Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[moda0306]

I'd post a link, but I think you all have the few that you've read to help form your opinions.  Or seen stuff on the news about it.

At this risk of this getting ugly, what are your thoughts?



EDIT: I give this less than one page before it delves into questions about the legitimacy of any government at all .

[moda0306]

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/ ... d-grazing/

Here's probably the most informative article that I've seen that lays out the case AGAINST Bundy, and FOR the BLM/feds.


Not that there's not a good one doing the opposite.  However, I've found the few conservative articles I've read to be laced with some pretty fat premises (it's Bundy's land) and just move on from there.

[Pointedstick]

Might makes right. The BLM thought they had might on their side so they deployed a SWAT team. Then a local militia moved in and the feds backed down. Fascinating.

As for who's morally in the right? Good luck sorting that out given the land's century-old history and all the convolutions of treaties, deeds, laws, and regulations. Cliven Bundy even admitted that he owned the feds close to $300k but it looks like he's off the hook for now because of his armed pals.

This self-organizing militia capable of defying the feds is the real story, if you ask me.

[moda0306]

Might makes right. The BLM thought they had might on their side so they deployed a SWAT team. Then a local militia moved in and the feds backed down. Fascinating.

As for who's morally in the right? Good luck sorting that out given the land's century-old history and all the convolutions of treaties, deeds, laws, and regulations. Cliven Bundy even admitted that he owned the feds close to $300k but it looks like he's off the hook for now because of his armed pals.

This self-organizing militia capable of defying the feds is the real story, if you ask me.

There's no way this ends with Bundy keeping his cattle, grazing rights, and nobody going to jail.  Not saying there won't be some compromise here, but in the end, if might truly makes right, Bundy and his buddies are clearly in a tough spot... not that the feds can just mow them down without huge controversy stewing.

One wonders if they'll have any sort of federal charges brought against them.  Didn't they have guns AIMED at federal agents?  Not really sure how all that went down, but NOT bringing charges would be a pretty poor precedent to set.

And none of this even gets into the apparent cronyism of Harry Reid, which as a different element, entirely.

[moda0306]

Might makes right. The BLM thought they had might on their side so they deployed a SWAT team. Then a local militia moved in and the feds backed down. Fascinating.

So apparently an element BESIDES might is at play here.  The federal government could easily wipe out these protesters/rebels/secessionists/patriots/whatever-you-wanna-call-'em if they wanted to.  My question is whether it would have been legal for them to do so, with guns pointed at them.  So either for some PR reason, or rule of law, pure might did NOT win out. 

I wonder... would unarmed protesters have been treated differently?

Let's not forget that they had the LAW on their side as well.  Now the LAW might just be an opinion with a gun, and our federal government is just a big illegitimate boob of an entity, but within the context of the rule of law being legitimate, the BLM had every right to take the cattle.

What I find interesting is that ...

1) Bundy doesn't claim to own the land... he claims it is rightfully Nevada land.

and

2) Bundy doesn't recognize the federal government... he's said so himself... instead he recognizes the "sovereign state of Nevada."  However, the "sovereign state of Nevada" not only recognizes the federal government, but recognizes its authority over the land in question.

[Pointedstick]

I think it would have been legal for them to massacre the militia, and I think an unarmed protest would have been laughed at. Unarmed protesting doesn't work anymore as a tactic unless you are willing to die. Sorry old hippies. Gotta up your game and get hardcore or go home!

My reading is that the reason why they didn't massacre the militia is because they believed that such an act could have been the spark that ignited a very serious conflict. This is the American west we're talking about. Anti-government sentiment runs hot and deep. Governments rule internally by threat of force; the more they actually have to use that force--especially massive amounts in public when cameras are rolling--the more this shocks the masses who largely like to imagine that governments are made up of fluffy bunnies and rainbows; the more realistic armed opposition to perceived oppression seems; and the more quickly the government can be overwhelmed and revealed to be a paper tiger.

A smaller, colder version of this story is playing out right now in New York and Connecticut as millions of gun owners are refusing to register their guns as required by recently-passed draconian laws, and the state governments aren't quite sure what to do about it. Various left-wing newspapers are constantly printing editorials advocating that hundreds of thousands of people be jailed for these now felonies they are committing. At least the state governments aren't stupid enough to listen.

Getting back to Bundy, the Feds will win in the end, I agree. But they will do it through more "legitimate" means such as nasty letters, subpoenas, county sheriffs' deputies, etc. You can't brutalize an armed population too much--even an armed population in the wrong. And that's the point.

[Benko]

1. He owes the money but WTF were people with guns (from the gov't) doing there?

2. The last thing this administration needs is another WACO, and they were smart enough to realize it.

[moda0306]

having lived in the american SW, the view that the BLM are a bunch of bureaucratic power happy goons is common and largely for good reason.. the ins and outs of the law puts Bundy on the civil disobedience side of things for sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, or the wrong side to be on..

the most interesting (good) development that may come of this, is western states taking control of their own lands, there have been some interesting maps published showing just how much the federal government "owns" out west and it is way out of whack with the rest of the country, the push to correct fed 'ownership" of the west predates Bundy by quite a bit but this may give it some momentum

I'm glad we're getting in the habit of putting "ownership" in parentheses.  What I wonder, is why it wouldn't also definitely apply to Nevada or Bundy.

When you say "western states taking control of their own lands," that sounds like you reject the legitimacy of the federal ownership of the lands.  If that is the case, doesn't that actually beg the question of whether Mexico truly owns the lands, rather than the states?  Maybe some Indians sprinkled in there?

If it is federal land, why shouldn't Bundy, protected tortoise or not, pay FMV (which is WAY higher than what he was refusing to pay) for land grazing?  This isn't a land-use regulation issue.  This simply IS NOT HIS LAND.  Maybe the government should "sell" their land to ranchers and Nevada, but this isn't the way to make that suggestion. 

And with rifles actually pointed at federal agents, is this really "civil disobedience?"  If we haven't crossed a line, yet, we're certainly coming close.

1. He owes the money but WTF were people with guns (from the gov't) doing there?

2. The last thing this administration needs is another WACO, and they were smart enough to realize it.

One timeline I saw said that the BLM was simply going to confiscate his cattle in pretty standard fashion, until they saw the threats and public response.

Keep in mind, this issue has been going on for 20 years.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are owed.  Eventually, enforcement requires guns, especially if you're trying to round up so much cattle.  If they're going to be met with armed protest, they have two options: 1) enforce the law, or 2) appease the armed protesters.  I rather would have had them confiscate the cattle with guns pointed at them and take the chances without bringing in federal police, but it wasn't my life on the line.

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..

it is his land to use by way of grazing rights, if the entity he pays the fees for those rights is using them to put him out of business then what should he do? pay them and get his livelihood destroyed or resist the unfair mismanagement?

guns or not it seems like a pretty clear case of civil disobedience to me the gov has the law on their side, the law is being used to harm the citizen and the citizen resists by not paying the gov to harm him and refusing to have his property confiscated..

[Ad Orientem]

I'm not going to get into the who is right or wrong argument. Lawyers can work that one out. But I will say this. If the man owes the Government money, what's with all the guns? Did they forget how to attach a bank account? Seriously. If they don't know how to collect a debt, they need to talk to the boys over at the IRS. They ALWAYS get their money and it rarely involves para-military units.

[moda0306]

If he TRULY did owe money, he really looks like an ass-hat, and I think this just boils down to the standard question of how far government should ever take enforcement when met with stubborn quasi-armed resistance.  Dropping a bomb is unacceptable.  As-is doing nothing (for 20-friggin' years)!

You can't say "enFORCEment" without force.  After 20 years, to say that guns shouldn't be involved is a bit much, especially if the guns were mainly to protect the BLM while it acquired the cattle it was owed.

If Bundy truly has grazing rights, or rights to the land, then we're asking the wrong question... we should be talking about why the federal government doesn't own the land in the first place, not why their enforcement response was excessive.

If these guys were trespassers on private land protesting the collection of assets from a 20-year deadbeat renter, few conservatives would blame a land-owner from hiring his "protection agency" to dispatch those people forthwith.  So this really is an issue of who owns the land... not one of an excessive response.

[moda0306]

I'm not going to get into the who is right or wrong argument. Lawyers can work that one out. But I will say this. If the man owes the Government money, what's with all the guns? Did they forget how to attach a bank account? Seriously. If they don't know how to collect a debt, they need to talk to the boys over at the IRS. They ALWAYS get their money and it rarely involves para-military units.

Collecting debts via "foreclosure" of assets is pretty common.  The guns were a result of mutual escalation around collecting that property.

[Pointedstick]

it is his land to use by way of grazing rights,  if the entity he pays the fees for those rights is using them to put him out of business then what should he do?

Bundy admitted to owning the BLM more than $300,000.

Really one of the big things this illustrates to me is Harry Browns's advice to not have business dealings with the government. Renting government land that's home to protected wildlife during an era of massive SWAT-armed federal bureaucracies simply seems like a bad idea. I get that his family has been doing this since 1880, and that sucks… but sorry. Life ain't fair.

[Pointedstick]

At its core, what this seems like to me is an example of a man who's felt pushed around for too long deciding he's not going to take it anymore.

We, as observers, looking in from outside see the event, not the context. Apparently this has been 20 years in the making and Bundy didn't feel like he was getting a fair shake, to use one of Obama's favorite phrases.

He doesn't trust the BLM, he's wary of their motivations, he thinks they've changed the terms of the deal without giving him any say in the matter, he doesn't care much for what looks like phony environmentalism being forced on him, and he feels like he's being railroaded because he's in the way of someone powerful's political pet projects. All of that or none of that may be true, but that's the way it appears that he feels, such that he would risk his livelihood and assets to resist. And in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, I feel that we ought to recognize that.

Even Salon recognizes the "civil disobedience" aspect of wanting to challenge the establishment and not always being able to go through the "official" channels to do it:

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/cliven_ ... aw_is_not/

More than anything else to have gotten this much attention in a long time, what the Bundy saga shows us is that property ownership is a purely governmental construct. The allocation of resources in this country is done by government-imposed institutions, most especially through the biggest government programs in history: property and contract law. At its root, the Bundy dispute is not about who owns the land. We already know who owns it because the law is pretty clear. It is about who gets to decide the question in the first place.

In essence, Bundy’s actions challenge everyone to ask themselves: Who is the state to determine who gets to use what resources? Or, alternatively, why should we think that the way the state has currently determined that question is the correct one?

Bundy is a clown whose particular pleas are totally unsympathetic, though his identity presentation triggers the right tribal signals, causing political blocs to churn in predictable ways. But the basic idea of challenging property laws in this way is not a new one and the question of how to create our scarcity allocation institutions is a perpetual one.

Before Bundy, for instance, we had the civil rights movement and its famed sit-ins. Among other things, those sit-ins were straightforwardly challenging the state’s construction of property law in such a way that empowers certain people to exclude others from places based upon their racist whims (whims that the state enforces with its police, as the sit-in participants experienced quite directly). More recently, efforts to prohibit anti-gay discrimination in public accommodations present a similar protest, arguing that our statist property law institutions should not operate so as to keep people out of certain places because of their sexual orientation.

[Stewardship]

Excellent posts, Pointedstick.

Bundy admitted to owning the BLM more than $300,000.

Bundy also stated that he doesn't recognize any federal jurisdiction or authority over the land.

I'm trying to compare and contrast this stand-off to the Elián González standoff in Florida in 2000.  Do you think the Feds would have been thwarted in that case if more of the protesters had been armed?

as a side note cattle rustling is a hanging offense out west if the BLM had succeeded in taking those cows they would have probably starved, gotten sick or cost to much money to prevent that from happening to them, and likely ended up shot and buried in open pits, they would not have payed back what Bundy owed, they would cost the government far more than the were worth because no other state or individual would buy them or let them cross state lines. Utah the first state on the BLM buyer list, had already refused to buy them or allow them entry into the state for being stolen cattle..

[moda0306]

At its core, what this seems like to me is an example of a man who's felt pushed around for too long deciding he's not going to take it anymore.

We, as observers, looking in from outside see the event, not the context. Apparently this has been 20 years in the making and Bundy didn't feel like he was getting a fair shake, to use one of Obama's favorite phrases.

He doesn't trust the BLM, he's wary of their motivations, he thinks they've changed the terms of the deal without giving him any say in the matter, he doesn't care much for what looks like phony environmentalism being forced on him, and he feels like he's being railroaded because he's in the way of someone powerful's political pet projects. All of that or none of that may be true, but that's the way it appears that he feels, such that he would risk his livelihood and assets to resist. And in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, I feel that we ought to recognize that.

Even Salon recognizes the "civil disobedience" aspect of wanting to challenge the establishment and not always being able to go through the "official" channels to do it:

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/cliven_ ... aw_is_not/

More than anything else to have gotten this much attention in a long time, what the Bundy saga shows us is that property ownership is a purely governmental construct. The allocation of resources in this country is done by government-imposed institutions, most especially through the biggest government programs in history: property and contract law. At its root, the Bundy dispute is not about who owns the land. We already know who owns it because the law is pretty clear. It is about who gets to decide the question in the first place.

In essence, Bundy’s actions challenge everyone to ask themselves: Who is the state to determine who gets to use what resources? Or, alternatively, why should we think that the way the state has currently determined that question is the correct one?

Bundy is a clown whose particular pleas are totally unsympathetic, though his identity presentation triggers the right tribal signals, causing political blocs to churn in predictable ways. But the basic idea of challenging property laws in this way is not a new one and the question of how to create our scarcity allocation institutions is a perpetual one.

Before Bundy, for instance, we had the civil rights movement and its famed sit-ins. Among other things, those sit-ins were straightforwardly challenging the state’s construction of property law in such a way that empowers certain people to exclude others from places based upon their racist whims (whims that the state enforces with its police, as the sit-in participants experienced quite directly). More recently, efforts to prohibit anti-gay discrimination in public accommodations present a similar protest, arguing that our statist property law institutions should not operate so as to keep people out of certain places because of their sexual orientation.

PS,

We can talk about how he "feels" all day long, but almost everyone feels like they're being wronged by someone.  The murderer on death row probably doesn't trust the prison system and doesn't think he got a "fair shake."

The whiny poor, liberal "victim" doesn't either.  Hell, I'm sure Kim Jong Il died a "musunderstood" man.

The question is, HAS he been wronged, or is he just immature?  I do feel bad for anyone who thinks their country is betraying them... but that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate granting him Northeast Nevada . (total strawman and I'm kidding so no need to blow me up).

[moda0306]

having lived in the american SW, the view that the BLM are a bunch of bureaucratic power happy goons is common and largely for good reason..  the ins and outs of the law puts Bundy on the civil disobedience side of things for sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, or the wrong side to be on.. 

the most interesting (good) development that may come of this, is western states taking control of their own lands, there have been some interesting maps published showing just how much the federal government "owns" out west and it is way out of whack with the rest of the country, the push to correct fed 'ownership" of the west predates Bundy by quite a bit but this may give it some momentum

I'm glad we're getting in the habit of putting "ownership" in parentheses.  What I wonder, is why it wouldn't also definitely apply to Nevada or Bundy.

When you say "western states taking control of their own lands," that sounds like you reject the legitimacy of the federal ownership of the lands.  If that is the case, doesn't that actually beg the question of whether Mexico truly owns the lands, rather than the states?  Maybe some Indians sprinkled in there?

If it is federal land, why shouldn't Bundy, protected tortoise or not, pay FMV (which is WAY higher than what he was refusing to pay) for land grazing?  This isn't a land-use regulation issue.  This simply IS NOT HIS LAND.  Maybe the government should "sell" their land to ranchers and Nevada, but this isn't the way to make that suggestion. 

And with rifles actually pointed at federal agents, is this really "civil disobedience?"  If we haven't crossed a line, yet, we're certainly coming close.

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. 

Well the federal government fought a war to secure the land.  So either it is the federal government's, or Mexico's, or is it (gasp) nobody's?  Or is it someone else's?  How do you know?

Also, I thought the government's job was to enforce negative rights... Not to enact some populist agenda.  And what people should it be doing the will of?  People close to a certain area it manages?  If someone owned a theme park near Yosemite Nat'l Park, I'd hope the government didn't give them all sorts of rights it didn't give to others, unless they paid relatively fair value for them.

It's actually most likely in the American people's best interest to allow the grazing, but have the ranchers pay FMV for the land-use rather than the ridiculously low rate they've been charged.  It's in ranchers' best interest to give them a free or subsidized rate of grazing.  Or, super conveniently, give Nevada all the land for free (yikes).

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.. 

it is his land to use by way of grazing rights,  if the entity he pays the fees for those rights is using them to put him out of business then what should he do? pay them and get his livelihood destroyed or resist the unfair mismanagement?

He DIDN'T pay the fees to the government... therefore he was LOSING those rights.  They were NOT that expensive.  I don't have time to find the source right now (though I don't expect you to believe me), but the amount he was supposed to be paying was far below market value.

guns or not it seems like a pretty clear case of civil disobedience to me the gov has the law on their side, the law is being used to harm the citizen and the citizen resists by not paying the gov to harm him and refusing to have his property confiscated..

You haven't established he was being "harmed" by anything.  A usage fee that is below FMV is not "harming" anyone. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda, I think how he feels does matter, unless you're willing to agree with me that government is basically a machine designed to hurt the weak for the strong.

As the Salon article points out, Bundy is pretty clearly legally in the wrong. The BLM, through the federal government, owns the land. As the owners, what they say goes. They say you have to pay such-and-such amount for grazing rights and you have to do it, and they say you can only graze so many cattle there and that's the end of the discussion! Case closed, right?

Well… maybe. Even though he's legally in the wrong, that doesn't say anything about morality. The government could pass a law requiring mandatory euthanasia of anyone over 80 years old and that wouldn't make complying morally right.

One of the commenters on that article made some great points, which I'll reproduce here:

Many of the commenters here have no understanding of what a BLM allotment is and what Bundy may have lost 20 years ago.

The history goes back to the Homestead Acts of the 19th and early 20th century. When the United States acquired various lands - Louisiana Purchase, the results of the Mexican War - all land not owned by individuals became the property of the US Government. Claims by Native Americans were settled in various vicious and unfair ways. This left a lot of open land which was given to homesteaders who agreed to farm the land. The size of plots was 160 or, later, 640 acres for cattle ranching.

There weren't nearly enough homesteaders to claim all the land, so much was left under federal control. Ranchers could run their cattle unrestricted on the unclaimed land. After a while this got to be a mess and general ecological distaster, so in the early to mid-20th century specific allotmemts were created and attached to ranches. That is, the owner of the ranch had the right to graze cattle more or less where they had been grazing, but had to pay a small rent per head. In many parts of the West, even a few thousand acres isn't enough land for a profitable ranch, so the allotments are very important. Ranchers build roads and fences and maintain the allotments, which may have been under their care for many decades. Much of the value of a ranch is in the allotments.

When the Bureau of Land Management decides to reclaim an allotment, compensation is usually paid to the allotment holder because the holder's livelihood can be much affected. You've seen "lost our lease" sales. That business has to move, but the business itself can continue. When an allotment is reclaimed, the cattle ranch can't move and becomes less productive or goes out business.

Bundy paid rents on his allotments until 1993 or 95, when the BLM either retired some of his allotments, or put restrictions on the number of cattle he could run or something. He would have been compensated, but he thought it wasn't enough, or who knows, because I can't find the details. Most of his neighbors took the money and left.

I support government actions to protect the tortoises and require more careful use of the land in the allotments, but we need to keep in mind that some people's lives are very much affected by those decisions.

In other words, the basic problem here is the government doing something you repeatedly argue against: changing the "rules of the road" after people have started driving on it and made plans accordingly. Ranchers who relied on the allotment system were tangibly harmed when their allotments were reduced or eliminated, even with monetary compensation, which may or may not have even covered their loss. But more importantly, they were ranchers; they didn't want money, they wanted access to the land.

All of this could be solved with legally-binding contracts, which is how the business would have been conducted had Bundy been grazing on private land. But of course that's not the way the government operates. You never have a legally binding contract with the government because the government wants the ability to change the terms of any deal they offer you in a way that benefits their interests, not yours. That's why you can't sue when your taxes go up; you never had a contract saying your taxes were at such-and-such a rate or amount. If the government decides to raise them it's "pay up or put your hands up."

Same when a BLM land allotment is restricted or removed. Bundy never had a real contract with the BLM, nor would they have allowed one to come into being, so when they wanted to change the rules, perhaps for politically-motivated reasons (gee, you think?), he was just screwed. Hence Browne's advice: don't engage in business with the government if you don't want to run the risk of them changing the terms of any deal they're offering you mid-stream in a way that's worst for you and best for them.

That's good, practical advice. But is that the way it should be? Is that right? Is it just? Those are the real questions.

[Reub]

They are making an example out of Bundy to deter anyone else from defying them. Harry Reid has secret land deals with the Chinese. They backed off because too many people were watching and besides its an election year. Nobody gives a hoot about the tortoise!

[Stewardship]

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law- just a fight for survival." --Billy Jack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kttCi2jOcOo

[moda0306]

Moda, I think how he feels does matter, unless you're willing to agree with me that government is basically a machine designed to hurt the weak for the strong.

As the Salon article points out, Bundy is pretty clearly legally in the wrong. The BLM, through the federal government, owns the land. As the owners, what they say goes. They say you have to pay such-and-such amount for grazing rights and you have to do it, and they say you can only graze so many cattle there and that's the end of the discussion! Case closed, right?

Well… maybe. Even though he's legally in the wrong, that doesn't say anything about morality. The government could pass a law requiring mandatory euthanasia of anyone over 80 years old and that wouldn't make complying morally right.

One of the commenters on that article made some great points, which I'll reproduce here:

Many of the commenters here have no understanding of what a BLM allotment is and what Bundy may have lost 20 years ago.

The history goes back to the Homestead Acts of the 19th and early 20th century. When the United States acquired various lands - Louisiana Purchase, the results of the Mexican War - all land not owned by individuals became the property of the US Government. Claims by Native Americans were settled in various vicious and unfair ways. This left a lot of open land which was given to homesteaders who agreed to farm the land. The size of plots was 160 or, later, 640 acres for cattle ranching.

There weren't nearly enough homesteaders to claim all the land, so much was left under federal control. Ranchers could run their cattle unrestricted on the unclaimed land. After a while this got to be a mess and general ecological distaster, so in the early to mid-20th century specific allotmemts were created and attached to ranches. That is, the owner of the ranch had the right to graze cattle more or less where they had been grazing, but had to pay a small rent per head. In many parts of the West, even a few thousand acres isn't enough land for a profitable ranch, so the allotments are very important. Ranchers build roads and fences and maintain the allotments, which may have been under their care for many decades. Much of the value of a ranch is in the allotments.

When the Bureau of Land Management decides to reclaim an allotment, compensation is usually paid to the allotment holder because the holder's livelihood can be much affected. You've seen "lost our lease" sales. That business has to move, but the business itself can continue. When an allotment is reclaimed, the cattle ranch can't move and becomes less productive or goes out business.

Bundy paid rents on his allotments until 1993 or 95, when the BLM either retired some of his allotments, or put restrictions on the number of cattle he could run or something. He would have been compensated, but he thought it wasn't enough, or who knows, because I can't find the details. Most of his neighbors took the money and left.

I support government actions to protect the tortoises and require more careful use of the land in the allotments, but we need to keep in mind that some people's lives are very much affected by those decisions.

In other words, the basic problem here is the government doing something you repeatedly argue against: changing the "rules of the road" after people have started driving on it and made plans accordingly. Ranchers who relied on the allotment system were tangibly harmed when their allotments were reduced or eliminated, even with monetary compensation, which may or may not have even covered their loss. But more importantly, they were ranchers; they didn't want money, they wanted access to the land.

All of this could be solved with legally-binding contracts, which is how the business would have been conducted had Bundy been grazing on private land. But of course that's not the way the government operates. You never have a legally binding contract with the government because the government wants the ability to change the terms of any deal they offer you in a way that benefits their interests, not yours. That's why you can't sue when your taxes go up; you never had a contract saying your taxes were at such-and-such a rate or amount. If the government decides to raise them it's "pay up or put your hands up."

Same when a BLM land allotment is restricted or removed. Bundy never had a real contract with the BLM, nor would they have allowed one to come into being, so when they wanted to change the rules, perhaps for politically-motivated reasons (gee, you think?), he was just screwed. Hence Browne's advice: don't engage in business with the government if you don't want to run the risk of them changing the terms of any deal they're offering you mid-stream in a way that's worst for you and best for them.

That's good, practical advice. But is that the way it should be? Is that right? Is it just? Those are the real questions.

Well I certainly am against changing the rules along the way, all things being equal.  But a lot of things aren't equal here.  It was federal property that they could have sold or allowed people to "homestead," but gave them certain grazing PRIVILEGES that existed for some time.  Obviously, as you build an economic infrastructure around what is "free," it can actually be hurtful to the stability of that infrastructure to take away the subsidy.  However, charging a nominal grazing fee is the equivalent of the IRS changing some tax rules around Social Security, and the AARP defending a compound when the IRS comes to (figuratively) collect taxes that they refused to pay.

Further, some things may LOOK like "changing the rules of the game," when they are simply NOT.  First off, the Feds changed the rules when they went to war to obtain the West.  But moving past that, they "changed the rules (in a positive way, for many) by saying "move out West and have your 160 acres!"  They then just sort of allowed people to graze on the remaining federal land without paying fees.  There were no "rules to the game" that were agreed to, long-term (that I can tell).  There may have been a lot of "likelihoods" or "assumptions."  But if Bundy thinks that something is a continued right of his simply because the government has been giving it to him for free for decades, then he might not be happy with the status of a lot of government programs.

I mean I think we can both admit that land disputes are a fickle b!tch.  We probably just disagree on why.  I would argue that they are because there is no natural, inherent "right" to have exclusive use of common areas.  Privatizing it is actually a Social Engineering move more than any sort of recognition of legitimate ownership on a fundamental level.

It's not that I don't feel for the guy. Economic adjustments are difficult, even if your past gains were ill-gotten.  Lucky for him, the fees they were charging were way below FMV.

[moda0306]

Well the federal government fought a war to secure the land.  So either it is the federal government's, or Mexico's, or is it (gasp) nobody's?  Or is it someone else's?  How do you know?

all the non western states the land is largely held for the people by the state or private, why shouldn't the people in the west get the same benefit or have the right to manage the majority of the land in the state?

 

Also, I thought the government's job was to enforce negative rights... Not to enact some populist agenda.  And what people should it be doing the will of?  People close to a certain area it manages?  If someone owned a theme park near Yosemite Nat'l Park, I'd hope the government didn't give them all sorts of rights it didn't give to others, unless they paid relatively fair value for them.

It's actually most likely in the American people's best interest to allow the grazing, but have the ranchers pay FMV for the land-use rather than the ridiculously low rate they've been charged.  It's in ranchers' best interest to give them a free or subsidized rate of grazing.  Or, super conveniently, give Nevada all the land for free (yikes).

so what is fair about the market value when the price is driven up by the government holding controlling most of the land? if the percentages in the west were in line with the rest of the states the market value would be different.

He DIDN'T pay the fees to the government... therefore he was LOSING those rights.  They were NOT that expensive.  I don't have time to find the source right now (though I don't expect you to believe me), but the amount he was supposed to be paying was far below market value.

You haven't established he was being "harmed" by anything.  A usage fee that is below FMV is not "harming" anyone.

see pointed sticks reply, they changed the deal mid stream...if ranchers weren't being harmed why is he the last one standing in that area?

Is there an orgnized, well-sourced article regarding the history of the BLM and its interactions with ranchers?  The conservative articles I've read have been a joke.

But this is not civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience is breaking the law in a peaceful and accepting the consequences to draw public support, not pointing guns and making threats, only to be met by a government that doesn't want another Waco.

You saw the quote from the guy who advocated putting women at the front of the pack, right?  These people are crazy.  Bundy doesn't recognize the feds, and thinks the land is Nevada's.... which recognizes it as federal land.


A well thought out conversation about how to use public lands is one thing.


This is something else entirely. 


Maybe we should merge this thread with the one about the sense of entitlement that is so present in this country.

i don't know of any articles or books but i have first hand experience from watching what was done when i lived in the SW, the blm and forest service prevented forest fires, not an all bad thing around structures and towns but they messed up the natural low slow seasonal fire pattern, causing bigger and hotter tree top fires. they also banned or eliminated most logging and all clear cutting from the GOV land, this also increased fires and the severity of fires, it also meant that forests began growing tighter and tighter across many states. then the pine bark beetle came and since the trees are to close and over grown the bug can get from one tree to the next with ease. they refused to allow clear cutting (and fire wood cutting) to stop the spread of the beetle and now there are hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of acres of dead forests waiting to go up in super-fires... most blm management is done with the same sort of bureaucratic short sightedness and general incompetence, i know less about range management but i would be knocked out cold surprised if it wasn't as or more messed up..

why does civil disobedience need to be non violent, according to a quickie search i just did on the term, while commonly used to describe non violent action it can also describe violent ones (nobody got hurt at the ranch BTW they just made a show of force against a show of force)

Bundy didn't pay his fees he didn't let them take his cows, he is on the wrong side of the law.. i wouldn't argue against that. his thinking (as presented by the media) is convoluted and may not be a coherent philosophy or a sound justification for his action, but a lack of snappy sound bites or good arguments against bad government doesn't mean his choice to disobey is wrong, or that he had been left with any other option

[Stewardship]

Inter arma enim silent leges

In times of war, the law falls silent.

[moda0306]

Inter arma enim silent leges

In times of war, the law falls silent.

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

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

[Pointedstick]

Well I certainly am against changing the rules along the way, all things being equal.  But a lot of things aren't equal here.  It was federal property that they could have sold or allowed people to "homestead," but gave them certain grazing PRIVILEGES that existed for some time.  Obviously, as you build an economic infrastructure around what is "free," it can actually be hurtful to the stability of that infrastructure to take away the subsidy.  However, charging a nominal grazing fee is the equivalent of the IRS changing some tax rules around Social Security, and the AARP defending a compound when the IRS comes to (figuratively) collect taxes that they refused to pay.

Further, some things may LOOK like "changing the rules of the game," when they are simply NOT.  First off, the Feds changed the rules when they went to war to obtain the West.  But moving past that, they "changed the rules (in a positive way, for many) by saying "move out West and have your 160 acres!"  They then just sort of allowed people to graze on the remaining federal land without paying fees.  There were no "rules to the game" that were agreed to, long-term (that I can tell).  There may have been a lot of "likelihoods" or "assumptions."  But if Bundy thinks that something is a continued right of his simply because the government has been giving it to him for free for decades, then he might not be happy with the status of a lot of government programs.

There are many sane arguments to be made for changing the rules when conditions change… but none of them are compatible with the position that it's the government's job to provide a stable playing field with well-defined rules that people can plan for. Do you get that? These two things are opposed.

So you're for that or you're against it. No playing games here. If you're against changing the rules of the game mid-stream… except when a reasonable argument can be made for why changing the rules makes sense, then you're not really against it at all because anything can be made to sound reasonable given the right message or messenger.

The basic point that I'm making here is that if a legitimate job of the government is to establish the "rules of the road", then this goal is served worse, not better, by excessive "flexibility." People need some stability in basic arrangements to plan their lives. If the government says one day, "well that's it, no more cars. They pollute too much, they contribute to bad urban planning, and you'll all be better off without them," then that may or may not be true, and there may be a large number of reasonable arguments to be made for it, but it would represent a dramatic upheaval that would certainly have a lot of winners and a lot of losers. People who had planned for X would be told the world was suddenly about Y. Is that kind of thing "fair?" Not unless you are willing to admit that you don't actually think it's very important for the government to set the societal "rules of the road."

I mean I think we can both admit that land disputes are a fickle b!tch.  We probably just disagree on why.  I would argue that they are because there is no natural, inherent "right" to have exclusive use of common areas.  Privatizing it is actually a Social Engineering move more than any sort of recognition of legitimate ownership on a fundamental level.

It's not that I don't feel for the guy. Economic adjustments are difficult, even if your past gains were ill-gotten.  Lucky for him, the fees they were charging were way below FMV.

This particular dispute sounds less like it's about the fees and more that it's about the restriction of the allotments themselves. The under-FMV fees don't mean diddly squat if they only let you graze 100 cattle and you have another 900 that will starve otherwise. If it were only about the fees, why would Bundy and his family have been willing to pay them for more than 100 years? Why would he be the last of the ranchers who have historically grazed their herds in the area? Was it all just a big coincidence that they all left?

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?

[Benko]

Just heard a radio discussion on this topic.  Few interesting facts which I heard on the radio discussion.  I googled to get link to verify and fox news came up.  Feel free to google other sources.

1.  The bureau has said if Bundy wasn't willing to pay, then they would sell his cattle.  However, there was a problem with that plan -- few in Nevada would touch Bundy's cattle for fear of being blacklisted.  ANd Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... -standoff/

2. BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

Fox News toured the damage -- allegedly caused by the Bureau of Land Management -- which included holes in water tanks and destroyed water lines and fences. According to family friends, the bureau's hired "cowboys" also killed two prize bulls.