[annalex]

In #77 you misrepresented my position. My position is that it is rightful to claim unclaimed property when no offense occurs to the rights of present property holders. I do not say that it is rightful to claim property merely because there is no intention to claim them. For example, if a Bedouin declares that he would like to hold on to that piece of sand because he might drill for oil later, then Exxon should respect his wishes as long as his claim is material and credible. By that I mean that the Bedouin should travel through the land or otherwise be present on it; and he should somehow make his intention more than an empty abstract intent. If the Bedouin says to Exxon: Sorry, I just contacted the French engineers that might rent me their drilling equipment, and besides I enjoy the sunset over that particular sand dune, -- then perhaps, the Exxon should not claim but negotiate.

I do object to the Arabian (or Alaskan) government simply claiming that anyone who wishes to drill inside the sovereignty perimeter needs a permit from the government. The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. If there is no objection coming from the Bedouin or from an Alaskan, then a foreigner should be able to extract the resource.

So, to answer directly your question in #78, if the Alaskans do not want Exxon (or a foreign oil company) to drill there, they have to say so. If the Alaskan government doesn't want the drilling but cannot connect its (government's) wants to any popular demand, then that government has no legitimacy in doing so.

[Demidog]

In #77 you misrepresented my position. My position is that it is rightful to claim unclaimed property when no offense occurs to the rights of present property holders. I do not say that it is rightful to claim property merely because there is no intention to claim them. For example, if a Bedouin declares that he would like to hold on to that piece of sand because he might drill for oil later, then Exxon should respect his wishes as long as his claim is material and credible.

Absurd. If the Bedouin declares that he wants to hold on to that piece of sand because he needs a place to piss, Exxon had better respect his wishes. It's not their land.

By that I mean that the Bedouin should travel through the land or otherwise be present on it; and he should somehow make his intention more than an empty abstract intent.

It is not up to the holder of the rights to do anything. He doesn't have to prove anything. He can let it sit for the birds and never have any intent to do anything "useful" as his rights to the land are not incumbant on some arbitrary judgement of his good or bad intentions.

If the Bedouin says to Exxon: Sorry, I just contacted the French engineers that might rent me their drilling equipment, and besides I enjoy the sunset over that particular sand dune, -- then perhaps, the Exxon should not claim but negotiate.

Exxon can do whatever it likes. But it has no claim to property which it does not own. Rights, such as mineral, right of way and property, can be purchased from the original holder. If the holder doesn't want to sell, then he doesn't have to sell and he doesn't have to provide any good reason for his refusal.

You're espousing something similar to eminant domain. The rights of the property holders can be circumvented or over-ridden if they do not have the proper motivations for a given piece of property.

I do object to the Arabian (or Alaskan) government simply claiming that anyone who wishes to drill inside the sovereignty perimeter needs a permit from the government.

Not a permit. Rights to the property. Without them, you can't just walk in and drill.

The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. If there is no objection coming from the Bedouin or from an Alaskan, then a foreigner should be able to extract the resource.

Not without rights. You're correct that the government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. And if the citizens wish the oil to be left in the ground, it stays.

So, to answer directly your question in #78, if the Alaskans do not want Exxon (or a foreign oil company) to drill there, they have to say so.

This is equivalent to: "If the citizens of America do not wish the government to steal their assets at gunpoint they need to say so."

Without proper rights to the minerals or property or both, Exxon is committing an act of agression and expecting that it can do so with impunity because nobody has stepped up to make a specific "credible" claim to prevent them from doing so. In the meantime, they make profits and take the resources without holding proper rights to the property.

If the Alaskan government doesn't want the drilling but cannot connect its (government's) wants to any popular demand, then that government has no legitimacy in doing so.

Again you are not espousing anything resembling libertarian principles. Exxon is barred from acting until they have secured the rights to the land and the resources. It's not about permissions. It's about rights. I agree that once they have secured the rights to the property they can do what they want with it.

But I may not simply walk into the wilderness of Alaska and build a home and claim that I have secured any rights to the land it is built upon simply because nobody objected.

You are putting the cart before the horse here and I can't understand why. If I leave my wallet, filled with C notes on a park bench, you can't pick it up, use all of the money and then claim that you haven't stolen simply because I never noticed or objected beforehand.