Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[voliol]

Bundy himself might not be the biggest threat, but should the idea become widespread the federal government would actually have lost power over parts of Nevada (or even worse).

I don't see a problem with that.

But the federal government does, because if it loses its power it would... well, lose its power. It makes it harder to keep up the whole united states schtick, which is more or less why the federal government exists in the first place.

Basically, if you argue that a certain autonomous/sovereign zone is A-OK (or that a response against them would be ”batshit”) then you should also argue that the original holding of that zone is unjustified in itself. Which is okay, I’m personally of that opinion regarding CHOP, that the police force didn’t deserve the power they exercised, and that keeping them away was thus the right course of action.

[scriver]

Coinage talk: In Sweden we no longer have ears (our cents/pennies/decimale currency) but only Crowns since maybe 5-10 years back.

I no longer carry cash despite absolutely hating the change to digital.

Actually that's not true but none of the cash I carry is still in use thanks to that change 5-10 years back.

But the part of hating the change to digital is 150% true.

[Dostoevsky]

For what it's worth, there's a lot of extra baggage in the Bundy situation. As the article notes, the fellow's been illegally grazing cattle on public lands for quite a while without paying. On land that's habitat for an endangered species. There's also the longstanding 'sovereign citizen' stuff going on. Circumstances surrounding the 'why' of Bundy's actions over the decades and the CHAZ/CHOP are quite a bit different, though I'm not going to claim the latter was a purely right/wonderful thing.

Interesting to compare the federal response in the Bundy standoff to that in the CHAZ, though I suspect that's as much due to the different president as it is due to race / other factors.

As to this rumored new zone, I'd need to see more evidence.

[voliol]

Coinage talk: In Sweden we no longer have ears (our cents/pennies/decimale currency) but only Crowns since maybe 5-10 years back.

Wikipedia claims ”öre” has to do with Latin ”aurum”, not ”öra”. Sadly, as ”in Sweden we no longer have ears” would be even funnier if it was technically correct.

Note that SEK is valued significantly less than USD/EUR/GBP, so our least coin (1 krona) is very roughly a US dime. I still find uses for those myself. Our ”penny” (10 öre) was withdrawn in '92 though.

[scriver]

Coinage talk: In Sweden we no longer have ears (our cents/pennies/decimale currency) but only Crowns since maybe 5-10 years back.

Wikipedia claims ”öre” has to do with Latin ”aurum”, not ”öra”. Sadly, as ”in Sweden we no longer have ears” would be even funnier if it was technically correct.

It's ears because they're below the crown

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note that SEK is valued significantly less than USD/EUR/GBP, so our least coin (1 krona) is very roughly a US dime.

Yeah but so is the danish crown and ears that was brought up yesterpage

[Starver]

Coinage talk: In Sweden we no longer have ears (our cents/pennies/decimale currency)

Ears? I thought "(O)re", in whatever variation of 'o' the various local brands of scandiwegian decided to plump for, meant "Gold". (i.e rooted from the local Auric root-word, not the Aural one). Probably for the same reason as the Guilder.

Though it probably hasn't been actual gold for so long, maybe it got misconstrued and then popularised as ears for... reasons. Minted at one point with a king's head posesssing rather prominent ears?


Don't mind me, I just find this sort of thing far too interesting for my own good.

Whoops, it appears that I was very ninjaed. Didn't think anyone would do that, on this subject, so I didn't even check.

Pbbbttt....

[Maximum Spin]

But the federal government does, because if it loses its power it would... well, lose its power. It makes it harder to keep up the whole united states schtick, which is more or less why the federal government exists in the first place.

Interestingly, the federal government does not actually have that power in the Constitution.

Basically, if you argue that a certain autonomous/sovereign zone is A-OK (or that a response against them would be ”batshit”) then you should also argue that the original holding of that zone is unjustified in itself.

This is false and also, to be honest, mind-numbingly stupid. "I think the original possession was unjustified somehow" and "I just don't care about the change" are different degrees. When land is not owned by anyone (the federal government is not a person and does not deserve rights), nobody lives on it, and nobody is harmed in any way by the adverse use, I just don't care.

On top of that, I also happen to consider settlement a valid form of title. For example, the ownership by settlement of current Americans of American land is entirely valid.

Which is okay, I’m personally of that opinion regarding CHOP, that the police force didn’t deserve the power they exercised, and that keeping them away was thus the right course of action.

This is somehow even dumber than the previous thing. You know the police don't actually own Capitol Hill, right? CHAZ wasn't adversely possessing against the police, they were adversely possessing against local homeowners by seizing their right to the public facilities in their neighbourhood, such as their right to have cops. And of course the cops deserve the power they exercise, it was voluntarily given to them by the property owners. If keeping them away was the right course of action or not, that decision belongs to THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, not you.

For what it's worth, there's a lot of extra baggage in the Bundy situation. As the article notes, the fellow's been illegally grazing cattle on public lands for quite a while without paying.

The funny thing is that by adverse possession laws this gives him a better claim: the federal government hadn't cared yet, so they have less right to suddenly decide they care. I don't actually agree with this, but most people do... when it applies to people.

On land that's habitat for an endangered species.

(Everywhere is habitat for endangered species and also endangered species should be allowed to go extinct naturally because that's what evolution is)

There's also the longstanding 'sovereign citizen' stuff going on.

And this is totally irrelevant, being a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean he doesn't still have the same actual rights as everyone else.

[Maximum Spin]

Coinage talk: In Sweden we no longer have ears (our cents/pennies/decimale currency)

Ears? I thought "(O)re", in whatever variation of 'o' the various local brands of scandiwegian decided to plump for, meant "Gold". (i.e rooted from the local Auric root-word, not the Aural one). Probably for the same reason as the Guilder.

Though it probably hasn't been actual gold for so long, maybe it got misconstrued and then popularised as ears for... reasons. Minted at one point with a king's head posesssing rather prominent ears?

Separately, it's probably worth pointing out that the Germanic reflexes of that root usually mean "bronze" or other base metals (and the English derivative is 'ore')!

[Dostoevsky]

The funny thing is that by adverse possession laws this gives him a better claim: the federal government hadn't cared yet, so they have less right to suddenly decide they care. I don't actually agree with this, but most people do... when it applies to people.

Sorry, adverse possession wouldn't work here. The government kept on his case the whole time, winning several court cases over the years. If they never brought a case against him he would've had a shot at that.

(Everywhere is habitat for endangered species and also endangered species should be allowed to go extinct naturally because that's what evolution is)

This is also arguably false. All land is probably habitat for a species that was alive as some point, but not for a species that is currently alive and can still be saved.

(There are admittedly a few groups arguing basically the entire lower 48 is critical habitat for a few currently alive species, but as you might imagine that argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in court.)

From a certain interpretation of evolution everything man does to destroy habitat would count as 'natural' and thus normal evolutionary pressure, but that also pretty much washes one's hands of the consequences of our actions. Ultimately that's a philosophical question so it's not like I can say you're wrong, but I certainly do disagree with that notion.

Furthermore, current federal law (for several decades now) is what applies. Agree or not, the guy broke the law continuously for over two decades while racking up court losses and massive fines.

And this is totally irrelevant, being a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean he doesn't still have the same actual rights as everyone else.

This is true; I was referring to this as explaining his theory as to why he was in the right despite losing multiple court cases over the decades.

[Maximum Spin]

The funny thing is that by adverse possession laws this gives him a better claim: the federal government hadn't cared yet, so they have less right to suddenly decide they care. I don't actually agree with this, but most people do... when it applies to people.

Sorry, adverse possession wouldn't work here. The government kept on his case the whole time, winning several court cases over the years. If they never brought a case against him he would've had a shot at that.

Ah, that's fair then.

This is also arguably false. All land is probably habitat for a species that was alive as some point, but not for a species that is currently alive and can still be saved.
(There are admittedly a few groups arguing basically the entire lower 48 is critical habitat for a few currently alive species, but as you might imagine that argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in court.)

The problem is that they are literally correct. The argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in court only because people don't care about endangered species that much.

From a certain interpretation of evolution everything man does to destroy habitat would count as 'natural' and thus normal evolutionary pressure, but that also pretty much washes one's hands of the consequences of our actions.

That's my position, yes. Obviously you can disagree, I was merely asserting my own opinion as a parenthetical aside.

[Dostoevsky]

The problem is that they are literally correct. The argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in court only because people don't care about endangered species that much.

Er, perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here, but no? Any given species does not have the entire world as its habitat. It requires certain temperature ranges, sometimes specific other prey/plant species present, etc. etc.

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act there's a fiddly definition (of course) of what "critical habitat" means, which comes down to factors like historical range (for a certain definition of historical).

[Either way I'm getting a little off course here.]

[Maximum Spin]

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act there's a fiddly definition (of course) of what "critical habitat" means, which comes down to factors like historical range (for a certain definition of historical).

This is my point: what is defined as "critical habitat" and what are defined as "endangered species" are mostly political decisions made based on factors like "who don't want a vacant lot near their vacation homes developed because it would increase traffic/block the view/bring in the poors", not actual concern for real endangered species: virtually everywhere on the planet is actually inhabited by at least one endangered species, but nobody cares about that.

(ETA: And I assure you that federal bureaucrats are definitely always on the lookout for excuses to use the ESA to increase their power over federal and other land, too.)

[Dostoevsky]

This is my point: what is defined as "critical habitat" and what are defined as "endangered species" are mostly political decisions made based on factors like "who don't want a vacant lot near their vacation homes developed because it would increase traffic/block the view/bring in the poors", not actual concern for real endangered species: virtually everywhere on the planet is actually inhabited by at least one endangered species, but nobody cares about that.

Er, no? That is, to the virtually everywhere on the planet part. There are lots and lots of endangered species, but there's also plenty of land where the only species present are very common ones.

And while the ESA has plenty of flaws it's also pretty decently science-based compared to a lot of other endangered species laws. Outside of that 'lower 48' claim I mentioned (which was to one of the wolf species, if I recall) even if the most radical environmental groups won every spurious claim they made on endangered species law that'd still leave the majority of the country restriction-free.

[Maximum Spin]

Er, no? That is, to the virtually everywhere on the planet part. There are lots and lots of endangered species, but there's also plenty of land where the only species present are very common ones.

I don't know what to tell you, that's just... not true. Are you maybe forgetting invertebrates?

And while the ESA has plenty of flaws it's also pretty decently science-based compared to a lot of other endangered species laws. Outside of that 'lower 48' claim I mentioned (which was to one of the wolf species, if I recall) even if the most radical environmental groups won every spurious claim they made on endangered species law that'd still leave the majority of the country restriction-free.

That's (radical environmentalist groups trying to blanket the country) not the problem at all, the problem is mostly rich Californians — not just Californians, but often Californians — getting land declared critical habitat to block development. This, obviously, doesn't cover much of the country at all, just the parts rich (metaphorical) Californians don't want developed.

[Dostoevsky]

Not forgetting invertebrates, or more simple creatures like bacteria. Though I won't claim to know 100% sure, and would be interested to see scientific claims otherwise. (Honestly; not being cheeky.)

As to the CA aspect, CA has its own ESA-equivalent I'm not terribly familiar with so can't comment there. Like a lot of CA environmental laws it's rather more stringent than the federal one, though.