G_T, < If my "style" makes you uncomfortable…> Not really. You are more than a little entertaining and that’s at least part of the reason I’m here. (and it can get boring yakking back and forth with Searle about how bad a president George is) Maybe you’re a little opinionated but that’s not a problem because at least you sound knowledgeable about the things you have opinions on.
My feigned wounded male pride was only a small attempt at humor in response to receiving seven responses filled with stick to the facts, no emotion, logical stuff such as <treehuggers as environmental whackos , mcg's errant spec continues unabated , Don't get me started on the absolutely righteous necessities for subsidies, mcg continues after rant..., Clinton's stupid assault on mining… the deep pockets to keep the enviro whackos at bay , Man, who writes your material? A Leno reject?, Clinton/Gore goofy administration, purely based in wolf-ish greed dressed in environmental sheepskins>. I can only imagine what you have to say about an issue about which you do get emotional! (g) <-- That g means just kidding, not to be take TOO seriously. OK?
<<Is most of the general populace really disturbed when they learn of the mining law?>>
<The most complete answer is yes, a big deal is made of it, particularly by treehuggers as environmental whackos are called in more mild epithets, create political capital when "revealing" this part of US Statutory law and privilege.>
Ok, so you really mean environmentalists…not the general populace. I’ll agree with that. But if you remove it from the context of mining and treehuggers, you have what is arguably an archaic law that is ripe for the abuse of political favoritism. Sure it’s the existing law, but is it unreasonable for fair minded people to question if that existing law should be modified so all members of the society somehow share in the benefits derived from the resource that in a very real sense belongs to all members of the society? (notwithstand the fact that those doing the extraction should derive some fair profit for doing their work.)
<<I'll stick my neck out and speculate that the origin of the mining law probably had more to do with providing some protection for small scale operators…>>
<Interesting spec, but not quite on the mark….had more to do with legislative fervor that sprang up from the overgrazing of rangeland by cattlemen in wild and wooly range wars fought between those that fenced and those that didn't…Overgrazing occurred, deforestation occurred, and trespass upon miner's claims and property occurred. It was all incorporated into one legislative jaugernaut omnibus "fix.">
What you describe sounds (to me) very much like an attempt to provide protection for mining interests in the context of multiple competing uses. And it sounds reasonable…in the context in which it occurred. But we fast forward a hundred plus years and those circumstances no longer exist (at least in the form they did in 1872). Maybe a real need continues to exist for the law…or maybe its an unreasonable giveaway of public resources. I'm open to an argument it’s still needed, but a position of ‘too damn bad, this giveaway is guaranteed by the 1872 law and that is how is shall always be’ is pretty weak (imo).
< Don't get me started on the absolutely righteous necessities for subsidies…> Actually, I’d like to get you started. Care to give an explanation why they’re absolutely necessary?
All I have time for now.
John |
