• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the rancher in nevada wrong about not paying for grazing to the gov?

was the rancher right or wong

  • Total voters
    38
plutonium

plutonium

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
302
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Was the rancher with the cattle right or wrong about paying the gov. for grazing rights on government land? .was he a freeloader.... the rest of us pay to use the streets ,roads, fire dept parks etc. with taxes this land belongs to the people of the united states it does not belong to him so he should pay us to use it/ graze cattle
 
Last edited:
He was wrong. It's that simple.

Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
 
Gipper said:
He was wrong. It's that simple.

Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
Click to expand...

He is breaking the law and trying to avoid penalty.
 
Sure he was. He just happens to be the beneficiary of a populist narrative that paints the federal government as a bad actor no matter the actual circumstances.
 
Gipper said:
Frankly, he did a good job of it for the better part of two decades.
Click to expand...

And...now he has a bunch of tea party cowboys trying to help him continue doing so.
 
tecoyah said:
And...now he has a bunch of tea party cowboys trying to help him continue doing so.
Click to expand...

Figures.

I'm hoping that even libertarians wouldn't support this. Just because it's government, doesn't mean it's not stealing and a violation of property rights.
 
The third option, hasn't this already been thoroughly litigated in the court system and the rancher has lost?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The third option, hasn't this already been thoroughly litigated in the court system and the rancher has lost?
Click to expand...

It as litigated in the wrong court. How are you gonna have a Federal judge rule on a case where the plaintiff is the Federal government?

Nah, no conflict of interest there...

It should have been decided in a State court.
 
I don't like the federal government at all, but this is silly if you think the government is in the wrong. If they were telling him what to do on HIS land, then it would be a different story, but come on now. Talk about being greedy.
 
ChezC3 said:
It as litigated in the wrong court. How are you gonna have a Federal judge rule on a case where the plaintiff is the Federal government?

Nah, no conflict of interest there...

It should have been decided in a State court.
Click to expand...

That is just plain stupid. Had it been state land and state law applied it would have been litigated in the state court system. As it was federal land and federal law applied it was litigated in the federal courts. As to your "conflict of interest" argument, I guess the entire concept of a separation of powers is an alien one to you.
 
Gipper said:
He was wrong. It's that simple.

Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
Click to expand...

His argument is that his hereditary rights of land use trump BLM custodianship. It was fought in a Federal court, it should have been in a State court.


The BLM had no right to confiscate his property. A lien against his holdings is the way they should have went about this, not a cattle round up.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is just plain stupid. Had it been state land and state law applied it would have been litigated in the state court system. As it was federal land and federal law applied it was litigated in the federal courts. As to your "conflict of interest" argument, I guess the entire concept of a separation of powers is an alien one to you.
Click to expand...



No, it is not plain stupid. Calling that which you disagree with stupid is childish. Grow the F up...
 
Gipper said:
He was wrong. It's that simple.

Observe property rights or pay the price. The government has just as much right to land ownership as you or I. Unfortunately, thanks to Eminent Domain, more than you or I.
Click to expand...

His argument was not that he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees, rather that the federal government is not the legitimate owner of the land, thus should not receive payment. Bundy attempted to pay the fees to the county government.

The land was not seized via eminent domain. It was originally owned by the federal government as a territory, yes. But after Nevada became a state, it should have been relinquished to the state as sovereign territory. At that point, the federal government would have only been allowed to purchase land with the consent of the state legislature.

This is why the fact that the federal government owns over 80% of Nevada is absurd on it's face. It was not intended to be that way.

According to Bundy, when he started out there were 50 other ranchers and now he is the last one. Perhaps the fees are too exorbitant, even if he is capable of paying them.
 
plutonium said:
Was the rancher with the cattle right or wrong about paying the gov. for grazing rights on government land? .was he a freeloader.... the rest of us pay to use the streets ,roads, fire dept parks etc. with taxes this land belongs to the people of the united states it does not belong to him so he should pay us to use it/ graze cattle
Click to expand...

He's a freeloader. Most of the ranchers pay what they owe and he should not get away with breaking the law. I'm surprised some republican politicians have supported him when typically they tend to be staunchly against freeloaders.
 
He is definitely in the wrong in relation to the law.

But the fellas who threw a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor back in 1773 were also wrong as far as the law was concerned.

The way Fed LEOs descended on that place with snipers and armor vehicles and wanna-be Blackwater mercenaries in tacticool armor and camouflage and set up "1st Amendment Zones" made an absolute mockery of the Constitution.

But after income tax, property tax, RAMPANT eminent domain abuse, DHS, extrajudicial killing of American citizens, NDAA, NSA spying, Fast-n-Furious, Ben Ghazi, Solyndra, IRS targeting political opponents, ACA, AG Perjury, etc... ad nauseum it was only the latest affront to the dignity of a free people.

This went from being about a freeloading rancher to everything that is wrong with our government and whhat is wrong with our government, in relation to the law, is infinitely worse than what is wrong with this rancher.
 
ChezC3 said:
No, it is not plain stupid. Calling that which you disagree with stupid is childish. Grow the F up...
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but sometimes an argument is not one that has merit but I simply disagree with. Sometimes an argument is plain stupid. For example, to argue that federal law should be adjudicated in the state court system because "there is a conflict of interest" is just plain stupid. We have a separation of powers in this country and an independent judiciary. This is 4th Grade Civics we are talking about.
 
Monserrat said:
He's a freeloader. Most of the ranchers pay what they owe and he should not get away with breaking the law. I'm surprised some republican politicians have supported him when typically they tend to be staunchly against freeloaders.
Click to expand...

Freeloading only applies to the cases which they say are valid.
 
tecoyah said:
And...now he has a bunch of tea party cowboys trying to help him continue doing so.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the cowboys were really cowoboys. I would not be surprised if most of these protesters were just far right goons claiming to be "cowboys" to increase their legitimacy (much in the same way that some far left goons in the past claimed to be "workers").

ChezC3 said:
The BLM had no right to confiscate his property. A lien against his holdings is the way they should have went about this, not a cattle round up.
Click to expand...
And had they resorted to the round up on day one of non payment and after only one court order, I would agree with you.

But, Bundy had three court orders against him and it was day what.... 3,000 (+) of his refusal to comply.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot 88 said:
His argument was not that he shouldn't have to pay grazing fees, rather that the federal government is not the legitimate owner of the land, thus should not receive payment. Bundy attempted to pay the fees to the county government.

The land was not seized via eminent domain. It was originally owned by the federal government as a territory, yes. But after Nevada became a state, it should have been relinquished to the state as sovereign territory. At that point, the federal government would have only been allowed to purchase land with the consent of the state legislature.

This is why the fact that the federal government owns over 80% of Nevada is absurd on it's face. It was not intended to be that way.

According to Bundy, when he started out there were 50 other ranchers and now he is the last one. Perhaps the fees are too exorbitant, even if he is capable of paying them.
Click to expand...

1. The issue of federal land being transferred to a state upon that state being granted statehood is adjudicated in congress at the time statehood is granted.

2. If the rancher has an issue with the federal government owning 80% of the land in Nevada, then he is free to petition his representatives to change that or support candidates that share his view. However, most likely the land being desert has little value, and the state does not want much of it because it would lose money on it. That is why a lot of land is in BLM hands rather than state or private hands. The BLM loses money managing it, grazing and usage fees only partially offset that. Usually the state doesn't want it because the state doesn't want to lose money on it.

3. Perhaps the reason why he is the only rancher left out there is because he is grazing his cattle in a desert and competing with ranchers in the plains and Midwest that can raise far more cattle, for less expense, on less land because that land is more suitable for agricultural purposes.
 
Monserrat said:
He's a freeloader. Most of the ranchers pay what they owe and he should not get away with breaking the law. I'm surprised some republican politicians have supported him when typically they tend to be staunchly against freeloaders.
Click to expand...

What about the 20 million illegal Mexicans, are they freeloaders too?
 
His argument is that his hereditary rights of land use trump BLM custodianship. It was fought in a Federal court, it should have been in a State court.
Click to expand...

He claims that his Mormon ancestors where there before the federal government, true. We should point him in the direction of the nearest reservation so he understands what the value of that claim is.

Of course, I am talking about his illegal grazing activities, not the ranch his family homesteaded. After the federal government created that program and gave people the right to some acreage in exchange for living there.

But after income tax, property tax, RAMPANT eminent domain abuse, DHS, extrajudicial killing of American citizens, NDAA, NSA spying, Fast-n-Furious, Ben Ghazi, Solyndra, IRS targeting political opponents, ACA, AG Perjury, etc ad-nauseum it was only the latest affront to the dignity of a free people.
Click to expand...

Bro you serious?

Manifest destiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This country was literally built on the idea of using the federal government to force people from their land and redistribute it to white settlers. Or should I say grazers?
 
Ray410 said:
What about the 20 million illegal Mexicans, are they freeloaders too?
Click to expand...

Not if they are paying their taxes and not making their livelihood stealing from the Government. So no, not at all.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sorry, but sometimes an argument is not one that has merit but I simply disagree with. Sometimes an argument is plain stupid. For example, to argue that federal law should be adjudicated in the state court system because "there is a conflict of interest" is just plain stupid. We have a separation of powers in this country and an independent judiciary. This is 4th Grade Civics we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Still doubling down. Considering that the position I gave was one that I was convinced of by an argument made from a former Superior Court judge I think I'm gonna side with him rather than some smart ass keyboard cowboy that doesn't know his ass from his elbow... Perhaps if you made it past 4th grade civics you'd understand some of the intricacies which I won't waste my time on you with in explaining...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
3. Perhaps the reason why he is the only rancher left out there is because he is grazing his cattle in a desert and competing with ranchers in the plains and Midwest that can raise far more cattle, for less expense, on less land because that land is more suitable for agricultural purposes.
Click to expand...

If you're going to get mad at the federal government over this, get mad at the fact that corn industry is so overwhelmingly subsidized that the seasonal, and healthier, grazing cow ranches are almost completely out of business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom