Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[MachineGhost]

the federal ownership may be legitimate in the sense that they have there name on the piece of paper and the guns to enforce it, but the government should be doing the will of the people.  Gross mismanagement and abject failure make it clear to most living in those areas or dealing with these issue/agencys that the time to fix this by moving the land to the states has come or should come soon.. 

The government does the will of the people through legislation, not on the bloody spur of the moment.  That is how our system of governance works.  You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game just because you don't like what is happening to you.

The guy is a right-wing paytriot loser, with a milita cult to boot.  He's just invoking the discredited Sovereign Citizen argument to avoid paying his debt, but is apparantly unaware that the states can legally lease and/or cease land to the Federal government which then has both venue and subject matter jurisidction.  If the Fed's show some restraint and common sense instead of escalating it into another Waco or Ruby Ridge, all will be well.  We treat terrorist hostage negotiations better!

[MachineGhost]

What it sounds like is happening here is that for whatever reason, the BLM is deliberately trying to squeeze ranchers off the land by slowly reducing allotments. All of Bundy's neighbors saw the writing on the wall and left. But Bundy seems like a stubborn old bastard who recognized this for what it is and dug in his heels. As a non-westerner, this may seem weird to you, but that's a common and admired personality trait out here. For a lot of people in the American west, when someone in charge tells you you can't do something, you want to do it more. That's the way we are here. And if the government is truly a vehicle for our use rather than an antagonistic entity, it ought to recognize that, wouldn't you say? Or should the government only recognize and accommodate cultures that you approve of?

I can't wait for the movie.  The drama!  The pipe organs!

I'm sorry PS but living in ultra liberal San Francisco is not "The West", so whats this "we" you're referring to?  Did you move to Utah?

[Stewardship]

Well, the only one obeying "the law" here is the government agents.

The BLM?  Well, even if you take the position that the Constitution means whatever a Federal Judge says it means (to which I would reply by quoting the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.")

What about U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C, which TX Congressman Steve Stockman calls our attention to in a letter to the President, the Secretary of the Interior, and the BLM Director regarding the standoff:

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”?

It doesn't seem we have "war" though, yet.

Tell that to the ranchers, their supporters, and well, the mainstream media calling this a "Range War."

[Pointedstick]

I can't wait for the movie.  The drama!  The pipe organs!

I'm sorry PS but living in ultra liberal San Francisco is not "The West", so whats this "we" you're referring to?  Did you move to Utah?

Ugh, San Francisco? No way, people have lost their minds there. I'm talking about Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico (where I moved to), half of Colorado, and about a third of California. You know, the west.

Anyone who does not understand what I am referring to is hereby directed to go watch Firefly. It's on Netflix instant streaming!

[Benko]

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,”? General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”?

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,”?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa ... nd-Take-It

[Mountaineer]

I can't wait for the movie.  The drama!  The pipe organs!

I'm sorry PS but living in ultra liberal San Francisco is not "The West", so whats this "we" you're referring to?  Did you move to Utah?

Ugh, San Francisco? No way, people have lost their minds there. I'm talking about Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico (where I moved to), half of Colorado, and about a third of California. You know, the west.

Anyone who does not understand what I am referring to is hereby directed to go watch Firefly. It's on Netflix instant streaming!

I think you can add central and eastern Washington to the "west" mix - east of the Cascades.  The west coast is very liberal from what my daughter says who lives east of the Cascades. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Ugh, San Francisco? No way, people have lost their minds there. I'm talking about Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico (where I moved to), half of Colorado, and about a third of California. You know, the west.

Okay, I guess living in NM qualifies you to be part of the "we" now!  I'm curious.  Why'd you pick NM over the other states?

[Pointedstick]

Okay, I guess living in NM qualifies you to be part of the "we" now!  I'm curious.  Why'd you pick NM over the other states?

Proximity to family and friends; low prices on real estate in/near a major city; climate cooler than AZ and NV but warmer than CO or anything that far north in the rockies; less racial tension then AZ; less encroaching liberalism then CO or NV; not politically dominated by Mormons like UT; fewer conservatives then many of the other western states.

[Reub]

Okay, I guess living in NM qualifies you to be part of the "we" now!  I'm curious.  Why'd you pick NM over the other states?

Proximity to family and friends; low prices on real estate in/near a major city; climate cooler than AZ and NV but warmer than CO or anything that far north in the rockies; less racial tension then AZ; less encroaching liberalism then CO or NV; not politically dominated by Mormons like UT; fewer conservatives then many of the other western states.

Are you sure it had nothing to do with being an avid fan of Breaking Bad? 

Seriously, it seems that the BLM might have overplayed it's hand as they've brought light to their ongoing land grabs in other states, such as Texas:

"Republicans warn BLM eyeing land grab along Texas-Oklahoma border

Texas officials are raising alarm that the Bureau of Land Management, on the heels of its dust-up with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, might be eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas.

The under-the-radar issue has caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who fired off a letter on Tuesday to BLM Director Neil Kornze saying the agency “appears to be threatening”? the private property rights of “hard-working Texans.”?

“Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box,”? wrote Abbott, also a Republican gubernatorial candidate."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ma-border/

[donnyg1941]

It is noteworthy that in this thread nobody has said a word about the blatant racist remarks coming out of his mouth. He sounds like he wants another civil war as well, since he insists that he does not recognize our federal government, and up pop all these right wing armed "sovereign citizens." Let's be honest here. We either live under the rule of law, or we can all just try to get away with behaving like the too big to jail banksters, except we don't have enough $ to bribe our congress people like they do.

[Stewardship]

It is noteworthy that in this thread nobody has said a word about the blatant racist remarks coming out of his mouth.

Perhaps that's because, well, all libertarians and conservatives are routinely labeled racist.  It's typically not worth discussion.

He sounds like he wants another civil war as well, since he insists that he does not recognize our federal government, and up pop all these right wing armed "sovereign citizens." Let's be honest here. We either live under the rule of law, or we can all just try to get away with behaving like the too big to jail banksters, except we don't have enough $ to bribe our congress people like they do.

Or we can dutifully make a stand against oppressive regimes, as in the Revolutionary War.

[moda0306]

It is noteworthy that in this thread nobody has said a word about the blatant racist remarks coming out of his mouth.

Perhaps that's because, well, all libertarians and conservatives are routinely labeled racist.  It's typically not worth discussion.

He sounds like he wants another civil war as well, since he insists that he does not recognize our federal government, and up pop all these right wing armed "sovereign citizens." Let's be honest here. We either live under the rule of law, or we can all just try to get away with behaving like the too big to jail banksters, except we don't have enough $ to bribe our congress people like they do.

Or we can dutifully make a stand against oppressive regimes, as in the Revolutionary War.

What qualifies as an "oppressive regime?"

Personally I think his racism is only indirectly relevant to his ridiculous claim. The main focus should be his asinine position, not whether he carries some "-ism" in his heart.

I'm really amazed people are still defending this guy. He's a welfare rancher who is complaining how bad welfare is, and how blacks would probably be better off as slaves. The irony is simply dripping off of all this.

People would do better for themselves if they'd just move on to federal land management regulations in general. This case in Texas might also be a valid discussion. There's a very interesting debate to be had here, but we are still deciding whether Bundy is anything but a kook.

However, the more all this gets discussed, the more we shed light on how "illegitimate" so much land ownership is, anyway... And that it's all pretty much sourced at theft/conquer by the state. This is not going to be a conversation land baron's really want to start on a national level.

[moda0306]

if you are interested in his racist statements, you might find the unedited version of them more interesting, there were lots of pro black and pro Mexican statements on either side of the bit shown by the media, that change the context. 

he is a county boy rancher taking a stand, not a media pro or a Henry David Thoreau caliber philosopher, i expect more questionable reasoning and foot in mouth moments as well as many easy to misrepresent sound bites if this stays in the news..

Yeah I say we leave the racist aspect alone.

But "taking a stand?"  Please.  It would be like me taking a stand because the government decided to tax 100% of social security by having a militia surround my house after decades of not paying income tax. He is the one who escalated the aggression via threats and a militia there to defend his cattle.

Edit: 100% of my SS being added to taxable income.  Not a rate of 100%.

he took a stand by not paying, it isn't a strong stand or likely to succeed (tax protesters who don't pay know this real well) but what other way did he have to keep them from driving him out of business? when the BLM showed up with overwhelming force and took his cattle others joined in stood with him. if they hadn't met aggression with aggression he would be out of business. would it be better he rolled over drew up a "will work for food" sign and went on welfare?... i don't see any options other than take a stand that let him keep his business, or make a big enough stink on his way out to bring attention to what the blm are up to.
paying the fees and going quietly is what the other ranchers did, i sure didn't hear about their plight on the news...

[Pointedstick]

What qualifies as an "oppressive regime?"

I always find it interesting to compare the grievances that actually caused the revolutionary war compared to their modern equivalents. It definitely appears that Americans have grown far more tolerant of taxes and gun control (in particular) than our insurrectionist forefathers were. I often wonder whether liberals in particular think that the American revolutionary war was a mistake.

Personally I think his racism is only indirectly relevant to his ridiculous claim. The main focus should be his asinine position, not whether he carries some "-ism" in his heart.

I'm really amazed people are still defending this guy. He's a welfare rancher who is complaining how bad welfare is, and how blacks would probably be better off as slaves. The irony is simply dripping off of all this.

Snap! Totally agree. I lost all of my sympathy for Bundy when he started jawing about welfare for other people doesn't didn't like. As you say, there's no right to graze your animals on public land for free. I think Bundy should be able to buy the land from the BLM and graze how he sees fit. The land is pretty barren, after all; the BLM isn't really gaining anything from controlling it. And I think the BLM is definitely trying to use its power to squeeze him out of business, probably for stupid reasons. But none of that entitles Bundy to appropriate government land for his own uses without facing the consequences, which, as we've seen, include federal agents pointing guns at you and stealing your cattle. Antagonizing the violence-generating apex predator in society is rarely a good idea unless you're willing to go all the way, as the founding fathers were. I wonder if they might have been seen by many in their own time as many of us see Bundy today: as entitled whiners who wanted something for nothing.

However, the more all this gets discussed, the more we shed light on how "illegitimate" so much land ownership is, anyway... And that it's all pretty much sourced at theft/conquer by the state. This is not going to be a conversation land baron's really want to start on a national level.

The corollary of course is that land ownership by the BLM or other branches of government should be viewed with as skeptical an eye as land ownership by private individuals. The ultimate "land baron" is of course the federal government!

[ns3]

But "taking a stand?"  Please.  It would be like me taking a stand because the government decided to tax 100% of social security by having a militia surround my house after decades of not paying income tax. He is the one who escalated the aggression via threats and a militia there to defend his cattle.

Edit: 100% of my SS being added to taxable income.  Not a rate of 100%.

That's actually a good comparison since it was originally claimed that SS benefits would never be taxed and then it was changed to a tax on only high incomes but with the cutoff point not being indexed to inflation. Almost everyone gets taxed on 50% of the benefit now, many on 85%, and eventually if there is no adjustment for inflation it will include practically everyone. So your 100% rate as opposed to 85% would only be a small increase. Very typical of how the government encroaches one step at a time so nobody gets too upset.

[Pointedstick]

That's actually a good comparison since it was originally claimed that SS benefits would never be taxed and then it was changed to a tax on only high incomes but with the cutoff point not being indexed to inflation. Almost everyone gets taxed on 50% of the benefit now, many on 85%, and eventually if there is no adjustment for inflation it will include practically everyone. So your 100% rate as opposed to 85% would only be a small increase. Very typical of how the government encroaches one step at a time so nobody gets too upset.

The root problem here is that the government can be expected to change the terms of any deal it offers you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Land allotments, social security payments, property taxes, you name it.

I would like the opinion of someone like moda or doodle on the subject of this problem. Is this an acceptable state of affairs? Could it be rectified within the framework of government itself? If not, is that a problem?

[Pointedstick]

The root problem here is that the government can be expected to change the terms of any deal it offers you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Land allotments, social security payments, property taxes, you name it.

I would like the opinion of someone like moda or doodle on the subject of this problem. Is this an acceptable state of affairs? Could it be rectified within the framework of government itself? If not, is that a problem?

And this is why I think Roth IRAs are probably a bad idea...

Yeah, but whaddaya gonna do? Put it in a traditional IRA that will be affected by future higher income tax rates? Keep it in taxable which will be affected by future higher capital gains tax rates? I like to hedge my bets by keeping money in all three, and also by being well-armed.

[Pointedstick]

The correct answer for someone in a higher tax bracket while working has got to be to take the deduction now [a bird in the hand...]. I don't see the point of a 'back-door Roth'.

Well, maybe. You can bypass a 38% tax now. But what if they raise the applicable bracket you'll be in during retirement to 55%?

[moda0306]

That's actually a good comparison since it was originally claimed that SS benefits would never be taxed and then it was changed to a tax on only high incomes but with the cutoff point not being indexed to inflation. Almost everyone gets taxed on 50% of the benefit now, many on 85%, and eventually if there is no adjustment for inflation it will include practically everyone. So your 100% rate as opposed to 85% would only be a small increase. Very typical of how the government encroaches one step at a time so nobody gets too upset.

The root problem here is that the government can be expected to change the terms of any deal it offers you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Land allotments, social security payments, property taxes, you name it.

I would like the opinion of someone like moda or doodle on the subject of this problem. Is this an acceptable state of affairs? Could it be rectified within the framework of government itself? If not, is that a problem?

We'll the government is always changing how it interacts with the public in varying degrees. Some of those things are naturally far more unfair than others.  Limiting overgrazing and charging nominal fees on lands it owns is hardly something that seems all that unreasonable to me. Even if it were the equivalent to higher taxes on SS, Bundy's reaction is pretty ridiculous.

[moda0306]

he took a stand by not paying, it isn't a strong stand or likely to succeed (tax protesters who don't pay know this real well) but what other way did he have to keep them from driving him out of business? when the BLM showed up with overwhelming force and took his cattle others joined in stood with him. if they hadn't met aggression with aggression he would be out of business. would it be better he rolled over drew up a "will work for food" sign and went on welfare?... i don't see any options other than take a stand that let him keep his business, or make a big enough stink on his way out to bring attention to what the blm are up to.
paying the fees and going quietly is what the other ranchers did, i sure didn't hear about their plight on the news...

The fees are minimal. How do we know he would be out of business?  The Feds showed up with force only AFTER the BLM received threats from Bundy and his allies.

are you sure of that? everything i have seen had the protesters/militia showing up AFTER the large group of armed feds took the cattle. if the blm didn't put ranchers out of business where are all the other ranchers? is it possible that regulations and environmental limitations on herd size makes running a profitable ranch impossible even with grazing fees that seem low to us non-ranchers?
maybe everyone including me has the story wrong (its possible i do for sure), did Bundy make some pre-cow theft statement that he wouldn't stand for it? ...probably... if the gov is telling you it is sending armed men to take your stuff it would be something most people would say..

[moda0306]

What qualifies as an "oppressive regime?"

I always find it interesting to compare the grievances that actually caused the revolutionary war compared to their modern equivalents. It definitely appears that Americans have grown far more tolerant of taxes and gun control (in particular) than our insurrectionist forefathers were. I often wonder whether liberals in particular think that the American revolutionary war was a mistake.

Personally I think his racism is only indirectly relevant to his ridiculous claim. The main focus should be his asinine position, not whether he carries some "-ism" in his heart.

I'm really amazed people are still defending this guy. He's a welfare rancher who is complaining how bad welfare is, and how blacks would probably be better off as slaves. The irony is simply dripping off of all this.

Snap! Totally agree. I lost all of my sympathy for Bundy when he started jawing about welfare for other people doesn't didn't like. As you say, there's no right to graze your animals on public land for free. I think Bundy should be able to buy the land from the BLM and graze how he sees fit. The land is pretty barren, after all; the BLM isn't really gaining anything from controlling it. And I think the BLM is definitely trying to use its power to squeeze him out of business, probably for stupid reasons. But none of that entitles Bundy to appropriate government land for his own uses without facing the consequences, which, as we've seen, include federal agents pointing guns at you and stealing your cattle. Antagonizing the violence-generating apex predator in society is rarely a good idea unless you're willing to go all the way, as the founding fathers were. I wonder if they might have been seen by many in their own time as many of us see Bundy today: as entitled whiners who wanted something for nothing.

However, the more all this gets discussed, the more we shed light on how "illegitimate" so much land ownership is, anyway... And that it's all pretty much sourced at theft/conquer by the state. This is not going to be a conversation land baron's really want to start on a national level.

The corollary of course is that land ownership by the BLM or other branches of government should be viewed with as skeptical an eye as land ownership by private individuals. The ultimate "land baron" is of course the federal government!

The BLM doesn't "benefit" because it's just an agency of government. The American people, who effectively could gain from federal land ownership, do have an interest in its safe-keeping. Within that would be addressing concerns of overgrazing and collecting fair fees for for-profit use.

And of course land ownership is a giant social program of the Feds and various other levels of government down to the government of one... The individual.  The odd thing to me is to respect capitalist property norms beside "legitimate" state and local governments, and then go on an anarchist tirade against the federal government.

And I think challenging the American revolution on some fronts is legitimate. It didn't have popular support, and while the thinking that went on about how to structure government was truly impressive, it contained plenty of inconsistencies with the reason for the revolution in the first place. When it comes to a lot of things in history, I don't really like to spend too much time racking my brain over whether something was "right or wrong," but rather what really happened and why. The fed.  WWII. The revolutionary war. Hell... even slavery. It's all done and we can't change it. But what happened and why can inform us of human nature and whether where we are going is really that different from where we came from.

But maybe that's for another thread .

[Mountaineer]

When it comes to a lot of things in history, I don't really like to spend too much time racking my brain over whether something was "right or wrong," but rather what really happened and why. The fed.  WWII. The revolutionary war. Hell... even slavery. It's all done and we can't change it. But what happened and why can inform us of human nature and whether where we are going is really that different from where we came from.

Well said, moda.  Reminds me of Covey's "circle of concern vs. the circle of influence" [and also of course, the best selling book of all time  ].  Unfortunately, in my experience, the advice in your quote is rarely followed; it is so much more interesting to ponder and pontificate about the unchangeable  .

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

We'll the government is always changing how it interacts with the public in varying degrees. Some of those things are naturally far more unfair than others.  Limiting overgrazing and charging nominal fees on lands it owns is hardly something that seems all that unreasonable to me. Even if it were the equivalent to higher taxes on SS, Bundy's reaction is pretty ridiculous.

Moda, it's not about the fees, it's about the allotments. If the fees rise, he can grumble and charge higher prices for his beef, or improve the efficiency of his operation elsewhere to compensate. But if his grazing allotment is reduced, he has no options, because he simply can't graze his cattle anymore. And he can't offer to buy the land from the BLM because they're the BLM rather than a private agency.

Don't you see the problem here? Right or wrong, the BLM is putting him and the other ranchers out of business by reducing their grazing allotments. Now, the Harry Browne answer is of course to expect this and plan accordingly. It's my answer and apparently your answer too.

But that's a realistic answer, not an ideological one. While acknowledging reality, we, as intelligent and ethics-minded humans, also have the capacity to ask ourselves if this is the way it ought to work. Is it okay that people who make use of government services or rent government land really have no way to ensure a certain continuity of service? Especially since "stability" is one of the often-touted services of government? Is it okay that people should have no recourse if their arrangement with government is changed in such a way that destroys their entire way of life, or even just substantially injures them? It is okay that the government never makes contracts with people it has these types of dealings with? Ask yourself if these are things we would tolerate if the agency doing this was a hypothetical BLM LLC. If not, why not?


I believe that these questions fire a bullet into the heart of the argument that government exists to set a level playing field and make impartial rules so that people can plan their lives with more certainty and stability than if they were constantly at the whims of a fickle private sector of competing businesses. This argument certainly wasn't true for Cliven Bundy or any of his fellow ranchers. Proponents of this argument need to provide a sensible answer why their argument isn't destroyed by this type of example. Saying something like, "well, the government has many interests it needs to balance, and in this case I guess they saw environmental protection as more important than grazing rights," is an implicit acknowledgement that the "stability" argument is faulty, since stability and flexibility are directly at odds. If the government exists to provide stability except when it feels like being flexible instead, it's not really providing stability, since stability itself requires a certain absence of flexibility! You can't have your cake and eat it too!

[Stewardship]

Okay, I guess living in NM qualifies you to be part of the "we" now!  I'm curious.  Why'd you pick NM over the other states?

Proximity to family and friends; low prices on real estate in/near a major city; climate cooler than AZ and NV but warmer than CO or anything that far north in the rockies; less racial tension then AZ; less encroaching liberalism then CO or NV; not politically dominated by Mormons like UT; fewer conservatives then many of the other western states.

Straying a bit off-topic, but curious why you consider "politically dominated by Mormons" a negative?

[Stewardship]

What qualifies as an "oppressive regime?"

See bold & italic:

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Personally I think his racism is only indirectly relevant to his ridiculous claim. The main focus should be his asinine position, not whether he carries some "-ism" in his heart.

I'm really amazed people are still defending this guy. He's a welfare rancher who is complaining how bad welfare is, and how blacks would probably be better off as slaves. The irony is simply dripping off of all this.

Bundy isn't the first to draw a thoughtful comparison between slavery and welfare.  It's clear to me he wants to inspire more freedom for all, especially blacks, but he has difficulty getting his message across due to old age and lack of a teleprompter.  I'd have the same problem, and I am much younger than he.

"Welfare rancher"?  Someone who has received no government checks (only demands for checks) and has already paid far more for "grazing rights" than the land is worth (save Sen. Harry Reid's pet projects & BLM-induced land shortage)?

Anyway, it's not so much about defending "this guy" as it is about defending a guy's rights.

People would do better for themselves if they'd just move on to federal land management regulations in general. This case in Texas might also be a valid discussion. There's a very interesting debate to be had here, but we are still deciding whether Bundy is anything but a kook.

Contrary to what the media would have us believe, if the government attempts to violate rights, it doesn't matter if the victim is a "kook."  It is still our duty to come to their defense.