. . . That doesn't really pass the scrutiny of real life. The types who showed up to his ranch are no different than the kind of people who show up to any protest, be it against wall street, or the UN, or whaling, it's just the specific flavor and the issue that changes.
Accusing a rancher of forming his ranch into a psuedo-feudal system is more than a little ridiculous.
When groups of organized private individuals oppose legal government action with lethal force over political issues, we call that "domestic terrorism". They're around a hair away from that in Arizona right now, and all it'll take is one idiot deciding that he's going to stand his ground a bit more emphatically. Also, they're literally occupying public land and forcing citizens to comply with their desires in the pursuit of the agenda of a single individual.
No, I perfectly meant illegal. It's illegal for the federal government to take personal property without the approval of the State (and Nevada specifically disagreed with the Federal decision here). More likely though, the presence of armed protesters is an incredible, incredible deterrent to police brutality.
The government took over the management of land that'd been grazed by his family for literally decades and legal action was pursed by both sides in a bunch of different courts for a number of years. When court cases continued to decide in favor of Bundy, the government's response was to force the issue with the threat of force.
Taken directly from the constitution of Nevada, codified in 1864:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States
Bundy's claim dates to 1880. Furthermore, the Bunkerville Allotment, like much of the land in the Southwest, was purchased from Mexico by the federal government in 1848. Additionally, there is a statute known as the Taylor Grazing Act, passed in the 1930s, which specifically states that issuance of a grazing permit does not create ownership. His family grazed their herds on public land.
So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.
Sorry bro, as someone who makes his bread and butter by being naked government force, the act of motivated, organized protesters kinda shows that the government is in the wrong. If it issue isn't important enough for BLM to escalate, then it's not exactly the kind of issue worth trying to back charge a guy for decades of arguable use of land
Sorry bro, but not doing the research and believing that the ability to threaten with deadly force equates to a just cause kinda shows that that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Incidentally, you said in the same post that armed protestors are a good deterrent to police brutality? Guess what else they're good at deterring? Apart from the BLM agents that tried to move the herd and were forced to leave at gunpoint, that is.
Granted, the BLM is rather heavyhanded, but government straying from the ideal doesn't give people the right to start carving out private fiefdoms, especially when the motivating factor behind it is naked greed and misrepresentation of founding principles.
Author
Topic: Things that made you RRRRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE today: Trust-o-nomics Edition (Read 3772674 times)