I'm confused. (Libertarian here) Are mineral rights nationalized in Australia? How do they 'belong' to everyone there, as opposed to the person who owns the ground that those resources are in?
https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-tenure/Land-tenure/mining-a...
Which seems as complex as you might expect for something based on similar UK laws:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsUK/planning/legislation/mineral...
NB I've thought for a while that land 'ownership' is a slightly odd concept - not helped by being in Scotland where land ownership has had over a thousand years to get in a nice mess.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14614429-the-poor-had-no...
This Guardian article gives you a flavour of some of the issues:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/scotland-lan...
when you buy property in Australia, that does not include the mineral rights on that property, which are a whole separate thing. Farmers have got rich selling access to mine sites, but only the government can sell the mining rights (for the first sale anyway).
Some argue simply paying taxes. Others say it is a list of things perhaps, called "civic duties". Finally, some more extreme believe you have to do it all: attend the town halls, keep up with the times, understand the various debate points, otherwise you are somehow disqualified from playing. (A side note, it has become impossible to keep up with all the ways government affects your life, and this is one of the exact reasons the founders were for limited government. They argued as the responsibilities and roles of government increase, it becomes impossible for the "commoner" to keep up and stay engaged, thus becoming a form of tyranny in of it's own.)
I think it's definitely a gray area, but the more participation, obviously, the better, while still somehow maintaining the ability to serve those who participate little just as equally. Otherwise you become a government of some people, not of all people.
It’s more healthy than the alternative.