Not sure how I feel about Bunkerville...

[Ruffnek]

Are you judging this from a legal point of view or a righteous point of view? It seems crystal clear to me, but then I don't accept the premises that one has to accept to give the government any credibility in this.

I'm looking at this objectively rather than emotionally.I don't think that it's righteous that I can't make an SBR without giving the government my hard-earned money to meddle in my affairs,but yet I don't see many people defying that law just because they don't recognize the authority that put the law in place.It appears that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here,but the people are supporting him because of their emotions and hatred for government.We all get angry when liberals do that on gun issues,so why are we being hypocrites?

 

[88GT]

I'm looking at this objectively rather than emotionally.I don't think that it's righteous that I can't make an SBR without giving the government my hard-earned money to meddle in my affairs,but yet I don't see many people defying that law just because they don't recognize the authority that put the law in place.It appears that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here,but the people are supporting him because of their emotions and hatred for government.We all get angry when liberals do that on gun issues,so why are we being hypocrites?

So that would be the legal point of view.

And, yes, there are people who violate the gun laws, all of them. Probably more frequently than cattle ranchers "illegally" grazing their cattle on [STRIKE]public[/STRIKE] the King's land.

 

[Mustang380gal]

Let's put this in a different perspective.

Say a person owned a garage and there was a parking area on the next lot over that was owned by the city.Local businesses had been using the parking area for customer parking for years and paid a fee to the city for their customers to use the lot,a cost of doing business and making money.Now the owner of the garage is using the lot to park vehicles he is working on but he isn't paying the fee and hasn't for a while,he's making money with the aid of that lot but isn't paying the piper.After much time,the city comes in and begins towing cars from the lot and totals a few in the process.

This is my current understanding of the situation.

Like I said before,I think that both parties are equally guilty of turning this into a major fiasco.

The analogy would work if you added that the garage owner repaved and re-painted parking lines.

BLM was supposed to make improvements, like water, but stopped doing it. Bundy and Family did. They irrigated, and had wells or cisterns for the cattle. It wouldn't have been only for his cattle, either. Other wildlife likely benefited from the water, too.

 

[Ruffnek]

The only support I can give here is to Bundy on the grounds that the feds overreacted.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The only support I can give here is to Bundy on the grounds that the feds overreacted.

You don't have a problem with unilaterally changing the terms of legal agreements and demanding payments for services rendered without actually rendering those services?

 

[Ruffnek]

You don't have a problem with unilaterally changing the terms of legal agreements and demanding payments for services rendered without actually rendering those services?

Can you give me a link to the services?I still don't understand that part of the argument.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Can you give me a link to the services?I still don't understand that part of the argument.

According to reports at the time, the feds also exceeded the scope of their court order by destroying the improvements that the Bundy's had made to the public lands, when all they were authorized to do was seize the cattle.

Interesting that BLM changed their story about this whole thing several times. First it was to save the habitat for the "endangered" desert tortoise (the same "endangered" tortoises who were so numerous in their wildlife refuge that the BLM was having to euthanize 1000 of them). Then, of course, it became paramount that they enforce grazing fees for services which they didn't provide; then it was "preservation of the land" by forcing the Bundy's to get rid of most of their cattle (after which they would not be able to support themselves in cattle ranching). Also interesting that they were so concerned about collecting cattle in lieu of a million dollars in supposed fee and penalties that they mounted an operation which cost an equivalent amount (if not more) while Al Sharpton owes $2.5 million and has dinner at the White House.

What recourse do citizens have when the courts side with bureaucratic tyrants and crooked politicians? I don't know the answer, but I'm very much afraid there will be violence over this type of thing if the government doesn't rethink its strategy and tactics.

 

[Ruffnek]

Bundy Ranch - BLM - Fact Checking Please - YouTube

 

[Lex Concord]

The current kerfuffle notwithstanding, any illusion that there is ownership of real estate outside of government (i.e. private ownership of land) is a myth.

With the exception of a locale with no property taxes (a locale of whose existence I am currently unaware), you don't own it.

While property taxes exist, you will never own it. I don't care what your title says or how much you "paid for it".

This event is just a relatively novel twist on the ever-present theme of neo-feudalism.

Property taxes should be abolished.

</threadjack>

 

[rockhopper46038]

The current kerfuffle notwithstanding, any illusion that there is ownership of real estate outside of government (i.e. private ownership of land) is a myth.

With the exception of a locale with no property taxes (a locale of whose existence I am currently unaware), you don't own it.

While property taxes exist, you will never own it. I don't care what your title says or how much you "paid for it".

Property taxes should be abolished.

</threadjack>

Damn right they should be.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The current kerfuffle notwithstanding, any illusion that there is ownership of real estate outside of government (i.e. private ownership of land) is a myth.

With the exception of a locale with no property taxes (a locale of whose existence I am currently unaware), you don't own it.

While property taxes exist, you will never own it. I don't care what your title says or how much you "paid for it".

This event is just a relatively novel twist on the ever-present theme of neo-feudalism.

Property taxes should be abolished.

</threadjack>