A Rancher's Armed Battle Against the US Government is Standard Libertarian Fare

I haven't been following the 'Bundy' incident as I often find these 'incidents' inflamitory and polerizing. Seemly a run of the mill 'states rights' vs 'federal rights' case, I really wonder about the motive of Mr. Bundy after reading a short piece on the subject. This had been going on for twenty years, the feds didn't want to put too much effort into the 'case' that would be more productive elsewhere and it recently came to a head.
The title is from the referenced article, not me.

I wonder why, in this matter of states rights, those that talk about it, seem to be 'all in or all out' with no middle ground whatsoever. Why have a Union at all if each state is indelpendant?

This article brings up the fact that Mr. Bundy was not only breaking Federal law (and one that he and his father before him had complied with for many years) but also State and County laws.

It seems to me and I suspect other people that don't identify with this issue that a balance must be mantained and that by such a balance one derives relief from abuses perpetrated by either body.

From the article for your consideration:

A synopsis of the situation:

Bundy’s chapter began in 1993, when he stopped paying the monthly grazing fee to the BLM that he and his father before him had paid for decades. The fee, currently a paltry sum of $1.35 per month for each of his cow and calf pairs, is collected to offset a small portion of the public cost of maintaining the grass, water, roads, and the health of the lands he grazes. It’s not a lot to ask; indeed it’s a massive federal subsidy that few businesses receive – you can’t feed a parakeet on $1.35 per month.

The great irony here, or perhaps manipulation, is that while Bundy has wrapped his range war in the flag of states-rights and the sanctity of county and federal governments, his twenty-year stint as a freeloading trespasser has trampled county and state laws and policies just as thoroughly as federal laws. His refusal to recognize federal lands, for example, is in direct contradiction with the Nevada State Constitution.

His old grazing permit was eventually purchased by Clark County which used its grazing-free status as legally required mitigation to offset habitat destruction elsewhere in the county. Bundy’s trespass cattle violate the county's policy. His zone of trespass moreover, has expanded over the years to include National Park Service and state lands, including the latter’s Overton Wildlife Manage Area. One of his bulls attacked a state ranger in the Overton Wildlife area while illegally trespassing there.

His cattle have also trespassed on and damaged golf courses, private gardens and community gardens.

And pertaining to motive the article wraps up with:

Patriotism is indeed the last recourse to which a scoundrel clings. Bundy’s local patriotism seems to end as soon as state and county public interests get in the way of his business interests. With his militia gathered round him, he may prove true that if you steal a little they throw you in jail, but steal a lot and they make you king.

a reply to: FyreByrd

If you haven't been following it, what qualifies you to say it polarizing?

Also, how is it any more polarizing than our current administration that uses the Race Card, The Immigration Card, and every other polarizing trick in their play book?

Other than that, wow! Americans whom stick up for themselves against a tyrannical government is polarizing????





BTW: Did you forget to add your source OR are you deliberately trying to hide it?

To begin with, the story doesn't start where your article says...it started in the 1800s
and it certainly left out harry reids criminality...
and it sure didn't explain the dead cattle unsalable because they were stolen..
and then there is the involvement of the county sherif on a coinstitutional level which the armed fed army backed down from because they had no right to be operating as they were

Pointing guns and threatening peaceful protesters with DEATH for questioning the slaughter and stealthy burying of the bundy's cattle...

I've mostly tried to stay out of this too because this is just the sort of issue where people's opinions are based more on their gut feelings and emotions than on facts and reason. Anyone who isn't a rabid anti-federalist hates freedom and doesn't understand the true intent of the founding fathers. I honor the men, including my own forebearers, who fought for their right to self-governance but I don't live in the late 16th century in a country of 13 colonies and a few territories with a population of 2.5 million people. If these men were alive today, their perspectives would be informed by the modern world. In their time, they were radicals who sought to bring about change and it seems ridiculous to think that progress should have arbitrarily ended 200 hundred and thirty-eight years ago. These men new that change was both necessary and inevitable and thus they did their best to lay down an extensible framework so that it could be accommodated.

To get back on topic, I'll take the plunge and say something I know will be unpopular:

Cliven Bundy doesn't represent "every man" to me. Ostensibly, he's a rancher who has decided that he will only recognize the state of Nevada's right to levy grazing fees on public lands. His professed anti-federalist views may play well to his ardent supporters but for the majority of people, who don't have such strong states rights convictions, it doesn't.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Biased nonsense.

Please link the article.

To make this issue about the fees is a red herring. The BLM shuts down ranchers by limiting the number of cattle they can own, making it impossible to turn a profit. This is why Mr. Bundy is the last rancher in that area. He refused to abide by their arbitrary rules.

Did this so called author express outrage at the government's violence, sending an army with trained snipers to "collect fees" and impound cows?

Did he mention that the BLM has a well established history of fraud, extortion, racketeering and criminal behavior?

Liberals hate Libertarians more than they hate main line Republicans. Is it because we actually stand for individual liberty and true civil rights?

Filled with personal attacks and attempted character assassination, "the last recourse of a scoundrel".

a reply to: FyreByrd

The fee, currently a paltry sum of $1.35 per month for each of his cow and calf pairs, is collected to offset a small portion of the public cost of maintaining the grass, water, roads, and the health of the lands he grazes.

They took care of the land so why doesnt the government just F off.

You realize that this Harry Reid / ENN solar facility theory popularized by Newsmax and others has been discredited? The Bundy ranch is like 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas and the site proposed for the facility is near Laughlin which is something like 108 miles south of Las Vegas?

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: FyreByrd
Is it because we actually stand for individual liberty and true civil rights?

Everyone thinks they're right. I know a lot of self-professed Libertarians and most of them repeat the same rhetoric but in practice could care a less about anyone else's individual liberty nearly as much as their own. What do you stand for? "Individual liberty. The constitution. We're socially liberal and economically conservative. We don't believe money should be taken from one person to be given to another." blah blah blah. That's just the party line, it's what people say just like Republicans say they're for smaller government but they always increase the size of government just like Democrats.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Carefull. People who rally behind this guy completely ignore all the relevant facts and start yelling "evil government, obamas lackeys!!!" etc. Just read any of the excisting threads. Only bad thing about this case by BLM is that they allowed a criminal to continue abusing public lands just because some nutters showed up with guns.

The OP seems to have forgot the link. For future reference to those that really want the source article before the OP has a chance to add the link one can simply copy the text from the quoted article into your search engine to find the article.

And wallah: The Guardian

As far as one person questioned the OP about how he knew this was a polarizing topic if he isn't following it, well he didn't claim it was but what he did say is that these topics usually are. He was establishing his reason for not following or becoming intrenched in debate over this.

I withheld vocalizing my opinion on this matter until more facts came out which I am glad I did. Like many I was completely on Bundys side at first however I said to myself there has to be more to this which there was. It is definitly not a black and white situation but as time progresses and more information has come to light I am glad I didn't join in to defend him. One of these days a clear issue will surface of right and wrong and on that day I will be there with my armaments as well defying the governments but IMO this one didn't nor does it qualify.

originally posted by: FyreByrd Why have a Union at all if each state is independent?

Yeah, I know. Makes no sense at all. Never has.

To know what's actually happening, we need to determine who fired the proverbial "First Shot".

The conservation area in question (Gold Butte area) was partially set aside for the Desert Tortoise that was added to the endangered species in maybe 1990.

At that point, the BLM substantially reduced Bundy's grazing allotment (1993).

Then Clark County, NV bought all the grazing permits (1998) and cancelled them outright to further the City real estate expansions.

One main reason for the Clark County "action" was to make way for land development in the 3-city metro Las Vegas area that was going to expand city limits onto then BLM land.

That area has since tripled or quadrupled in municipal size.

The Gold Butte conservation area has been used to offset environmental impacts caused by real estate expansions and energy projects (wind and solar).

Lots of issues and confusing controversies with the whole thing.

[ links later, they are on other threads ]

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: FyreByrd

If you haven't been following it, what qualifies you to say it polarizing?

Also, how is it any more polarizing than our current administration that uses the Race Card, The Immigration Card, and every other polarizing trick in their play book?

Other than that, wow! Americans whom stick up for themselves against a tyrannical government is polarizing????

BTW: Did you forget to add your source OR are you deliberately trying to hide it?

Wow - polarization is not 'us vs them' it is seeing things on one extreme of a sprectrum with no middle ground.

And I did for get the source, here it is:

www.commondreams.org...

Very poor form of me.

Your response doesn't look a any side to the question other then the one you want to see. It is an example of an extreme single-sided point of view that doesn't acknowledge that the other sides of this issue have very valid concerns.

For myself in the State vs Fed debate, I come down, in moderate land. As I stated in my openning post - a balance of the two forces, if you will (State and Fed), moderates the abuse from either legal entity. And if my understanding was correct, our republic was designed in just such a manner to mitigate abuse by either government. The Civil War was a reaffirmation of the balance between Fed and State.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Who started the thread?

How do you know that everyone there is a registered Libertarian? Isn't that the crux of your whole OP. To attack a political group you don't agree with?

Then you had the cajones to talk about polarization????

I'll bet you money that there were registered Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians at that demonstration that are guilty of nothing more than loving their country and defending their Constitutional rights!

But hey, it's your party, you can choose what ever flavor of cake you want right?

This had been going on for twenty years, the feds didn't want to put too much effort into the 'case' that would be more productive elsewhere and it recently came to a head. -

that's because there wasn't any money in it then. i bet ya if we could see the things that are being hidden. the interest that certain people are displaying in the whole area not just bundy's deal it would become real clear what's up.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: FyreByrd

Who started the thread?

How do you know that everyone there is a registered Libertarian? Isn't that the crux of your whole OP. To attack a political group you don't agree with?

That's what you perceive. Period. It is not a fact nor a hidden motive. I stated my position very clearly. I believe a middle ground on this issue is the only rational one.

You may hold a polar State Rights view - which I don't agree with; but neither do I agree with a polar Federal Rights view as you imply.

Personally I think those 'polarized' views divisive.

My view is that Federal power is checked by States Rights as States Power is check by Federal rights. Another instance of checks and balances on power - and among the few still intact in our republic.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: FyreByrd

Who started the thread?

How do you know that everyone there is a registered Libertarian? Isn't that the crux of your whole OP. To attack a political group you don't agree with?

That's what you perceive. Period. It is not a fact nor a hidden motive. I stated my position very clearly. I believe a middle ground on this issue is the only rational one.

You may hold a polar State Rights view - which I don't agree with; but neither do I agree with a polar Federal Rights view as you imply.

Personally I think those 'polarized' views divisive.

My view is that Federal power is checked by States Rights as States Power is check by Federal rights. Another instance of checks and balances on power - and among the few still intact in our republic.

This is what I think of those whom claim to be on the side of the right, the left or as you the center, you all don't have the conviction necessary to honor the Constitution and respect the freedom and liberty of everyone!

The Constitution only applies IF it fits into YOUR narrow focus of what YOU feel is right!!!!!

That's what is wrong with our country!

You either believe in freedom for all or you align yourself with a corrupt political party. For YOU, aligning yourself in the center is IMO the most cowardly of all three positions to take! Why try to please all when NONE of their ideologies align with the freedom we were guaranteed by our Founders?