Not sure how I feel about Bunkerville...

[Ruffnek]

I've been loosely following the 'Bundy Deboccle' and the waters of right and wrong here seem murky.

On one hand,this guy quit paying for grazing rights 20 years ago.As a taxpayer,I can understand why people are angry with him.

The other hand holds the image of what appears to be a big government screw up by going in with a show of force.Normally when someone doesn't pay taxes,they have leins or frozen accounts applied to them.So why the strongarm act here?

I'm just trying to understand this whole ordeal and why people like Yeager and the Sheriff of Elkhart,IN are travelling out to Nevada to defend what appears to be a thief.I understand the anger at the strongarm tactics but fail to see the reasoning of so many people taking up arms against the government when they appear to be 'in the right'.

Please help me understand the unbiased facts here so that I can decide who I support.

 

[Henry]

You'll have to figure it out for yourself.

When faced with a risk of error, I tend to err on the side of the individual.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

I suspect most most would disagree.

 

[88GT]

To support the government you have to accept the following premises:

1. Public land isn't really public.
2. Government (federal) can unilaterally alter pre-existing agreements without penalty while simultaneously punishing other parties to the agreement for their failure to abide by the changes.
3. Government (federal) can pick and choose the consequences for "violations" based on arbitrary and capricious standards.
4. Government (federal) has any authority to own land outside of post offices and perhaps courts (and maybe a few others).


If you agree with those, then it might be easy to support the "government." But as a taxpayer, I'm not angry with him for using land that is just sitting there. Closed to the public is about the farthest thing from highest and best. At least he's being productive with that land. There is profit (and I don't just mean in the monetary sense) from his use of that land.

The fallacy of the collectively held, whether it be land, means of production, or other property, should be obvious to all, but for some reason we make exceptions and then try to rationalize the hypocrisies of the positions.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Similarly to the above, I think you have to reach your own conclusions. I tend to agree with a lot of what 88GT wrote, and add on top of it my extreme dissatisfaction with the idea that a Federal agency would deploy armed agents by the hundreds against a person accused (perhaps unjustly) of owing a tax debt.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You may also want to review the nature of the debt. Bundy's argument is that the BLM fees are fees for services rendered which it quit rendering, forcing him to provide them himself, hence he quit paying the BLM for doing things he had to do himself.

 

[ModernGunner]

As far as this case goes, it even appears murky as to who actually owns the land. The general 'anti-Bundy' group says it's the BLM, and Bundy was wrong.

However, there appears to be a LOT of land in Nevada under 'dual ownership'. So, it may be true that both the BLM AND Bundy legitimately own the land.

In numerous instances, the individual owns and has title to the 'land', the 'surface area' if you will, while the government retains mineral rights in case of a discovery of oil, gold, silver, etc.

 

[Ruffnek]

To support the government you have to accept the following premises:

1. Public land isn't really public.
Who manages the public land?
2. Government (federal) can unilaterally alter pre-existing agreements without penalty while simultaneously punishing other parties to the agreement for their failure to abide by the changes.
I don't see what agreement was altered.
3. Government (federal) can pick and choose the consequences for "violations" based on arbitrary and capricious standards.
It seems like he had 20 years to pay the taxes or remove his cattle.20 years of patience is a metric s***-ton when coming from the government.
4. Government (federal) has any authority to own land outside of post offices and perhaps courts (and maybe a few others).
U.S. Constitution Article 4,Section 3,Clause 2


If you agree with those, then it might be easy to support the "government." But as a taxpayer, I'm not angry with him for using land that is just sitting there.Why should'nt he pay the same taxes as everyone else?Closed to the public is about the farthest thing from highest and best.Agreed.At least he's being productive with that land. There is profit (and I don't just mean in the monetary sense) from his use of that land.

The fallacy of the collectively held, whether it be land, means of production, or other property, should be obvious to all, but for some reason we make exceptions and then try to rationalize the hypocrisies of the positions.

My responses in red.I'm still on the fence because I understand both sides.Bundy should pay his fees and the government should have found another way to handle this.

 

[rambone]

Do you agree with millions of tax-dollars being used to shut down a harmless rancher in the middle of the desert?

 

[Ruffnek]

No.But I also disagree with taxpayers picking up the slack that he isn't paying while he makes money from the grazing of the land.

 

[rambone]

No.But I also disagree with taxpayers picking up the slack that he isn't paying while he makes money from the grazing of the land.

There is no slack. Its the desert. Send the bureaucrats home. It costs nothing. Its not a tax burden to let cows graze.

 

[Ruffnek]

Let's put this in a different perspective.

Say a person owned a garage and there was a parking area on the next lot over that was owned by the city.Local businesses had been using the parking area for customer parking for years and paid a fee to the city for their customers to use the lot,a cost of doing business and making money.Now the owner of the garage is using the lot to park vehicles he is working on but he isn't paying the fee and hasn't for a while,he's making money with the aid of that lot but isn't paying the piper.After much time,the city comes in and begins towing cars from the lot and totals a few in the process.

This is my current understanding of the situation.

Like I said before,I think that both parties are equally guilty of turning this into a major fiasco.

 

[Steve.43]

There is no slack. Its the desert. Send the bureaucrats home. It costs nothing. Its not a tax burden to let cows graze.

Yes. I don't see why this statement isn't perfectly accurate. If the feds need something for these shock troops to do, why not put them to work guarding the borders, rather than harassing private individuals who are not really bothering anyone? My point is, really, that selective enforcement of laws is the hallmark of tyrants. This time, the citizens decided against continuing to put up with it, and it seems to me that they made their point rather effectively.

 

[88GT]

Who manages the public land?

Irrelevant. If "we" own it, then "we" should be able to use it. Keeping it off limits renders it King's land, not public land.

I don't see what agreement was altered.

So you do have all of the information. And you still can't pick a side?

It seems like he had 20 years to pay the taxes or remove his cattle.20 years of patience is a metric s***-ton when coming from the government.

So it's simply a a matter of time? If the person doesn't comply in a particular time period then it's perfectly acceptable to send the equivalent of a military response to destroy his property? It's not enough to round up the cows. Perhaps even confiscate them, sell them, and use the proceeds to mitigate his "debt." You really think dropping the cows and leaving them to rot is an acceptable response?

The other issue is arbitrary and capricious. There are literally thousands of other people in violation of the law. Some of them even for not paying their taxes. And you're going on record as saying that a SWAT response to their homes is an acceptable response?

U.S. Constitution Article 4,Section 3,Clause 2

Perhaps you don't understand the nuances of my point. I didn't say that the Feds don't have the authority to own land. The question is whether or not the Feds should own land for the collective. Public lands are the worst use of land ever.

Why should'nt he pay the same taxes as everyone else?

Who else is grazing on the land?

Seems to to me that you've more than picked your side.

 

[zippy23]

Bundy is awesome. The feds are tyrants who hate white citizens. If he was a liberal voter this would never happen. The show of force was outrageous. i'm on the side of the citizen, not the tyrannical feds.

 

[poptab]

What about that 47% who don't even pay taxes. Maybe they should be forced into work camps after being swatted at 3 am?

Look I pay a lot of taxes too but I can't begrudge bundy the use of land that I would not even think about using.

Once they kick that guy off the land what will it be use for? Nothing? Is it just going to sit there? Beef prices are already high if he grow cattle there then by all means. I love steak.

 

[JRPLANE]

I feel that the gubmint and plans for the land. It was not about Bundy's cows. The BLM and other agencies have forced people from land (private or public) for personal agendas and profit many times in the past. This was the same thing.

Think Harry Reid, China, the US tax payer would not have profited.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's put this in a different perspective.

Say a person owned a garage and there was a parking area on the next lot over that was owned by the city.Local businesses had been using the parking area for customer parking for years and paid a fee to the city for their customers to use the lot,a cost of doing business and making money.Now the owner of the garage is using the lot to park vehicles he is working on but he isn't paying the fee and hasn't for a while,he's making money with the aid of that lot but isn't paying the piper.After much time,the city comes in and begins towing cars from the lot and totals a few in the process.

This is my current understanding of the situation.

Like I said before,I think that both parties are equally guilty of turning this into a major fiasco.

How does your scenario work out if it is something more like the city operating a lawn service in which you pay a set fee to have your grass cut once a week and your sidewalks and driveway maintained as needed. They charge you this fee, just like they charged your parents this fee since before you were born. They stop cutting the grass, the sidewalk and driveway are broken up from neglect, so you stop paying for the services which are not being rendered, so you get swatted. This essentially summarizes Bundy's side of the story.

 

[Ruffnek]

I'm starting to see it like this:

The whole situation is a s***storm that should've never happened.

The federal government over reacted to what was essentially a person who was delinquent on their taxes.The fact that militias showed up was due to the militaristic response of sending hundreds of armed federal agents to round up cattle,some of whom mistreated and killed said cattle for no apparent reason.

The militias came because they did not want to see another Waco or Ruby Ridge and that's what it looks like may happen because they sent a small army for just the harmless cattle so who knows what would happen to the rancher?

The government sent this response,though it was the definition of 'going overboard',because a rancher was grazing cattle on lands that were home to a protected species and had been dedicated for use in conservation efforts.The rancher ignored federal injunctions to remove his cattle because he didn't recognize the authority of those who passed down these injunctions because the land in question is owned by the people.

The land in question is public land managed by the government that was reclassified as a habitat for an endangered species.The government attempted to buy the rancher out if his grazing rights and he said no,so they renegotiated his permits.Instead of limiting his grazing per the new permit terms,he continued doing what he wanted to do and stopped paying fees for grazing and had been continually over-grazing the land.

Still seems murky to me.I can understand both sides so it's hard for a clear cut 'right ' or 'wrong' here.

 

[88GT]

I'm starting to see it like this:

The whole situation is a s***storm that should've never happened.

The federal government over reacted to what was essentially a person who was delinquent on their taxes.The fact that militias showed up was due to the militaristic response of sending hundreds of armed federal agents to round up cattle,some of whom mistreated and killed said cattle for no apparent reason.

The militias came because they did not want to see another Waco or Ruby Ridge and that's what it looks like may happen because they sent a small army for just the harmless cattle so who knows what would happen to the rancher?

The government sent this response,though it was the definition of 'going overboard',because a rancher was grazing cattle on lands that were home to a protected species and had been dedicated for use in conservation efforts.The rancher ignored federal injunctions to remove his cattle because he didn't recognize the authority of those who passed down these injunctions because the land in question is owned by the people.

The land in question is public land managed by the government that was reclassified as a habitat for an endangered species.The government attempted to buy the rancher out if his grazing rights and he said no,so they renegotiated his permits.Instead of limiting his grazing per the new permit terms,he continued doing what he wanted to do and stopped paying fees for grazing and had been continually over-grazing the land.

Still seems murky to me.I can understand both sides so it's hard for a clear cut 'right ' or 'wrong' here.

Are you judging this from a legal point of view or a righteous point of view? It seems crystal clear to me, but then I don't accept the premises that one has to accept to give the government any credibility in this.

 

[KG1]

What about that 47% who don't even pay taxes. Maybe they should be forced into work camps after being swatted at 3 am?

Look I pay a lot of taxes too but I can't begrudge bundy the use of land that I would not even think about using.

Once they kick that guy off the land what will it be use for? Nothing? Is it just going to sit there? Beef prices are already high if he grow cattle there then by all means. I love steak.

They needed the public land for desert tortoises to graze on.