Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alaska is the last great expermiment in socialism, true redistribution of wealth.
And totally bought and paid for by the oil companies.
Well DannyL, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.
I can only guess, but I'm thinking you reference the mystical PFD check? While I very much agree that is NOT capitalism, I hesitate to call it a "true redistribution of wealth." It represents a fraction of the dollar value of that state resource. A nod to socialism? Sure, I guess. I wouldn't want to depend on that check for milk though. Just sayin.
Consider that the "grid dependency" systems inherent in modern civilization (electric, phone, sewage and garbage) are available in the large cities. Fairly accessible in the towns and boroughs. Expensive or impossible in the interior.
Consider the taxation one forks over to their duly appointed regent as fire/cop/road insurance. Once again, cities, yeah. Decent sized communities, sure. Not so much in the middle of nowhere. I remember reading on these forums that some folks buy what amounts to personal disaster insurance for remote living. Basically, you pay a yearly premium to have Lifeflight (or whatever) come get you if you have a medical emergency. If you do NOT have that, your bill is going to be pretty painful. Makes perfect sense to me. It does not, however, ring of socialism.
I could go on. Point being, if you live in concentrated population areas, like Fairbanks, you are going to be taxed for the SOCIAL services provided to you. Locally. If you live in the remote interior, you're more or less on your own... But nobody from the state has their hand in your pocket. At least not with the intention of taking anything OUT. Name another state that does that.
I fail to see how by becoming a resident of Alaska, I volunteer my income to anyone, for anything, provided I live in the right place. My total taxation (or contribution to socialism, if you'd like to look at it that way) at that point becomes income (thanks FICA!) and consumer (sales) based. So at least 50% of it is fair use, eh?
You contend that Alaska is the last great experiment in socialism. I believe that Alaska is the last bastion of individual freedom. I do agree that may not be exactly what Jefferson had in mind... But I respectfully submit to you that he would be less likely to hurl his morning pancakes all over Alaska in disgust, PFD aside. I think he might save that for DC. Possibly CA.
I can only guess, but I'm thinking you reference the mystical PFD check? While I very much agree that is NOT capitalism, I hesitate to call it a "true redistribution of wealth." It represents a fraction of the dollar value of that state resource. A nod to socialism? Sure, I guess. I wouldn't want to depend on that check for milk though. Just sayin.
It's not really about the PFD, although the PFD is a nice chunk of change, particularly for large families. It's the public services funded by Alaska's natural resources and related development.
Quote:
Consider that the "grid dependency" systems inherent in modern civilization (electric, phone, sewage and garbage) are available in the large cities. Fairly accessible in the towns and boroughs. Expensive or impossible in the interior.
I think you are a little confused about the definition of "the interior" (Fairbanks is in the interior, for example) and of "boroughs" (they can cover large regions of which only a portion is developed) but even beyond that, not so much. Well, I guess the garbage pickup part, but it's really not a big deal to burn it or throw it in the back of the truck and take it to the dump once a week. Of course there are plenty of people living full- or part-time in remote cabins without any services but it's not the norm even in less developed areas. The initial cost of getting a phone or electric line out if you live away from an existing line can be steeper, but after that AFAIK you pay the same rate as anyone else.
If the terrain is suitable and the home is outside an area with a water grid, people generally have their own wells and waste disposal systems (and if the terrain isn't suitable, holding tanks and, ahem, alternative waste disposal systems ), but that's basically the same as anywhere else in the US. My plumbing set up here is almost the same as my folks' setup in the small-town Midwest and I'm pretty sure they have full access to "modern civilization" by anyone's standards even if they're not plugged into a city sewer system. It cost slightly more but to the same degree that everything costs more in AK, not astronomical by any means.
I live in the Unorganized Borough away from any towns, for the record.
I'm fairly sure my (state-provided) health insurance covers medevacs. Now that you mention it, I should probably make sure, though. And the small local clinic is state-subsidized, I think. The schools definitely are, most of their funding comes from the state. The forest fire firefighters are staties I think, too, although house fires are handled by a VFD. Troopers and Fish and Game cops are state employees. The highway is a state highway. No doubt a bunch of other stuff I'm not thinking of as well. IMO the fact that I'm not paying any taxes for any of this makes it more socialistic, not less.
To make out like "socialism" and "personal freedom" are mutually exclusive categories is to apply Lower 48 polarized political rhetoric to AK in a pretty uninformed way, IMO.
You also have, in my opinion, a more specialized (and informed, at least locally) perspective than I do of geographical particulars, simply because you're actually there.
I try hard to keep away from the rose colored glasses, but no doubt my perception of certain realities in Alaska will be influenced by my ideology until I have the empirical data of actually BEING there.
As far as availability of social services, I may have failed to accurately use some descriptors. I added remote to interior once for clarification, but missed the other one.
Having said all that, the non-scenic route to the point I was making is, more or less, "You get what you pay for." There are taxes in the populated areas, because there are services in the populated areas. In the remote interior, one does not just put their garbage on the corner, unless they are willing customers of Ursine Sanitation Services. It's easy to say "anyone can get a phone line, you just have to pay for it" but the fact is, in some places the cost of the infrastructure needed outweighs the benefit of utility.
Socialism as you're describing it is benign, some would even say fiscally responsible of the state. Because the state can AFFORD to endorse benign, non-intrusive socialism, like good road maintenance with no "tire tax." If the state hires 100 Halibut Police and pays for them through out-of-state fishing permits, then the halibut can all feel a little safer, and other than some fisherman-related grumbling most folks would be okay with that. If the state hires those same 100 HPs, turns around and says "Hey guys here's your new F&G tax to pay for the shiny new Salmon SWAT Team... We know you didn't vote on it but really, it's for your own good! Those halibut are oppressed!" That ain't Alaska, that's California. THAT is what I'm talking about.
I did not state that "socialism" and "personal freedom" were mutually exclusive concepts. Neighbors teaming up to take care of each other is socialism. The good kind. When socialism morphs into nanny-ism, THEN it is a problem. When people are taxing me "For my own good" THAT is a problem.
Here endeth the uninformed polarized lower 48 political rhetoric. Perhaps my ability to rub two brain cells together and endorse the virtues of personal freedom in the best state in the country (OMG opinion alert) will become somehow validated by geospatial relocation at some point in the near future. If I'm fortunate, I'll gain some "street cred." Or I guess in the IP it would be more like "tree cred."
That is, if Ursine Sanitation Services doesn't show up to collect me...
The only reason I've wanted to move to Alaska is to get the government off my back. You want socialism, look at what they've tried in WI, look at the stupid protests, look at the hippie wannabee's. Most of us here just LOL at them. They are destroying the 'vision' of socialism. Don't rely on the MSM to give you the real story. It's blowing up in their face. They tried to wreck a little city with their idiotic protests, and the state rallied. Normal people rallied. The libs are dying, they're pulling out all their stupid crap, and we all LOL at them. Don't take the media reports as gospel. The libs are dying on the vine.
One of the reason there are a lot of threads on this forum about moving to Alaska is that it's primarily a relocation forum; it was designed for people to ask questions about moving to a certain place and getting answers from people who live or have lived there.
One of the reason there are a lot of threads on this forum about moving to Alaska is that it's primarily a relocation forum; it was designed for people to ask questions about moving to a certain place and getting answers from people who live or have lived there.
Yep, exactly, it was designed for that purpose. Unfortunately a few nitwits have taken to hijacking informative threads into Palin propaganda, religious soapbox, personal attacks, etc. Now, for example, if you're thinking about or planning a move to Barrow you're not going to get the quality answers here you might have 6 months ago.
As far as availability of social services, I may have failed to accurately use some descriptors. I added remote to interior once for clarification, but missed the other one.
Once you stick the word "remote" on there you've removed all comparative meaning, though. It's the same thing with "remote" places anywhere. If I put my house in the middle of an uninhabited desert or up an uninhabited mountain in the Lower 48 it's going to be pretty tricky to get services there, too. That's a function of remoteness, not of being Alaskan.
And yeah, there's more remote space in AK by virtue of its size and low population, but you should look into exactly how much of that is available for private ownership. Then factor in how much of that is suitable for building on.
Quote:
Having said all that, the non-scenic route to the point I was making is, more or less, "You get what you pay for." There are taxes in the populated areas, because there are services in the populated areas. In the remote interior, one does not just put their garbage on the corner, unless they are willing customers of Ursine Sanitation Services. It's easy to say "anyone can get a phone line, you just have to pay for it" but the fact is, in some places the cost of the infrastructure needed outweighs the benefit of utility.
Okay, and? Not all municipalities elsewhere in the US do garbage collection. In my town in Texas you either paid a private company to drive their garbage truck by a couple times a month, or you took your stuff to the dump yourself. I guarantee there would be a garbage collection company here if there was enough population to for it to be profitable. I am just not seeing where "lack of waste removal services" is a way rural Alaska shines in comparisons to other parts of the US.
Quote:
Socialism as you're describing it is benign, some would even say fiscally responsible of the state. Because the state can AFFORD to endorse benign, non-intrusive socialism, like good road maintenance with no "tire tax." If the state hires 100 Halibut Police and pays for them through out-of-state fishing permits, then the halibut can all feel a little safer, and other than some fisherman-related grumbling most folks would be okay with that. If the state hires those same 100 HPs, turns around and says "Hey guys here's your new F&G tax to pay for the shiny new Salmon SWAT Team... We know you didn't vote on it but really, it's for your own good! Those halibut are oppressed!" That ain't Alaska, that's California. THAT is what I'm talking about.
Talk to Metlakatla about the fish cops sometime. Just because Alaskans don't pay state taxes doesn't mean the state government doesn't do stupid things to us from time to time.
Quote:
I did not state that "socialism" and "personal freedom" were mutually exclusive concepts. Neighbors teaming up to take care of each other is socialism. The good kind. When socialism morphs into nanny-ism, THEN it is a problem. When people are taxing me "For my own good" THAT is a problem.
None of the state services I cited are examples of "neighbors teaming up to take care of one another." These services are being paid for by taxes and other revenue streams, just not my taxes. It's textbook redistribution of wealth.
Don't get me wrong, life here IS different than most parts of the lower 48 and I do appreciate those differences. But the things you are citing by and large are either inaccurate or skewed.
My problem is that the terms "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" have become curse words in this country. Socialism, as seen in Alaska, tends to work, for the most part. The redistribution of wealth that allows Frostnip to live the lifestyle he lives is helping him and other people like him to live that lifestyle, one that is difficult to live anywhere else due to the fact that other places do not provide much of ANYTHING for the residents of their remote areas. Look at eastern Montana, for example, or most of Wyoming.
I cannot speak from personal experience regarding much of anything in Alaska, having never been there. I can, however, recognize the difference between "those damn libs and their socialism" and functional socialism that works. Maybe that's the thing that needs to be done. Maybe folks should reexamine their hangups.
Why do you want to move to Alaska? Do you want big government in your life, or are you trying to flee big government? I'm wanting nothing to do with BG. I assume you do too. No one dreaming of moving to Alaska want's BG dictating what they can and can't do. That's always been my reason for moving there, BG, get the heck out of my life. The song never changes, it's worse now than ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but that's basically the same as anywhere else in the US. My plumbing set up here is almost the same as my folks' setup in the small-town Midwest and I'm pretty sure they have full access to "modern civilization" by anyone's standards even if they're not plugged into a city sewer system. It cost slightly more but to the same degree that everything costs more in AK, not astronomical by any means.
Perhaps my ability to rub two brain cells together and endorse the virtues of personal freedom in the best state in the country (OMG opinion alert) will become somehow validated by geospatial relocation at some point in the near future. If I'm fortunate, I'll gain some "street cred." Or I guess in the IP it would be more like "tree cred."
