Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[moda0306]

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.

Do you have anything that reasonably describes how the allotments are being squeezed.  Every conservative article I've read just goes on meaningless rants about it being "Bundy's land" and such. 

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!

The stability/security government could potentially provide can be on various levels.  National security, economic security, ecological balance and stability, etc... they're all competing areas government can provide stability, within which you have various more competing interests.  This is no different. The government decided to make conservation of ecological balance a priority in lands that it holds.  IMO this is a good thing for long-term economic stability.  Of course, the private sector would love to move a water park into Yosemite, a used car lot into the grand canyon, and oil/mining operations in Alaska.  I'm not saying these are all molevolent interests, but by no means is stability for their economic future the only matter at hand when we talk about "stability," long-term.

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."

If we're talking the democratic concept of what the "consent of the governed," then Bundy is clearly in the wrong here.  The American people effectively own the land in trust, and to allow one area of economic interest to exploit that at below-market rates is effectively taking it from everyone else.  The representative of his district has come out and made it immensely clear that Bundy doesn't represent them. 

If you're talking about some other measure of whether the government is "destructive to these ends," aren't we dealing with a very vague concept here?  Any number of people in this country could have proposed revolution on those grounds.  Not to crap on the Declaration of Independence, but we're talking about some very vague language that would have given millions of people in history the right to rebel against their government.

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.

Wow.  That's certainly one way to put it.  Another might be that he's just old and racist and wants to sugar-coat it, like most people do with unfavorable opinions towards other groups. 

Welfare, at its worst, is just another form of state-backed theft.  The same theft that had a pretty solid role in building this entire country into the power house it is today.  The same theft Bundy benefits from, and wants to be the sole beneficiary of.

Welfare doesn't have to come in the form of a check.  It can be as simple as free land, or subsidized grazing rights, or state-backed recognition of human beings as property, or Social Security programs for the elderly.  It's all just welfare by a different name, and different-colored recipients.

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

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.

I agree.  He has a right to his land, and a right to graze on federal lands as federal management officials deem fair/appropriate.  He just doesn't like that last part.  It doesn't matter that he's a kook... but for the fact that he's a kook to think the federal government doesn't exist, and that he has a right to do with all that federal land as he sees fit.



Regarding the natural "cost" of the grazing land, from what I've heard, the government charges relatively low grazing fees compared to the market.  Is this not true? 

Even if the fees are fair, eventually, the fees will approach/exceed the value of the land.  In college, the rent I collected in a rental exceeded the house's value after about 12 years.  I know grazing land is different, but, as I mentioned to PS, I haven't seen any robust analysis of either the fees or the allotment size-reductions.

in the west water rights and according to some by extension, grazing rights, are owned or are in some legal sense owned (preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights) even if the land is public.... it would be nice if Bundy had a more coherent legal argument, but ultimately he doesn't need one when its the law makers and the laws they make that are driving his need to resist..


it would be nice if the BLM was acting for the environment, or the economy, or engaged in preservation for recreation etc. unfortunately thinking that those are their goals is awfully optimistic. the BLM is a bureaucratic fiefdom. if given a choice between taking actions that have long term benefits to anybody or everybody VS choosing any actions that increases their power, their control, the size of their government budget they will inevitably choose the latter, they are petty tyrants by nature
(OK yes its a bit of a over the top view but i bet you find that the vast majority of people that actually deal with them feel this way or close to it, and those who don't either work for them or live in places where they have no contact with this government agency)

[Stewardship]

If you're talking about some other measure of whether the government is "destructive to these ends," aren't we dealing with a very vague concept here?  Any number of people in this country could have proposed revolution on those grounds.  Not to crap on the Declaration of Independence, but we're talking about some very vague language that would have given millions of people in history the right to rebel against their government.

True.  And millions do have that right.

Another might be that he's just old and racist and wants to sugar-coat it, like most people do with unfavorable opinions towards other groups.

True but there is no way you could reliably reach that conclusion based on a single politically incorrect sound bite, especially one that expresses zero hate or intolerance toward any particular race, but on the contrary, a desire for freedom for black people on welfare.

Welfare, at its worst, is just another form of state-backed theft.  The same theft that had a pretty solid role in building this entire country into the power house it is today.  The same theft Bundy benefits from, and wants to be the sole beneficiary of.

Welfare doesn't have to come in the form of a check.  It can be as simple as free land, or subsidized grazing rights, or state-backed recognition of human beings as property, or Social Security programs for the elderly.  It's all just welfare by a different name, and different-colored recipients.

We don't usually call the property owner a welfare recipient because the land he owns were originally Indian lands, and we don't usually even call the elderly receiving Social Security checks "welfare recipients."  Bundy is even less so.

He has a right to his land, and a right to graze on federal lands as federal management officials deem fair/appropriate.

That is your opinion, which is in agreement with the Federal government making a favorable ruling on itself on Constitutional questions and a property dispute.

Regarding the natural "cost" of the grazing land, from what I've heard, the government charges relatively low grazing fees compared to the market.  Is this not true?

I would say not.  The land is a virtual desolate wasteland.  Cows can't even graze on it but one month out of the year.

Even if the fees are fair, eventually, the fees will approach/exceed the value of the land.  In college, the rent I collected in a rental exceeded the house's value after about 12 years.  I know grazing land is different, but, as I mentioned to PS, I haven't seen any robust analysis of either the fees or the allotment size-reductions.

True, but welfare rancher?  Seems a bit absurd to me.

[Pointedstick]

Do you have anything that reasonably describes how the allotments are being squeezed.  Every conservative article I've read just goes on meaningless rants about it being "Bundy's land" and such. 

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/04/ ... lic-lands/

The stability/security government could potentially provide can be on various levels.  National security, economic security, ecological balance and stability, etc... they're all competing areas government can provide stability, within which you have various more competing interests.  This is no different. The government decided to make conservation of ecological balance a priority in lands that it holds.  IMO this is a good thing for long-term economic stability.  Of course, the private sector would love to move a water park into Yosemite, a used car lot into the grand canyon, and oil/mining operations in Alaska.  I'm not saying these are all molevolent interests, but by no means is stability for their economic future the only matter at hand when we talk about "stability," long-term.

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make. Even though indeed any of these could be classified under the umbrella of "stability," if any of them could change at any time, then they're not actually stable.

For example, government isn't providing stability by managing certain wastelands in Nevada, and continuously changing the terms and conditions associated with ranchers grazing their cattle on said lands. By doing this, it may (may) be providing environmental protection, but that's not stability. Similarly, government isn't providing stability by enforcing property contracts if it can re-interpret them at will when asked to arbitrate. It's not providing stability by making drugs illegal but enforcing the laws most harshly against people who are poor, black, or hispanic. It's not providing stability by having a military if that military could become domestically oppressive or pointlessly invade foreign nations and invite blowback. In order for these features of government to actually represent stability, they have to actually be stable and predictable! If you can't predict ahead of time what the government will do in a certain context, it's not creating stability there.

BY contrast, the table I am sitting at right now is stable because I know that every time I sit at it and put my computer on it, it will do nothing. If my table suddenly collapsed, that would be very distressing, and evidence of some flaw in the table, and would tell me that my table was no longer stable and needed repair. Similarly, if 5% of the time, the table levitated three inches for a minute after I sat down in front of it, it would not be very stable. Such conditions are incompatible with stability.

Does that make sense?

[moda0306]

Do you have anything that reasonably describes how the allotments are being squeezed.  Every conservative article I've read just goes on meaningless rants about it being "Bundy's land" and such. 

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/04/ ... lic-lands/

The stability/security government could potentially provide can be on various levels.  National security, economic security, ecological balance and stability, etc... they're all competing areas government can provide stability, within which you have various more competing interests.  This is no different. The government decided to make conservation of ecological balance a priority in lands that it holds.  IMO this is a good thing for long-term economic stability.  Of course, the private sector would love to move a water park into Yosemite, a used car lot into the grand canyon, and oil/mining operations in Alaska.  I'm not saying these are all molevolent interests, but by no means is stability for their economic future the only matter at hand when we talk about "stability," long-term.

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make. Even though indeed any of these could be classified under the umbrella of "stability," if any of them could change at any time, then they're not actually stable.

For example, government isn't providing stability by managing certain wastelands in Nevada, and continuously changing the terms and conditions associated with ranchers grazing their cattle on said lands. By doing this, it may (may) be providing environmental protection, but that's not stability. Similarly, government isn't providing stability by enforcing property contracts if it can re-interpret them at will when asked to arbitrate. It's not providing stability by making drugs illegal but enforcing the laws most harshly against people who are poor, black, or hispanic. It's not providing stability by having a military if that military could become domestically oppressive or pointlessly invade foreign nations and invite blowback. In order for these features of government to actually represent stability, they have to actually be stable and predictable! If you can't predict ahead of time what the government will do in a certain context, it's not creating stability there.

BY contrast, the table I am sitting at right now is stable because I know that every time I sit at it and put my computer on it, it will do nothing. If my table suddenly collapsed, that would be very distressing, and evidence of some flaw in the table, and would tell me that my table was no longer stable and needed repair. Similarly, if 5% of the time, the table levitated three inches for a minute after I sat down in front of it, it would not be very stable. Such conditions are incompatible with stability.

Does that make sense?

Regarding your position on stability, it absolutely does make sense.  But numbers matter here.  Degrees matter.  It's not like all of a sudden all property rights are going up in flames.  Grazing rights in Nevada on PUBLIC land are being changed.  This is no real different than the government under Teddy Roosevelt re-prioritizing conservation over economic development way back in the day.  It does destabilize SOME economies, but provides higher overall long-term stability.  It's like getting a new form of insurance "destabilizes" my income statement by making my income smaller.  In the end, though, it really doesn't destabilize it at all.

So using your table analogy, your table may be stable, but if you've got termites eating at the joists it sits on top of, you've got a more fundamental problem than your table.  So we might have to upset the nature of the work you're doing on the table to over-haul the foundation of the home.  Now by no means am I saying that every time a government engages in a conservation effort it is necessarily protecting us from ecological disaster.  But the principal is still sound.


Regarding that article, all it shows me is that 1) Bundy's daughter claims Bundy BOUGHT the land... which doesn't make sense... he claims it is Nevada land.  The author goes on to correct her that it is "public land."  She seems to completely obfuscate that fact by claiming that it was Bundy's land, and he was simply paying the BLM to "manage it."  2) The priority of government's management of that land has shifted from essentially serving the interests of the ranchers/miners out west to a more diversified set of interests, namely ecological conservation.

They don't lay out a case for why the BLM's other priorities are a strain on ranchers, just that there are other priorities. 

3) The other ranchers were PAID for land that wasn't even theirs, not forced out.  Now maybe there were some strong-arm tactics used, but the article doesn't go into that.  Some of Bundy's daughter's claims do a bit, but they are all on this (seemingly) ridiculous premise that Bundy "bought" the land and was paying the BLM to manage it.

So if anything this article, while clarifying some of the legal changes over time that affect land-management by the government, doesn't really lay out a well-organized case for any sort of abuse of those changing priorities, or why it should be a strain on ranchers.

[Pointedstick]

Regarding that article, all it shows me is that 1) Bundy's daughter claims Bundy BOUGHT the land... which doesn't make sense... he claims it is Nevada land.  The author goes on to correct her that it is "public land."  She seems to completely obfuscate that fact by claiming that it was Bundy's land, and he was simply paying the BLM to "manage it."  2) The priority of government's management of that land has shifted from essentially serving the interests of the ranchers/miners out west to a more diversified set of interests, namely ecological conservation.

They don't lay out a case for why the BLM's other priorities are a strain on ranchers, just that there are other priorities. 

From the court case that Bundy lost:

In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" from the BLM. Reply(#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this "decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented,would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County," and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5.

[...]

The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.

At its core, what it looks like happened is that the BLM told him that he could renew his permit, but this time, there might be some future restrictions, and he didn't like that. That's the point at which he started behaving poorly. What's ironic is that if he had renewed his permit and actually saw his operations harmed by environmental regulations, he would have many more legs to stand on than this "sovereign citizen" paleoconservative BS. I actually see this kind of thing a lot among conservatives. They're unwilling to let themselves be injured to prove injury or generate sympathy; rather, they often prefer to fight the thing they believe will injure them, whether or not it actually will or if the fight is clearly futile. It's a part of the conservative threat detection early warning system that seems to be hardwired into the brain, I believe.

[moda0306]

Regarding that article, all it shows me is that 1) Bundy's daughter claims Bundy BOUGHT the land... which doesn't make sense... he claims it is Nevada land.  The author goes on to correct her that it is "public land."  She seems to completely obfuscate that fact by claiming that it was Bundy's land, and he was simply paying the BLM to "manage it."  2) The priority of government's management of that land has shifted from essentially serving the interests of the ranchers/miners out west to a more diversified set of interests, namely ecological conservation.

They don't lay out a case for why the BLM's other priorities are a strain on ranchers, just that there are other priorities. 

From the court case that Bundy lost:

In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" from the BLM. Reply(#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this "decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented,would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County," and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5.

[...]

The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.

At its core, what it looks like happened is that the BLM told him that he could renew his permit, but this time, there might be some future restrictions, and he didn't like that. That's the point at which he started behaving poorly. What's ironic is that if he had renewed his permit and actually saw his operations harmed by environmental regulations, he would have many more legs to stand on than this "sovereign citizen" paleoconservative BS. I actually see this kind of thing a lot among conservatives. They're unwilling to let themselves be injured to prove injury or generate sympathy; rather, they often prefer to fight the thing they believe will injure them, whether or not it actually will or if the fight is clearly futile. It's a part of the conservative threat detection early warning system that seems to be hardwired into the brain, I believe.

That, or they subject themselves to "theft" year after year after year, and complain about how they're being "stolen from."  The thing that boggles my mind, is when a business owner who is retiring today can have a bitter hatred for taxes, and not just hatred, but the type where they act like they're currently being wronged in abhorrent ways that they never thought possible.

This is a bit odd, since many of these guys started their business in the 1970's, when the top tax rates were 70%, and there was actually HIGHER taxes on capital than on labor.

If I'm a public-policy advocate, I probably should have sympathy for their plight.... but as a citizen trying to determine who I should "feel bad" for, I just can't work up much sympathy for people who aren't willing to make a choice and come to terms with it.  Either learn to be happy with a $200k After-Tax Income lifestyle, or realize that you're going to have to do $170k worth of work to earn your next $100k of after-tax income.

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

[Kshartle]

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

I'm glad this analogy compares the entire United States with a ghetto and the US gubmit with car thieves.

Moda this is by far your best analogy ever.

The reasoning is bad though. It's the love-it-or-leave-it argument. Since I choose to work I shouldn't complain about being robbed? Silliness. This is the reasoning I would expect from a sociopath. I don't think you are one, so where does this reasoning come from?

[moda0306]

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

I'm glad this analogy compares the entire United States with a ghetto and the US gubmit with car thieves.

Moda this is by far your best analogy ever.

The reasoning is bad though. It's the love-it-or-leave-it argument. Since I choose to work I shouldn't complain about being robbed? Silliness. This is the reasoning I would expect from a sociopath. I don't think you are one, so where does this reasoning come from?

If the analogy is that good, you are the guy parking his car and the ghetto.

[Stewardship]

If I'm a public-policy advocate, I probably should have sympathy for their plight.... but as a citizen trying to determine who I should "feel bad" for, I just can't work up much sympathy for people who aren't willing to make a choice and come to terms with it.  Either learn to be happy with a $200k After-Tax Income lifestyle, or realize that you're going to have to do $170k worth of work to earn your next $100k of after-tax income.



But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

I don't think they ask for our sympathy.  We don't have to feel bad for the immediate victim, but there is a ripple effect.  In the hands of the thief, that car now delivers fewer prize Christmas turkeys to Tiny Tims than it would have in the hands of the original owner.  We do have to feel bad for those Tiny Tims 

[Kshartle]

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

I'm glad this analogy compares the entire United States with a ghetto and the US gubmit with car thieves.

Moda this is by far your best analogy ever.

The reasoning is bad though. It's the love-it-or-leave-it argument. Since I choose to work I shouldn't complain about being robbed? Silliness. This is the reasoning I would expect from a sociopath. I don't think you are one, so where does this reasoning come from?

If the analogy is that good, you are the guy parking his car and the ghetto.

How am I the ghetto?

[Kshartle]

If I'm a public-policy advocate, I probably should have sympathy for their plight.... but as a citizen trying to determine who I should "feel bad" for, I just can't work up much sympathy for people who aren't willing to make a choice and come to terms with it.  Either learn to be happy with a $200k After-Tax Income lifestyle, or realize that you're going to have to do $170k worth of work to earn your next $100k of after-tax income.



But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

I don't think they ask for our sympathy.  We don't have to feel bad for the immediate victim, but there is a ripple effect.  In the hands of the thief, that car now delivers fewer prize Christmas turkeys to Tiny Tims than it would have in the hands of the original owner.  We do have to feel bad for those Tiny Tims 

Some people vote for the thieves though in the hopes he'll give them a free ride. They don't realize how many more cars there would be and how inexpensive everything would be if there was no thief and everyone could produce without fear of theft.

They think we're all better off if the thief has the car rather than the guy who earned it.

[Kshartle]

Ohhh, thank you. The love-it-or-leave-it argument. Don't complain about taxes if you choose to work here. Either leave (presumably to somewhere my labor won't be taxed?) or stop working (will you support me?) or don't complain.

Blame the victim not the victimizer. I mean hey.....it's my fault for being born and parking my car (ass) on this continent.

[moda0306]

Ohhh, thank you. The love-it-or-leave-it argument. Don't complain about taxes if you choose to work here. Either leave (presumably to somewhere my labor won't be taxed?) or stop working (will you support me?) or don't complain.

Blame the victim not the victimizer. I mean hey.....it's my fault for being born and parking my car (ass) on this continent.

I'm not asking you to leave or not complain as an argument for the state. I'm saying it is childish to complain. Especially if you have options that significantly reduce your needing to interact with the state.

It's like someone who constantly complained through his life that his ancestors were enslaved.  I'm not saying it can't be talked about, especially if public policy is under discussion, but people that constantly complain about high taxes usually have to power to reduce them, but don't want to give up the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

I'm not saying any complaint is childish. Simply the degree to which some people spend their lives complaining about things outside their control, making themselves and the ones they love unnecessarily miserable, while levers that they CAN pull to make their lives better go untouched.

This isn't just a trait of libertarians or anti-statists, btw... It's a human trait. And one probably more often found in liberals than conservatives.  That's why I'm so dumbfounded when you get wealthy conservatives acting this way... Because they usually don't.

As soon as complaint leaves the world of either engaging debate or change-inducing advocacy, and into the realm of bitterness and inconsistency, you lose a lot of sympathy from me. Not because I'm on the opposite side of your position, but because you're giving up on what is one huge gift that we have been blessed with:

Self-ownership!

Of course... I can't PROVE this exists , but it certainly simplifies life when you abandon complaining about stuff you can't control, and spend your time figuring out how to pull the correct levers to maximize your happiness. 

For instance, to turn the spotlight on my situation a bit, my dad is a pretty staunch liberal. He believes global warming and environmental degradation are huge problems.  He claims to care about them for the sake of us kids and his grand-kids. But he believes the solution is to get angry and have political debates and petition government to "DO MORE!!!!"

It completely escapes him that the hands-down BEST way to protect HIS family is to help make them financially independent in the face of a changing world. (Btw, this is NOT me trying to argue for a big inheritance for selfish purposes.  I want them to spend it all.)

But he'd rather complain and b!tch and moan about things outside of his control, and then proceed to make imbalanced financial decisions on behalf of not just him but my mom as well. 

Is he right?  Probably to a degree.  Does it matter?  Not nearly to the degree that it matters that he's copping out on some of his family responsibilities and chooses to complain about acid rain to pass the time. I love my dad, but he is a stubborn dude!  I don't mean to put him down, but the way he approaches life is a cautionary tale to anyone familiar with HB's alternative.

[Kshartle]

It's like someone who constantly complained through his life that his ancestors were enslaved.  I'm not saying it can't be talked about, especially if public policy is under discussion, but people that constantly complain about high taxes usually have to power to reduce them, but don't want to give up the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

This has nothing to do with ancestors.

Look at your last sentence.....it's so ridiculous I'm finding it difficult to keep my response muted. Instead of complaining about the government reducing your lifestyle you should reduce it yourself and save them the trouble. That makes zero sense.

I can't believe you actually think that's a legitimate stance. Please tell me you are kidding.

That is a good way to reduce government. If everyone is so poor we are all just dong the bare minimum to subsit then there won't be enough left to steal to create a government.

Of course that supports my position in the argument we've had that successful economies have governments because theives are attracted to wealth (like flies on 5h1t) not that theives facillitate wealth.

[moda0306]

It's like someone who constantly complained through his life that his ancestors were enslaved.  I'm not saying it can't be talked about, especially if public policy is under discussion, but people that constantly complain about high taxes usually have to power to reduce them, but don't want to give up the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

This has nothing to do with ancestors.

Look at your last sentence.....it's so ridiculous I'm finding it difficult to keep my response muted. Instead of complaining about the government reducing your lifestyle you should reduce it yourself and save them the trouble. That makes zero sense.

I can't believe you actually think that's a legitimate stance. Please tell me you are kidding.

K,

Either way, your lifestyle is going to be less than it would have with no taxes.  I have a few decisions you can make if you think your taxes are just too damn high:

A) Avoid earning more income (income tax), and spend less (sales tax), and own less property (property tax).
B) Earn the income, spend, and own the property, and pay the taxes.
C) Leave the city/state/country in question.

Those are my options.  Those are things I can do to change the balance of working and enjoying my life.  If I choose option B, and then get home from a long day of work and stew and get angry at all the statists, and argue with statists on the internet, what am I accomplishing?  All I am doing is working more of my life and spending the rest of it angry.  To the detriment of myself, my family, and my friends.  All for what?  A BMW?  200 cable channels on a flat-screen TV?

Have you ever spent time around a toxic person that b!tches and moans about things in their life that aren't their fault, but you hate their complaining anyway?  "Oh my headaches... oh my lack of sleep... oh my cold... oh my boss is an ass... oh my neighbors suck..."  It's nauseating.  Most people hate those people.

That is a good way to reduce government. If everyone is so poor we are all just dong the bare minimum to subsit then there won't be enough left to steal to create a government.

There is no WE, K.  There is just you making decisions for you and your family, and me doing the same.  You should agree with this.  It shouldn't matter "if everyone else did it we'd have a horrible economy."  You OWN YOURSELF, remember?  Act like it. (not to YOU but people in general)  Figure out what matters to you in life, what the roadblocks to that will likely be (including government)... figure out what balance of inputs you're willing to compromise for that, and engage life accordingly and don't b!tch and moan about the roadblocks along the way (that you KNEW were going to be there).  That's how children act... they fail at something and then they complain about how it "isn't fair."

Of course that supports my position in the argument we've had that successful economies have governments because theives are attracted to wealth (like flies on 5h1t) not that theives facillitate wealth.

Well since 99% of the population is something other than an anarcho-capitalist, that makes us all thieves in spirit... and our entire country was built on some pretty sketchy thievery... so 99% of the producers/consumers in economies would disagree with you that government can't facilitate their wealth/economy.  Morality may not be a popularity contest, but that's pretty much all economics is.  One big, messy popularity contest.  And your position is extremely unpopular.

[Pointedstick]

You guys are having different conversations. The Harry-Browne-approved answer ("deal with reality as it exists and be happy") is answering the micro question. But it's an inappropriate answer to the macro question, which opens a Pandora's Box of oughts. Ought the taxes be this high? Higher? Lower? What should they pay for? What is the limiting principle? Is there one? Could there be one? etc.

[moda0306]

K,

This really comes down to perspective.  From my perspective, the government is no more movable/changeable than a boulder, so I should simply treat it as such... another piece of nature that I can choose how to get around.

Any time beating my head against a boulder because I don't want to figure out how to get over it, around it, or just no longer insist on passing it, makes me look like a MASSIVE asshat.

Even more importantly, if I have anyone I care about that I'm trying to lead through life, I'm doing a HORRIBLE job of doing that leading by constantly complaining about things I KNOW will be there and I can do nothing but figure out how to deal with the problem in as balanced a fashion as possible.  And under the (debatable) assumption that I have a moral DUTY to lead these people in a stable, healthy, happy manner through life, now I am the one behaving in an immoral fashion.

There's always someone I can point to who is wronging me.  There is always wrong being done.  If I let complaining about it take up much time at all in my otherwise free life, it's simply a huge sign of immaturity, and I'm being a horrible role model.

It would be one thing if the difference for a lot of these folks would be a two bedroom apartment and a three-bedroom apartment... but a lot of time it's not... it's a new BMW every two years instead of every five.  It's a 5,000 sq. ft. house instead of 2,000.  It's going golfing thrice a week instead of once.

[moda0306]

You guys are having different conversations. The Harry-Browne-approved answer ("deal with reality as it exists and be happy") is answering the micro question. But it's an inappropriate answer to the macro question, which opens a Pandora's Box of oughts. Ought the taxes be this high? Higher? Lower? What should they pay for? What is the limiting principle? Is there one? Could there be one? etc.

I agree we're having different discussions, but I find that the "ought" debate can only be had so much by someone before it just becomes toxic to their well-being.

And I made it pretty clear that this was the area that I was talking about... that this wasn't one of our usual morality debates.

This is especially important considering I don't know if I "ought" to be polluting the way I do... what the "affects of my actions" truly are.  Maybe this is a time to bring in Christianity... "we're all sinners."  Who am I to spend more time pointing the finger than trying to either 1) improve my own morality, or 2) at least just try to do my best to enjoy life and be a good role model to & influence on those important to me.

It seems like K is angry that these conversations can't exist together.  Of course they do somewhat... I mean, I'm not advocating we NEVER engage in intellectual debate that sometimes gets "difficult."  I'm just saying that we have to balance that against everything else in our lives, and when it comes to our responsibility that we put upon ourselves (or that exists naturally) to "own" our lives, we can't pretend that government isn't a natural hurdle that we have a natural responsibility (to ourselves and our families) to come to terms with acknowledge more like a boulder than a sparring partner in a life-long moral debate.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with you, moda. Personally, I find it freeing to accept reality and act accordingly. But the engineer side of me is still irked by things that are stupid or broken and wants to fix them.

[moda0306]

I agree with you, moda. Personally, I find it freeing to accept reality and act accordingly. But the engineer side of me it still irked by things that are stupid or broken and wants to fix them.

I'm not an engineer, but I know what you mean.  The nice thing is, when we look at the different areas of our lives that require balance (mental health, physical health, spiritual health, social, family, career and financial), there's plenty to work on .

I speak for myself, not you, of course... though I think most people could admit that there are these areas... it's just a bit more vulnerable and difficult to deal with than raising your fist in the air and complaining about the tax code.



K,

Have you ever read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?"

I really think you'll like his approach, in spite of our disagreement on personal choices in how to engage government right now (I'm not nearly as good of a communicator as HB... and I'm a raging statist so you don't trust me )).  It's resonates almost perfectly with self-ownership, ridding yourself of meaningless "duties" that certain members of society try to impose (notice I said members , not society itself), and establishing our duty to ourselves as self-owners in simple, logical ways but that carry the emotional impact of a sledge hammer (mostly, since he clarifies how we should use logic to maximize our long-term emotional health).

It's almost like you're reading something you already knew, or used to know, or something like that, but it just brushes away all the bull$hit around personal choices that, when identified for what they really are, just distract us from such simple, obvious truths about how to use our self-ownership to "be the best that we can be."

[moda0306]

I agree with you, moda. Personally, I find it freeing to accept reality and act accordingly. But the engineer side of me is still irked by things that are stupid or broken and wants to fix them.

After seeing your post again, I noticed the bolded part, and how important that is.

It is FREEING to accept reality and act accordingly.  HB refers to "traps" we put ourselves in.  We aren't forced into them.  And whether we notice them or not, the DO limit our freedom.  This is something that I think is a sort of blasphemy to some libertarians, who consider freedom a concept that should only apply to the lack of HUMAN interference in our lives in the form of force, or threats of force.

Looking at freedom as a more general concept, and the government like a boulder in our way that can't be moved, but just handled with one degree of compromise or another, is SO freeing.  Not in a moral sense, but in a real sense ridding ourselves of stress while simultaneously giving ourselves a FAR more likely chance of success in meeting a road-block as effectively as possible.

[Pointedstick]

And how about E) Vote for politicians who are in favor of lower taxes and smaller government.

Can you name a few? I'm not familiar with any politicians who truly fit this description.

lol i cant think of any either.. still supporting guys who are good at speaking that message is a worthwhile endeavor, even if voting for them is a feelgood do nothing exercise since they either, never win or change their tune if elected...

[moda0306]

Either way, your lifestyle is going to be less than it would have with no taxes.  I have a few decisions you can make if you think your taxes are just too damn high:

A) Avoid earning more income (income tax), and spend less (sales tax), and own less property (property tax).
B) Earn the income, spend, and own the property, and pay the taxes.
C) Leave the city/state/country in question.

Those are my options... 

there is also option D) tilt at windmills..  it goes against the HB minimize any unnecessary or fruitless  contact and entanglements with big government, but i still have tonnes of respect for the guys who do it! they may get nowhere refusing to pay fees or taxes, they may not change minds speaking at town hall meetings, they may loose law suits and pay more in lawyer fees than they would by complying, they constantly risk escalation by the government, and in spite of all that there is something to be respected about trying.... because they stand on principals and because sometimes they do win.. sometimes they slow the inexorable march of the nanny state and that benefits us all.

It's hard not to want to respect some people in history that went way beyond the call of duty in standing up for a cause.  For you it might be Clive Bundy.  For someone else it's Ghandi.  For someone else it was Martin Luther King.

They end up suffering for their stand, and a lot of times they bring their families down with them.  At least, down from where they otherwise would be.

The problem is, for every one of them there are hundreds if not thousands of people who lead bitter lives, trying to control things that they can't due to some "moral wrong" that's being done, while other things fester around them and their families.

Maybe it's because I've seen this first hand that I'm sensitive to it.  And I really don't mean to degrade men/women and history that took a stand.  I just think a lot of times these "stands" have un-published/unintended consequences, and a lot of times are just an unhealthy outlet for a person's unhealthy bitterness and pride.

Some of the things ordinary people did to save Jews during the holocaust come to mind as the most admirable of "illogical" things to do from a personal benefit standpoint.  But keep in mind, REAL good was being done.  True, real good.  Yes, it was at great risk, but there was an actual likelihood of being able to SAVE LIVES.  It wasn't just some guy sitting on a message board angry at the Germans and anyone who would disagree with him about doing something to save lives.  Or watching the evening news while his family goes deeper and deeper into financial problems and complaining about land confiscation of the government.

I just think there's a big difference, and to bring this back full circle, the obfuscation of facts, militancy, racism, and just plain old stupidity being put forth by Bundy and his crew is a horrible example of something to really look up to.  Causes should remind us of forgotten fundamental truths as they might apply to an issue, not skew facts, preach violence, and conveniently forget that all the land out west was obtained by the point of a gun.

[moda0306]

Either way, your lifestyle is going to be less than it would have with no taxes.  I have a few decisions you can make if you think your taxes are just too damn high:

A) Avoid earning more income (income tax), and spend less (sales tax), and own less property (property tax).
B) Earn the income, spend, and own the property, and pay the taxes.
C) Leave the city/state/country in question.

Those are my options... 

there is also option D) tilt at windmills..  it goes against the HB minimize any unnecessary or fruitless  contact and entanglements with big government, but i still have tonnes of respect for the guys who do it! they may get nowhere refusing to pay fees or taxes, they may not change minds speaking at town hall meetings, they may lose law suits and pay more in lawyer fees than they would by complying, they constantly risk escalation by the government, and in spite of all that there is something to be respected about trying.... because they stand on principals and because sometimes they do win.. sometimes they slow the inexorable march of the nanny state and that benefits us all.

And how about E) Vote for politicians who are in favor of lower taxes and smaller government.

Voting has an infinitesimal chance of actually having an affect on your individual outcome. I was focusing on things that actually affect the economics/time you spend in life earning/spending income.

Voting is just a distraction.  All-things being equal, voting is just time out of your day not enjoying it...  It doesn't change the amount of hours you spend at work, your disposable income, your tax-level, your freedom.

Reducing your hours and lifestyle could have a VERY positive affect on your freedom, depending on how addicted you are to new cars, big houses, and lavish vacations.

Tax-planning can leave you with more of your own income.

Gathering and organizing actionable information and actually taking meaningful action are the only solutions.

As Simon said, you can always fight back, and that will POSSIBLY win you your prize, but much more likely cost you far more than you gain... so instead of complaining about the boulder, you decided to start beating your head against it hoping to crack it in half.

[Kshartle]

Have you ever read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?"

Yes many times.

You were saying that people should accept their high taxes without complaining about them or choose to earn less, reduce their lifestyle whatever.

I guess you're saying that's your opinion on what behavior would make their life better.

Your quote was:

That, or they subject themselves to "theft" year after year after year, and complain about how they're being "stolen from."  The thing that boggles my mind, is when a business owner who is retiring today can have a bitter hatred for taxes, and not just hatred, but the type where they act like they're currently being wronged in abhorrent ways that they never thought possible.

This is a bit odd, since many of these guys started their business in the 1970's, when the top tax rates were 70%, and there was actually HIGHER taxes on capital than on labor.

If I'm a public-policy advocate, I probably should have sympathy for their plight.... but as a citizen trying to determine who I should "feel bad" for, I just can't work up much sympathy for people who aren't willing to make a choice and come to terms with it.  Either learn to be happy with a $200k After-Tax Income lifestyle, or realize that you're going to have to do $170k worth of work to earn your next $100k of after-tax income.

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

Sounds to me like your blaming people for their own high taxes, as if they are the cause and if they don't like them just stop earning. It did not sound like you were saying they might individually be happier if they accepted whatever fate their masters doled out to them.

It's absurd to blame people's hatred of the theft of their property on them for earning the property in the first place.

The conversation had nothing to do with where it's now gone.