Page 80 of 142 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1412

Thread: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

  1. #791
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,529

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I would agree with you only if his use denies someone else the free use of the land. This is public land, and I find no harm in the use of it by the public.
    His cattle are eating all the grass. If his cattle are eating all the grass, then there is none left for any cattle I might want to graze there.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #792
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    His cattle are eating all the grass. If his cattle are eating all the grass, then there is none left for any cattle I might want to graze there.
    But you don't.

    Some theoretical possibility should not interfere with the practical reality.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  3. #793
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,529

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Commonly owned property, much like any other collective ownership scheme, is a scheme where the interests of property owners are in consistent conflict. To conclude that collective owned property is beneficial is nonsensical, as collective owned property is less productive and more open to abuse by the property owners than individually owned property due to the interest of those that own the property being less invested in the property.



    Yes, but the use of the property is very much controlled by the fees. If the property owner in question can't afford the fees then they can't use their own property.



    If everyone owns the property then everyone has the right to use the property. If there is a fee to use the property there is going to be people that can't practice their rights.
    I also own a part of quite a number of private companies through the purchase of stocks. I don't run any of those companies, you understand, but a part of them are mine. You might own a part of the same companies for all I know, but you don't run them either. We hire someone else to run those companies, much like we hire the National Park Service, the BLM, or the Forest Service to run the land we own.

    And, should I want some of the products of that company, I still have to pay for them despite my part ownership. By the same token, if I want to go visit a national park, I still have to pay the entrance fees. If I go gather wood in the national forest, there is a permit to buy. Nothing is free.

    So, of property owned in common is such a bad idea, perhaps we need to close down the stock market. What a great idea that would be
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #794
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Commonly owned property, much like any other collective ownership scheme, is a scheme where the interests of property owners are in consistent conflict. To conclude that collective owned property is beneficial is nonsensical, as collective owned property is less productive and more open to abuse by the property owners than individually owned property due to the interest of those that own the property being less invested in the property.



    Yes, but the use of the property is very much controlled by the fees. If the property owner in question can't afford the fees then they can't use their own property.



    If everyone owns the property then everyone has the right to use the property. If there is a fee to use the property there is going to be people that can't practice their rights.
    RED FLAG WARNING HERE

    Thank you for that!

    Unlimited campaign donations = freedom of speech, unless of course you don't have the money, then you're sh*t out of luck, your freedom of speech rights have just been squelched.

    Please, please, please go to DC and tell SCOTUS that!
    Last edited by AJiveMan; 04-16-14 at 11:47 AM.

  5. #795
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Yep.

    We all own the land, but we can't all have cattle there. If an individual wants to run cattle on land that all of us own, then he must pay a fee to the rest of us. Land owned in common doesn't mean that anyone can do just anything with that land.
    Ditto, With all due respect, you sound like you don't understand how this fight started....In a WaPo article outlining the years and the issues to date, it says:

    "1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

    We all know how this listing is used in modern times to control people, and in some cases steal their property in favor of species that get put on the list (in some cases for political reasons) and then never removed even after the supposed threat of extinction is gone....

    "the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat."

    So, in 1993 The BLM steps in and just declares the land off limits....It is a land grab.

    "Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve."

    So, this sounds exactly like some of the recent eminent domain cases...The government tells someone that they must give up their land, or their property, or their rights because the government wants them....At some point we have to stand up and say NO!

    Now, I don't think that at this point Bundy is making his case very well, but as I look more into it, it seems he does have a point.


    Quotes taken from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...al-government/
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #796
    Professor
    Tettsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    No, but everyone should be able to use it in a manner that doesn't either harm the land or preclude it's use by others. In the case were the land is serving no purpose other than grazing, then he should be able to use it as such unfettered unless there were some conflict with others using it for the same or another purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    But you don't.

    Some theoretical possibility should not interfere with the practical reality.
    Follow your own advice.

    The reality is there's a fee that should be paid and a schedule to be followed. Bundy did not pay that fee for 20 years. Reality is, he's a thief. You're supporting a common criminal.
    A man without fear is a fool, a man that succumbs to his fear is a coward and a brave man acknowledges fear yet presses on.
    http://soulinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/

  7. #797
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    Follow your own advice.

    The reality is there's a fee that should be paid and a schedule to be followed. Bundy did not pay that fee for 20 years. Reality is, he's a thief. You're supporting a common criminal.
    I believe he should be required to pay the fees proscribed by law, and that the govt should use what peaceful means it has to collect that debt. An armed seizure is not peaceful. Failure to pay a fee is a civil offense not a criminal one....that's why in none of the court cases to date has he been incarcerated. The government has peaceful legal means to collect this debt, and armed response is unnecessary and unwarranted.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  8. #798
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,529

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ditto, With all due respect, you sound like you don't understand how this fight started....In a WaPo article outlining the years and the issues to date, it says:

    "1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

    We all know how this listing is used in modern times to control people, and in some cases steal their property in favor of species that get put on the list (in some cases for political reasons) and then never removed even after the supposed threat of extinction is gone....

    "the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat."

    So, in 1993 The BLM steps in and just declares the land off limits....It is a land grab.

    "Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve."

    So, this sounds exactly like some of the recent eminent domain cases...The government tells someone that they must give up their land, or their property, or their rights because the government wants them....At some point we have to stand up and say NO!

    Now, I don't think that at this point Bundy is making his case very well, but as I look more into it, it seems he does have a point.


    Quotes taken from: Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
    Yes, there is also the issue of the desert tortoise, so the land isn't being controlled by fees only.

    The elected representatives of the people who own this land that Bundy wants to call "his", which really isn't and never was his passed the endangered species act. Now, you can disagree with that act, or with the way the courts have interpreted that act all you want, but it is a law that was made through the democratic process. Until it is repealed, it stands as one of the ways in which the use public land is controlled.

    along with fees, which Bundy has not paid.

    and yes, the law if eminent domain raises some hackles from time to time as well, but that, too is a law passed by democratic processes. Should it be repealed, then there will be no new roads, railroads, irrigation projects, or a whole lot of things that could be blocked by one property owner who refuses to sell.

    But eminent domain does not apply here as the land in question does not belong to Bundy anyway.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #799
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ditto, With all due respect, you sound like you don't understand how this fight started....In a WaPo article outlining the years and the issues to date, it says:

    "1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to "threatened."

    We all know how this listing is used in modern times to control people, and in some cases steal their property in favor of species that get put on the list (in some cases for political reasons) and then never removed even after the supposed threat of extinction is gone....

    "the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat."

    So, in 1993 The BLM steps in and just declares the land off limits....It is a land grab.

    "Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve."

    So, this sounds exactly like some of the recent eminent domain cases...The government tells someone that they must give up their land, or their property, or their rights because the government wants them....At some point we have to stand up and say NO!

    Now, I don't think that at this point Bundy is making his case very well, but as I look more into it, it seems he does have a point.


    Quotes taken from: Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
    You cannot claim eminent domain on land you never owned to begin with. Clyde owns land that he purchased, which was surveyed and surveyed land has boundary stakes. He happens to own only what he paid for, 160 acres, not the entire range where his cattle roam.

  10. #800
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    and yes, the law if eminent domain raises some hackles from time to time as well, but that, too is a law passed by democratic processes. Should it be repealed, then there will be no new roads, railroads, irrigation projects, or a whole lot of things that could be blocked by one property owner who refuses to sell.
    Eminent domain was put directly in the Constitution by the founders. Guess how many people consented to the constitution? Look at the names that signed it. That is all those individuals that consented to it. Guess how many people appointed the founders to do anything?

    There is really no merit to eminent domain that essentially gives the government ownership of all property.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •