Crisis in the Commons _ The Alaska Solution

Commonwealth North ^ | 4/4/02 | Walter J. Hickel

[Brad C.]

Just some different ideas to bounce around. The book itself is an interesting read, should anyone get the chance.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[Carry_Okie]

I solved the Tragedy of the Commons with my book.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hickel, I patented the method.

[Carry_Okie]

And, yes, he is a communist.

[hedgetrimmer]

The idea of a "commons" is medieval. Commons are so-called because they are common use areas, owned by King or aristocracy, and allowed for use by the serfs at the whim or discretion of the controlling entity.

The idea of public lands, designated for multiple uses by citizens, is an American idea, a way for a free people to make use of lands under government jurisdiction. A couple of hundred years of case law supports the idea of public property, and deeds and permits and be issued for the use of them.

The commons idea is a promotion of the UN and other organizations that would like the global elite to control the planet, as opposed to allowing free use of public lands by citiznes.

[Ben Ficklin]

I don't recall where I read it, but after federal, state, and tribal lands are accounted for, only 2% of Alaska's land are privately held.

Compare this to Texas where most of the lands are in private hands. When Texas came into the union, she was allowed to keep her lands because she had been a sovereign nation. These state disposed itself of those lands.

[hedgetrimmer]

These state disposed itself of those lands

Alaska and California should do the same. Did you know that the state and federal government owns %52 of the land in California? No wonder housing prices are so high, with half the land inaccessible.

[Carry_Okie]

The idea of public lands, designated for multiple uses by citizens, is an American idea, a way for a free people to make use of lands under government jurisdiction. A couple of hundred years of case law supports the idea of public property, and deeds and permits and be issued for the use of them.

And a little document called the Constitution forbids it.

[Carry_Okie]

This should give you a chuckle. Mr. Hamilton's vaunted foresight fails him here in the Federalist:

In a country consisting chiefly of the cultivators of land, where the rules of an equal representation obtain, the landed interest must, upon the whole, preponderate in the government. As long as this interest prevails in most of the State legislatures, so long it must maintain a correspondent superiority in the national Senate, which will generally be a faithful copy of the majorities of those assemblies. It cannot therefore be presumed, that a sacrifice of the landed to the mercantile class will ever be a favorite object of this branch of the federal legislature.

I can think of a few treaties that accomplished precisely that.

[hedgetrimmer]

"And a little document called the Constitution forbids it."

Very true. The Constitution is very clear about what lands the federal government can own. Not so clear about states.

[Carry_Okie]

Not so clear about states.

Ahhh but I think I have found the provision that cracks it. The US Constitution guarantees the citizens of the United States a "Republican form of government" in the several States. State control of land is hardly Republican government as the founders saw it. Certainly the declaration of water as a "public good" in the California Constitution violates that provision because control of water is control of land.

[farmfriend]

Did you know that the state and federal government owns %52 of the land in California?

It's 75% according to my father who was in a possition to know. He was a "right-of-way" agent for the U.S.F.S for many years.

[farmfriend]

I don't recall where I read it, but after federal, state, and tribal lands are accounted for, only 2% of Alaska's land are privately held.

The government owns 99% of Alaska.

[Brad C.]

Just a quick point for you, I noticed that you patented the idea in 2001. Mr. Hickel states in his book that the "commons" idea was an intergral part of the Alaska Statehood act and part of the constitution that he helped write. Both of which were developed in the late 50's, which I think might have been before you thought of the idea. I am not attempting to be argumentative, but from looking at the picture on the link you provided, I would say you may not have been even in grade school at the time. I was a toddler at the time.

Also, you made a statement in another post that Mr. Hickel is a communist, and I wonder if you have some first hand knowledge of that that you might be willing to share. I have lived in Alaska for 20+ years, and this is the very first time I have ever heard him called that. There are a lot of other things he has been called, some of which I agree with, but that accusation goes beyond the pale.

[Brad C.]

Yes, but if you will note this idea is for the development of the "common resources", not the control of the land by the state. The state manages the development of the resources by private firms and individuals for the betterment of the residents of the state. For example our oil wealth, of which the state gets a percentage of every barrel pumped from the ground, which is deposited into the stae coffers and used to finance the budget. a percentage also goes into the Permanent Fund account, which then are kicked back to each and every citizen as a direct benefit of the the sale of the resource that they sold (via the state) to outside interests.

BTW, Hickel believes the PFD is wrong, and that instead of the money flowing back to the individuals, it should have been directed back to the communities they live in. By doing it that way, the money could be used to build significant infrastructures within the community, schools, parks, roadways and other such trivial items.

[Brad C.]

Less than 1/2 of 1% of the land in Alaska is privately owned, and much of the land owned by the state is blocked from development by the federally controlled land. For instance, it would be impossible to construct a railroad to Nome because it would have to cross sevaral areas deemed as "wilderness" which preclude the use of motorized machinery of any kind. While Alaska was granted the right to choose 103 million acres, the Federal government retained over 350 million as its own, with no intention of ever releasing it to the State.

[Carry_Okie]

Thank you for your sarcastic response. Collective political control of property, regardless of the class size or means, is communism. Note his citation to the Native Tribes, which were in some respects communal societies.

I didn't patent the commons idea, which predates Mr. Hickel by several centuries. I patented a particular management method that engenders a solution to that problem using a free market, something distinctly different than political control or what Mr. Hickel proposes. If you read Garret Hardin's essay which coined the term: The Tragedy of the Commons, you will note that he proposes "private property or something like it" as a solution. I have merely designed a structure to get it done.

[knak]

The last new highway in Alaska was built in 1972. </>

Well that new bike path they built all over the state could've been an addition to the two lanes too small highway that goes through the state. Millions upon millions spent and we still have bumper to bumper traffic. But the summer time tourists have a nice bike path.

[Brad C.]

My apologies, I was not trying to be sarcastic. I briefly scanned the link that you provided and made assumptions based on the statement that you had made about patenting the idea. Since you said that was unforntunate for Mr. Hickel, I also assumed that we were talking about the same thing. I will read your links in more detail and get back to you. I will also read Hardin's essay. No offence was intended in any way.

That said. There is no doubt that the "commons" idea predates all of us. It is just that the people who developed the idea in Alaska put a unique twist to it. they put it under the control of a democraticaly elected governor. This enables the people to reject his style of mangement if they disagree with it, or continue it by re-electing him to the position.

Per the State Constitution, these elections are held every four years, effectivly eliminating single party or individual control of the resources, hence there is no "communism" in that sense of the word. In the past, and even in this day, the commons were controlled by a single entity or family, such as the Saudis; who take all of the wealth to enrich themselves and provide little to the common man.


I will look forward to reading your links latter this evening.

[Brad C.]

All to true, but they sure have spent some major bucks upgrading the highway down around your area and up through Houston. I am in Fairbanks, and we sure could use a few upgrades around here.