If a man gets away with using government-owned resources without paying, even after being told he should (ie: the property of all taxpayers being used for the benefit of one person), in effect taking a Federal Subsidy

Does it make sense for him to call into question whether others who also accept federal subsidies are any different from slaves?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Bundy, 67, who was wearing a broad-brimmed white cowboy hat against the hot afternoon sun, recounted the success of “we the people” — gesturing to the 50 supporters, some armed with handguns and rifles, standing in a semicircle before him — at chasing away Bureau of Land Management rangers who, acting on a court order, tried to confiscate 500 cattle owned by Mr. Bundy, who has been illegally grazing his herd on public land since 1993.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
Continue reading the main story

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Republican backers of Mr Bundy appear to be running a mile from him now. Any reason why?

danivon wrote:If a man gets away with using government-owned resources without paying, even after being told he should (ie: the property of all taxpayers being used for the benefit of one person), in effect taking a Federal Subsidy

Does it make sense for him to call into question whether others who also accept federal subsidies are any different from slaves?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Bundy, 67, who was wearing a broad-brimmed white cowboy hat against the hot afternoon sun, recounted the success of “we the people” — gesturing to the 50 supporters, some armed with handguns and rifles, standing in a semicircle before him — at chasing away Bureau of Land Management rangers who, acting on a court order, tried to confiscate 500 cattle owned by Mr. Bundy, who has been illegally grazing his herd on public land since 1993.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
Continue reading the main story

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Republican backers of Mr Bundy appear to be running a mile from him now. Any reason why?

The issue of the Federal government controlling too much land for no apparently legitimate issue is a legitimate issue to discuss. Sending armed agents, hiring rustlers, trying to arrange the sale of cattle in another state, those are legitimate issues.

Bundy is an idiot and a racist. However, I see no evidence that he is a "domestic terrorist" as Sen Reid claimed.

Doctor Fate wrote:The issue of the Federal government controlling too much land for no apparently legitimate issue is a legitimate issue to discuss.

In what way is the Federal ownership of the land in question illegitimate? I believe that it predates the grazing of cattle by Bundy's parents.

Sending armed agents, hiring rustlers, trying to arrange the sale of cattle in another state, those are legitimate issues.

So people should not face any consequences for non-payment of due amounts? For 20 years' of debts? Was the court not clear on what Bundy owed? And how it was to be dealt with? Taking the grazing despite not paying for the rights is theft. Perhaps you think tht we should not do anything about a thief, and allow them to keep the proceeds of their theft.

Bundy is an idiot and a racist. However, I see no evidence that he is a "domestic terrorist" as Sen Reid claimed.

Isn't he? But he and his allies did 'win' the standoff because they threatened to shoot people, didn't they?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The issue of the Federal government controlling too much land for no apparently legitimate issue is a legitimate issue to discuss.

In what way is the Federal ownership of the land in question illegitimate? I believe that it predates the grazing of cattle by Bundy's parents.

It has nothing to with Bundy. These numbers are absurd.

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

In fact, I've read of counties struggling because they have so little non-Federal land.

Sending armed agents, hiring rustlers, trying to arrange the sale of cattle in another state, those are legitimate issues.

So people should not face any consequences for non-payment of due amounts? For 20 years' of debts? Was the court not clear on what Bundy owed? And how it was to be dealt with? Taking the grazing despite not paying for the rights is theft. Perhaps you think tht we should not do anything about a thief, and allow them to keep the proceeds of their theft.

He should be arrested and tried. That's how we do it. Even those who allegedly steal from the holy Federal government get a trial.

Bundy is an idiot and a racist. However, I see no evidence that he is a "domestic terrorist" as Sen Reid claimed.

Isn't he? But he and his allies did 'win' the standoff because they threatened to shoot people, didn't they?

If that's all it took, every tax cheat would pull it.

The problem is Bundy killed no one and caused no physical injury. Contrast that with Major Hasan, whom Democrats declared a non-terrorist. And, did they actually threaten to shoot people? If it was Federal agents, I think that might even be against the law

Hmm.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The issue of the Federal government controlling too much land for no apparently legitimate issue is a legitimate issue to discuss.

In what way is the Federal ownership of the land in question illegitimate? I believe that it predates the grazing of cattle by Bundy's parents.

It has nothing to with Bundy. These numbers are absurd.

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

In fact, I've read of counties struggling because they have so little non-Federal land.

Well, the issue was specifically about the land Bundy wanted to use for grazing, so why is it illegitimate for it to be Federal land?

And, moreover, as legitimate an issue as it is, should we be debating it in the venue of a showdown with armed militia?

Sending armed agents, hiring rustlers, trying to arrange the sale of cattle in another state, those are legitimate issues.

So people should not face any consequences for non-payment of due amounts? For 20 years' of debts? Was the court not clear on what Bundy owed? And how it was to be dealt with? Taking the grazing despite not paying for the rights is theft. Perhaps you think tht we should not do anything about a thief, and allow them to keep the proceeds of their theft.

He should be arrested and tried. That's how we do it. Even those who allegedly steal from the holy Federal government get a trial.

He was taken to court. He lost. Several times. The courts mandated that he no longer be able to trespass on the land (and neither could his cattle), and also that the cattle be rounded up and impound his cattle from the land. What more do you want?

Bundy is an idiot and a racist. However, I see no evidence that he is a "domestic terrorist" as Sen Reid claimed.

Isn't he? But he and his allies did 'win' the standoff because they threatened to shoot people, didn't they?

If that's all it took, every tax cheat would pull it.

Most can get by using accountants.

The problem is Bundy killed no one and caused no physical injury.

So that's ok then. The IRA used to sometimes just phone in bomb threats. No one died and there was no physical injury, but they were still acts of terror.

And, did they actually threaten to shoot people? If it was Federal agents, I think that might even be against the law

Hmm.

Would you consider someone pointing a gun at you a threat? At least one of Bundy's pals was quoted as having people 'in my sights'. It was a clear threat with an armed blockade. Just because something is against the law, doesn't stop people from doing it, especially the kind of folks who reject Federal government anyway (which means they don't recognise the Constitution, btw)

Some people believe that there is right to armed insurrection inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. And go to defend the right to bear arms because of the importance of this right...
What is happening with Bundy and his "Militia" defenders is an example of the insanity of this interpretation.
A delusional individual has decided he does not recognize the government of the USA and will not abide by its laws or governance. Delusional people who ascribe to this as a perverted understanding of freedom, have rushed to his defense to thwart the police in carrying out their duty to uphold the law.
If George Washington were alive he'd take a military force in and eradicate these people as traitors as he did with the Whiskey Rebellion.

Everyone else abides by the law that requires payment for grazing rights. If the law was wrong, there are democratic ways to get the law changed. If opposition to the law requires civil disobedience to make a point, that's one thing. That is, if Bundy was willing to go to jail to take a principled stand against the law. But armed insurrection is treachery. In Washingtons time, Bundy would have been tried and hung as a traitor

danivon wrote:Well, the issue was specifically about the land Bundy wanted to use for grazing, so why is it illegitimate for it to be Federal land?

Why is it legitimate? Some history:

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."
March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."
Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve." People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. "'It was shoved down our throat,' said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan."

They've done the same thing in CA. To "save" the Delta Smelt, they take water away from farmers, putting people out of work and raising food prices. Our government is consistently more concerned with alleged preservation of wildlife than human beings. Who voted on this? Where was the debate?

And, moreover, as legitimate an issue as it is, should we be debating it in the venue of a showdown with armed militia?

If it's a civil matter, why is the government marching in?

The problem is Bundy killed no one and caused no physical injury.

So that's ok then. The IRA used to sometimes just phone in bomb threats. No one died and there was no physical injury, but they were still acts of terror.

What did Bundy actually do to be a "terrorist?" Please, send me a list of his terrorist threats and activities.

Would you consider someone pointing a gun at you a threat? At least one of Bundy's pals was quoted as having people 'in my sights'. It was a clear threat with an armed blockade. Just because something is against the law, doesn't stop people from doing it, especially the kind of folks who reject Federal government anyway (which means they don't recognise the Constitution, btw)

All I'm asking is why is Bundy a terrorist? Are you going to present him as a "mastermind" of a conspiracy? I think that will be a hard sell.

Again, I don't agree with what he said or his actions, but I do wonder if the BLM is taking the best approach and I KNOW the Federal government owns too much land. More than 5/6 of Nevada? That's crazy.

Terrorist is too much of a loaded term to use in this context. I'd agree with Steve that it shouldn't really be applied to Bundy and it certainly isn't helpful to the debate, not least because it leads to pointless semantic digressions like this one.

This is a massive own goal for the American right. They rushed in to defend Bundy solely because he was defining himself in opposition to the Federal govt without pausing to consider whether he might have been in the wrong all along (which he clearly was) and without bothering to consider how it might look to be associating so closely with armed racist militiamen. It must be hugely frustrating for the bulk of conservatives in America to see all their hard work in trying to control the agenda undone by stories like this one which make them out to be a collection of extremist nutjobs.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Well, the issue was specifically about the land Bundy wanted to use for grazing, so why is it illegitimate for it to be Federal land?

Why is it legitimate?

Answering a question with the opposite question is considered bad form. You claimed illegitimacy on the part of the Federal government. The timeline you posted and assertion of 'historic grazing rights' is all very interesting, but again has been tested in court.

Again, what is illegitimate (as in, not legal) about the Federal government's ownership of that land. You may not 'like' it. You may not 'like' their policies or the reasons behind them. You may want to have public votes on everything about it. But that does not address the core question raised by your assertion:

In what way is the ownership illegitimate?

They've done the same thing in CA. To "save" the Delta Smelt, they take water away from farmers, putting people out of work and raising food prices. Our government is consistently more concerned with alleged preservation of wildlife than human beings. Who voted on this? Where was the debate?

Nice. So, how many human beings have they killed to save this wildlife?

And, moreover, as legitimate an issue as it is, should we be debating it in the venue of a showdown with armed militia?

If it's a civil matter, why is the government marching in?

Two reasons:

1) The government (BLM) is one of the parties in the legal issue, and won its case, and is doing what any private winning plaintiff would do, which is to move to act upon the decision of the court to allow them to impound assets in lieu of an unpaid debt.

2) In many cases, the government will work to protect bailiffs in carrying out their legal duty. This is the same, is it not?

What did Bundy actually do to be a "terrorist?" Please, send me a list of his terrorist threats and activities.

...

All I'm asking is why is Bundy a terrorist? Are you going to present him as a "mastermind" of a conspiracy? I think that will be a hard sell.

I did not actually say he was. I was pointing out that he was not a passive resistor, and that he and his allies skirted on the edge of the law. I can see how it's an applicable term, given that there was threatened use of force for political aims.

But Sass is correct, it's a sidebar and not really the point.

Again, I don't agree with what he said or his actions, but I do wonder if the BLM is taking the best approach and I KNOW the Federal government owns too much land. More than 5/6 of Nevada? That's crazy.

5/6 of Nevada is federally owned land, is it?. OK. Most of the State is desert. Much of the rest is very arid. A large part of it is national parks. There are also military installations etc. Plenty of reasons that it is not normal land that can be exploited by anyone, even before you start on endangered species or vulnerable ecological niches.

As a tourist in July I will be visiting the USA, adding $$ to your economy. I ain't coming to look at cattle, but I will visit a couple of national parks in Nevada alone.

But the BLM only controls 26,624km^2 of Nevada, less than 10% of the total area. if the problem is simply that the Federal government owns a lot of Nevada, then there's roughly 73% of Nevada owned for other reasons, that are not really about this debate.

Besides, Bundy could have grazed cattle on the land. Up to 1993 he was doing so legally with permits. The terms changed, but still he could have carried on using permits and grazed cattle had he wanted. Suddenly he decides not to recognise the Federal government?

danivon wrote:In what way is the ownership illegitimate?

In my opinion, it is beyond anything envisioned or specified in the Constitution. The notion of the Federal government owning well over 80% of a State's land is just bizarre.

They've done the same thing in CA. To "save" the Delta Smelt, they take water away from farmers, putting people out of work and raising food prices. Our government is consistently more concerned with alleged preservation of wildlife than human beings. Who voted on this? Where was the debate?

Nice. So, how many human beings have they killed to save this wildlife?

That's bad form.

Why? Because I say it is.

How did the turtle survive before the US maintained the land? Were there no animals in the area?

If it's a civil matter, why is the government marching in?

Two reasons:

1) The government (BLM) is one of the parties in the legal issue, and won its case, and is doing what any private winning plaintiff would do, which is to move to act upon the decision of the court to allow them to impound assets in lieu of an unpaid debt.

2) In many cases, the government will work to protect bailiffs in carrying out their legal duty. This is the same, is it not?

Let's say you're right. At best, the way this was carried out was Janet Reno-esque. In other words, the ham-handed way they did this raised the possibility of violence.

I did not actually say he was. I was pointing out that he was not a passive resistor, and that he and his allies skirted on the edge of the law. I can see how it's an applicable term, given that there was threatened use of force for political aims.

It's not an applicable term to HIM, unless he "threatened the use of force for political aims." Even then, he would be a person with a terroristic agenda, not a terrorist until he acted upon a threat or took steps toward acting upon it.

Again, I don't agree with what he said or his actions, but I do wonder if the BLM is taking the best approach and I KNOW the Federal government owns too much land. More than 5/6 of Nevada? That's crazy.

5/6 of Nevada is federally owned land, is it?. OK. Most of the State is desert. Much of the rest is very arid. A large part of it is national parks. There are also military installations etc. Plenty of reasons that it is not normal land that can be exploited by anyone, even before you start on endangered species or vulnerable ecological niches.

Las Vegas was useless "not normal" land . . . until it wasn't.

As a tourist in July I will be visiting the USA, adding $$ to your economy. I ain't coming to look at cattle, but I will visit a couple of national parks in Nevada alone.

I've no problem with national parks. It's the sheer volume that is out of bounds.

But the BLM only controls 26,624km^2 of Nevada, less than 10% of the total area. if the problem is simply that the Federal government owns a lot of Nevada, then there's roughly 73% of Nevada owned for other reasons, that are not really about this debate.

Well, actually, it is. Look at it this way: if 73% is fully legitimate (your assertion), that leaves only 27% available. Of that, BLM controls 10%. So, they've got 37% of the available land.

Besides, Bundy could have grazed cattle on the land. Up to 1993 he was doing so legally with permits. The terms changed, but still he could have carried on using permits and grazed cattle had he wanted. Suddenly he decides not to recognise the Federal government?

For the umpteenth time, I don't agree with Bundy. He should have paid and continued appealing. Period.

I don't agree with the BLM's management of the land--I think it's typical of a Federal government which views the citizens as opponents. I also think the Ruby Ridge/Waco approach taken was NOT the best way to go.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:In what way is the ownership illegitimate?

In my opinion, it is beyond anything envisioned or specified in the Constitution. The notion of the Federal government owning well over 80% of a State's land is just bizarre.

I wonder if they also thought the notion of a State made up of 80% desert and wilderness bizarre?

Still, your opinion does not actually prove illegitimacy. Did they steal the land?

How did the turtle survive before the US maintained the land? Were there no animals in the area?

I suspect there were a lot fewer people. And a lower number of commercially reared cattle.

I did not actually say he was. I was pointing out that he was not a passive resistor, and that he and his allies skirted on the edge of the law. I can see how it's an applicable term, given that there was threatened use of force for political aims.

It's not an applicable term to HIM, unless he "threatened the use of force for political aims." Even then, he would be a person with a terroristic agenda, not a terrorist until he acted upon a threat or took steps toward acting upon it.

Las Vegas was useless "not normal" land . . . until it wasn't.

Las Vegas means "the meadows". Which suggests that it was not complete desert.

As a tourist in July I will be visiting the USA, adding $$ to your economy. I ain't coming to look at cattle, but I will visit a couple of national parks in Nevada alone.

I've no problem with national parks. It's the sheer volume that is out of bounds.

Maybe so.

But the BLM only controls 26,624km^2 of Nevada, less than 10% of the total area. if the problem is simply that the Federal government owns a lot of Nevada, then there's roughly 73% of Nevada owned for other reasons, that are not really about this debate.

Well, actually, it is. Look at it this way: if 73% is fully legitimate (your assertion), that leaves only 27% available. Of that, BLM controls 10%. So, they've got 37% of the available land.

Where did I 'assert' that the 73% was fully legitimate? I just pointed out some reasons for it being so, that are not the same as the BLM land. If the land in question has been Federally controlled for longer than the existence of National Parks, then if anything the question is the other way around.

I don't agree with the BLM's management of the land--I think it's typical of a Federal government which views the citizens as opponents. I also think the Ruby Ridge/Waco approach taken was NOT the best way to go.

Ruby Ridge/Waco? In both cases the Feds stormed buildings with heavily armed people, and the latter ended up with fatal casualties. In this case, no-one was stormed by the Feds, no-one died.

It is not the 'Fed' who views people as opponents. Bundy himself has challenged the existence of the Federal government. Even though it is provided for in the exact same document as the Constitutional rights he asserts (even the same clauses he invokes).

danivon wrote:I wonder if they also thought the notion of a State made up of 80% desert and wilderness bizarre?

They would have seen a Federal government as large and unwieldy as ours as "bizarre."

Still, your opinion does not actually prove illegitimacy. Did they steal the land?

Yes. From Mexico. ;)

I don't think you can trace the policies of BLM back to that time. In other words, the burden is not on me--the government changed things and continue to ratchet up its control.

How did the turtle survive before the US maintained the land? Were there no animals in the area?

I suspect there were a lot fewer people. And a lower number of commercially reared cattle.

Right, and I suspect that no study will show the extermination of these turtles is an actual probability.

Las Vegas was useless "not normal" land . . . until it wasn't.

Las Vegas means "the meadows". Which suggests that it was not complete desert.

Without the casinos, very few people would live there. None of that is directly courtesy of the Federal government.

I don't agree with the BLM's management of the land--I think it's typical of a Federal government which views the citizens as opponents. I also think the Ruby Ridge/Waco approach taken was NOT the best way to go.

Ruby Ridge/Waco? In both cases the Feds stormed buildings with heavily armed people, and the latter ended up with fatal casualties. In this case, no-one was stormed by the Feds, no-one died.

Yes, but how close was it? It would have taken a small accident to touch off a similar slaughter.

It is not the 'Fed' who views people as opponents. Bundy himself has challenged the existence of the Federal government. Even though it is provided for in the exact same document as the Constitutional rights he asserts (even the same clauses he invokes).

I think they do view those they "serve" as the enemy. There is an entrenched bureaucracy which views "this land" as its own. Environmentalists work with bureaucrats to limit damage to what they believe is too precious for "the people" to use.