[One Degree]

I want to offer my heart felt apology to the board grammar and spelling fairies.

Property acquisition through the process of eminent domain is and should be a tool available to the government for projects that benefit the people. Providing cheap energy benefits the people.

Agreed, but the more people you have, the more eminent domain needed. All things in moderation.
Eminent domain is also regularly abused by businesses with political power. There has been more than one homeowner lose his house for a shopping mall.

[Rich]

Private property is monopoly use of a resource granted to individual / individuals by the collective. That monopoly is non absolute and can be rescinded.

[Suntzu]

Agreed, but the more people you have, the more eminent domain needed. All things in moderation.
Eminent domain is also regularly abused by businesses with political power. There has been more than one homeowner lose his house for a shopping mall.

I agree that eminent domain has been abused but this doesn't appear to be the case here.

[Crantag]

Rightwing communism. Emminent domain for the oil and gas companies. Come tred on me, in pursuit of cheap energy for all. (A false premise, by the way.)

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument that cheap energy is a reason to impose state directives on an unwilling population is actually an argument to nationalise the energy industry.

On another note, this whole thread is about a white family having to deal with the same things that indigenous people deal with every day and have been dealing with for centuries.

[One Degree]

The argument that cheap energy is a reason to impose state directives on an unwilling population is actually an argument to nationalise the energy industry.

On another note, this whole thread is about a white family having to deal with the same things that indigenous people deal with every day and have been dealing with for centuries.

That would create ‘common cause’ which should make you happy, yet you appear disturbed by it. Why is that?

[Pants-of-dog]

That would create ‘common cause’ which should make you happy, yet you appear disturbed by it. Why is that?

Who cares what I feel?

Are you going to address my actual point?

[One Degree]

Who cares what I feel?

Are you going to address my actual point?

I care. You did not make a point. You expressed your feelings on two issues.

[Pants-of-dog]

I care. You did not make a point. You expressed your feelings on two issues.

...and this is why I often ignore you.

[Crantag]

The argument that cheap energy is a reason to impose state directives on an unwilling population is actually an argument to nationalise the energy industry.

On another note, this whole thread is about a white family having to deal with the same things that indigenous people deal with every day and have been dealing with for centuries.

That may be where the argument goes if you take it to its logical conclusion.

This sort of goes back to the 'false premise' which I alluded to, namely the notion that this has to do with assuring cheap energy. What it has to do with is assuring the profits for private capitalist enterprises.

Capitalist enterprises don't set prices in accordance with production costs. Production costs do influence supply in highly competitive industries, which in turn influences price. However, oil and gas is not a competitive industry, it is an industry which is controlled by cartels. Prices are set on a global level. These prices are in turn affected by subsidized on a national level in various countries, including the US.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Mr. Dog, rather I think you made a fair point and gave an answer to my 'false premise'.

Oil and gas is indeed complicated, but this particular situation is all about corporate profits. It is also about the building of a particular type of infrastructure through public-private partnership, to be sure.

Suntzu was presumably pleased to receive the $100,000 he claims to have gotten. I don't know whether or not he appreciates that this was essentially an insurance policy purchased by the gas company. He now owns the risk of something going afoul with the pipeline and spoiling his land. Or at least that's my speculation.

[One Degree]

You guys lost me. The problem is the oil industry is immune from fear of the government and use the government to promote their interests. Why would nationalizing it even be considered? Do you think Congress is just going to kiss all those side benefits good bye? Even if we forced them to nationalize, all the top oil executives would be appointed to run it.
This is why my fall back is lots of autonomous areas in competition. No foreign ownership.

Edit: The only difference between a capitalist and a socialist is whether you prefer the Oligarchs be businessmen or politicians.

[Crantag]

You guys lost me. The problem is the oil industry is immune from fear of the government and use the government to promote their interests. Why would nationalizing it even be considered? Do you think Congress is just going to kiss all those side benefits good bye? Even if we forced them to nationalize, all the top oil executives would be appointed to run it.
This is why my fall back is lots of autonomous areas in competition. No foreign ownership.

In the US, there's an unspoken law against the government owning any productive or profitable enterprise in any sector of any industry.

The US ain't exactly China. (The state-owned energy companies in China earned 20% profits in the first quarter of 2018, it was recently reported.)

I wasn't meaning to suggest it was an actual political possibility to nationalize the oil industry.

I can't think of any public enterprises in the US that make money, and this is by intentional design. If something is profitable, it is immediately privatized.

Do the National Parks make money? That might be an exception. At least in some cases. But I'm not sure.

[One Degree]

In the US, there's an unspoken law against the government owning any productive or profitable enterprise in any sector of any industry.

The US ain't exactly China. (The state-owned energy companies in China earned 20% profits in the first quarter of 2018, it was recently reported.)

I wasn't meaning to suggest it was an actual political possibility to nationalize the oil industry.

I can't think of any public enterprises in the US that make money, and this is by intentional design. If something is profitable, it is immediately privatized.

Do the National Parks make money? That might be an exception. At least in some cases. But I'm not sure.

This is recent and a mistake imo. Prisons use to make products for profit. Some still do, but I don’t know if they are privatized. The only real difference is in public ran operations the profits are siphoned off by friends of those running it, instead of shareholders. Hospitals might be a good example of this. There is no reason for them not to be community owned and profitable. So yes, public enterprises are hindered from competing. It is not they can’t make a profit, they just aren’t allowed to either through law or corruption.