibility of the rest of the population through nanny programs.”
That’s exactly how I’ve always tried to sell criminal justice reform to my conservative friends. Providing ex-cons with job opportunities is the only way to keep them off welfare programs. I think we’re mostly in agreement on this issue.
Thanks again for the reply! I’ve enjoyed our little exchange!