Deal all,
Wanted to ask some of you folks here as to what do you think when it comes to mineral rights. Allow me to start the conversation through placing some basic questions here and i'll let everyone pitch-in and elaborate; we'll go from there. It doesn't matter what side of this argument you stand. I do appreciate everyone's input in advance.
1. Who should have the mineral rights? People of this country who own their lands or the government of pakistan?
2. Do you think government is their to protect rights of the people of this country or if they have all the rights and should grant them as they please and to whomever they are pleased with?
3. How do you feel when it comes to current set of regulations which at least in my opinion are pretty much in favor of the incompetent government of this country.
Let's hear it!!!
I think it should go to the people. We should follow the Alaskan model, where every citizen of the state gets a share of the oil revenue (roughly $1,800 each, which is nothing to sneeze at, of course). As inane as Sarah Palin was, even she continued to do this during her time as the Governor of Alaska.
Actually, I'd rather see our natural mineral resources burnt to a cinder rather than in the hands of anyone in this government.
@IS
I agree with you on this one. BTW, I am not a fan of Sarah Palin either. However, Republicans sure do stand for some of the good stuff that can help the common man.
If such similar model was adopted here in Pakistan, there would be no issue of Baluchistan especially. I mean its not a rocket science, minerals must be given back to the people who's land they belong to and let them decide whether they want to keep them or sell them off.
Anyway, good feedback. Thanks.