• 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!

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

20 years of this guy stealing from the state... 20 years of every court case going against him... 20 years and finally the BLM goes on land they control and removed his cattle, following the letter of the law. When is enough enough? When should we put a stop to illegal activity?

Never, according to some participants in the debate.
 
oh dear do I really need to explain basic Americanism to you?

The Government is entirely staffed by Americans. Those public servants work for us Americans. The BLM isnt staffed by a mysterious Government population, its staffed by ordinary Americans no differently than the military the US border Patrol etc. Those ****ed up militia asses were threatening to shoot ordinary working Americans.

Dawn-America-Armed-Militias_021145990077.jpg
Eric Parker from central Idaho militia

Sorry, but to conclude that "we" are the government is entirely wrong. "We" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government is the systematic predatory process over a given territorial area by political means. You're bitching about men and women standing up to an organization that more than likely they never consented to be part of, and clearly does not in any accurate sense represent them. If the government really was "us" it would represent all the people, but it's not even accurate to say it represents the majority of the people. Feel free to argue against what I just said if it makes you feel better, but I assure you what you learned in public school about how the government is "us" won't help you here.
 
Sorry, but to conclude that "we" are the government is entirely wrong. "We" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government is the systematic predatory process over a given territorial area by political means. You're bitching about men and women standing up to an organization that more than likely they never consented to be part of, and clearly does not in any accurate sense represent them. If the government really was "us" it would represent all the people, but it's not even accurate to say it represents the majority of the people. Feel free to argue against what I just said if it makes you feel better, but I assure you what you learned in public school about how the government is "us" won't help you here.

Sounds like you don't like America. Maybe you should leave?
 
If this is public land, then this guy is one of the owners of that land. So since he is an owner why cant he use it?

Because I own it too, and I say he can't, not without paying for it.
 
Because I own it too, and I say he can't, not without paying for it.

So is it accurate to say that according to you it makes sense to say everyone owns the property, but everyone has to pay the government to use it?
 
Sounds like you don't like America. Maybe you should leave?

Exactly why would I like America? What would be my reason to like it exactly?
 
So is it accurate to say that according to you it makes sense to say everyone owns the property, but everyone has to pay the government to use it?

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.
 
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.

For one thing, the idea of commonly owned property is the dumbest concept known to man. For another, controlling use of property with fees only helps those with more to spend and harms those with less. It's an absolutely ridiculous way to control the use of property. If everyone supposedly owns the property in question then you can't give favor to some over others.
 
For one thing, the idea of commonly owned property is the dumbest concept known to man. For another, controlling use of property with fees only helps those with more to spend and harms those with less. It's an absolutely ridiculous way to control the use of property. If everyone supposedly owns the property in question then you can't give favor to some over others.

First, I disagree that commonly owned property is a bad idea. Without the national forests, national parks, and lands administered by the BLM we'd all be out a great resource for both recreation and business enterprises.

Secondly, it's not controlled by fees only. You can't pay a fee, for example, and use national park land for grazing, logging, or mining.

If it's my property, then I determine who uses it, for what purpose, and at what cost. If it's our property, then we determine who uses it, for what purpose, and at what cost.

But in no case is it OK to use property you don't own all by yourself for whatever purpose you want and without paying some sort of fee. If you think it is, then go ahead, build an apartment building, then allow anyone who wants to live there rent free.
 
Maybe this will help you figure it out Wildlife for Arizona's 21st Century



or this View attachment 67164916

maybe this will aid your search for answers View attachment 67164917

who knows maybe even this picture will help View attachment 67164918

Then of course there is always this possibility View attachment 67164919
Although the photo is not from North Dakota - it could be: Much Of North Dakota's Natural Gas Is Going Up In Flames : NPR

Nope, I said the specific use that Bundy's grazing is denying some other use. This means someone else needed to have tried to use that land and could not because of Bundy. This does not mean some other group trying to use some other Public land somewhere else.
 
Because I own it too, and I say he can't, not without paying for it.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
First, I disagree that commonly owned property is a bad idea. Without the national forests, national parks, and lands administered by the BLM we'd all be out a great resource for both recreation and business enterprises.

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.

Secondly, it's not controlled by fees only. You can't pay a fee, for example, and use national park land for grazing, logging, or mining.

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 it's my property, then I determine who uses it, for what purpose, and at what cost. If it's our property, then we determine who uses it, for what purpose, and at what cost.

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 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.
 
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. :shrug:

Some theoretical possibility should not interfere with the practical reality.
 
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
 
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:
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...ween-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/
 
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.

But you don't. :shrug:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom