What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

Imagine the Bundy Ranch Showdown With Well Regulated Militias

Lessons from the Bundy ranch: What militias really are and why we need them.

http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/imagine-bundy-ranch-showdown-with-well.html

 

So property rights are holly unless we are talking about public land.

Anal capitalism at its best .

Oh wait, constitution is useless so you about me and my buddies "confiscating" your house ? you know without a state to safeguard and validate your property claims you can have as much stuff as you can defend.

 

What I gather from reading the linked page, and the page it links to, is that this process of gov. intrusion on our rights has been very long in the making. Indeed, it appears that back when the revolution was happening, the Brits decided that they would be better off to let the rebels believe they had won, at that time. The war was costing too much, and causing further division in the empire that was more bothersome than it was worth.
Since then, the power brokers of the world have been relentlessly at work, bringing the American rebels back into line. Times change. We have already seen that the American pork industry has been handed to the Chinese. We have recently begun to allow the importation of Chinese chickens. Aha... the Chinese are able to more efficiently produce food, while the power brokers remain rich. Let's move the cattle industry over to them as well, and start working on energy production as well. It's all moving in the direction of the one world paradigm.

 

try that again. none of it makes any sense

 

Maybe if Bundy had paid for the grazing lease I would be sympathetic.

He didn't. He should have been bounced years ago. He is worse than a welfare leach.

 

Please understand, St.James, that this guy is from Greece. He's harmless, so just humor him, and let him keep buying the drinks.
I've been learning more about the whole issue here. About how the US gov. was never intended to gain a standing military of any kind, by those who authored the CONUS. They have done it anyway, which gives a bit of background to my previous post. I can't blame Bundy for being upset with that.
I've also learned that his property was purchased in 1948, and his daddy started running cattle there when he (Cliven) was 8 years old. He really owns only 160 acres. This piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/property-records-cast-doubt-on-cliven-bundys-ancestral-claims-to-disputed-federal-land/
-shed some much needed light on the whole situation.
You see, this place isn't far from where I live, and I was considering whether I should throw in my lot with the whole thing. Now that I see the record, I believe that Bundy is in the wrong.
That being so, I do believe that our gov. should be on his side more. I'm still a little in the dark. My understanding of the whole deal with BLM land is that it is the property of the collective people. I've never had to consider how that all works out, but I've assumed that BLM administers things like wildlife management and general land use.
I think a lot about what I've seen happen in Cal. They plain kicked out the ranchers in a whole bunch of places, and declared the whole thing as wilderness. While I loathe and despise most of what politicos have done to my former home there, I have to admit that I like seeing critters that have no familiarity at all with humans.
At this stage in the game with Bundy, I believe that the gov. will indeed find a way to deal with him, and things will not go well for those who were present when the feds backed down. Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/david-hathaway/whats-next-for-the-bundys/

 

Who is Holly Useless?

Actually, the state is an organized crime ring that plunders on a scale that puts the nonstate plunderers to shame. I'll take a stateless society with real safeguards for our property & liberty. Guardians that are voluntarily hired & can be fired.

 

While Bundy's refusal to pay for the grazing lease is indefensible, he is obviously a hard-working American, who puts food on not only HIS table but the tables of all beef-eating Americans. There has been, to my understanding, no or little cost to taxpayers associated with his family's use of that land for the last 140 years, until of course they decided to send in their jack-booted thugs. MOD EDIT>>>OFF TOPIC<<<

 

So what.

He was wrong and is using some strange combination of entitlement and anti-government sentiment to plead his case. He had many opportunities to remove his cattle.

His obfuscation of him breaking a legal agreement means nothing.


MOD EDIT>>>RESPONSE TO OFF TOPIC REMOVED<<<


He agreed to pay for the grazing lease, he didn't. He wouldn't leave.

Force was required, just like if you have a tenant in a house you rent out that won't leave. You bring in the sheriff to evict.

I live in a rural area and see these type of individuals all the time who get a sense of entitlement over grazing leases on public land.

 

you are wrongfully operating under the impression that this governments has Rights. It has none. It cannot own property outside of the 36 sq mi it occupies known as DC.

 

So other than the feds, who bought the land from Mexico back in 1848?

No state existed then in the area, and the title was not extinguished when Nevada became a state.

That is fact and history. Please point me to any court ruling that states otherwise.

 

Bundy made threats. When you make threats expect law enforcement to show up in force.

 

and your point? the fed gov cannot "own" what is outside of the 36 sq mi it occupies called DC. With the exceptions of the federal court structure, and DC of course, all office spaces are either rented or leased. Even the congressmen and senators must rent or lease space in and around DC.
Here in Indiana, the military cannot establish a military base without the consent of the state government and I'm pretty sure it is that way around the rest country. The land they occupy is leased from the respective states.
Public lands are in a "trust" for the people. They are literally owned by "We", the people, not "They" the government.
Personally, I cannot see where Bundy has caused so much damage to that property that it would equal the damage done by installing a solar farm owned by the Chinese (their pollution record is soooooooo good) used to haul profits out of the country, not to be taxed.
Now, to the Bundy issue......what has this guy done that affects you so egregiously? If you are not living off the government handout program, this in no way affects you, or even me for that matter.
The money BLM is claiming he owes is not earmarked for social services (welfare, medicare, maobamacare, disability programs). That money is supposed to go for maintaining roadways, hiking trails, camp grounds all associated with the use of public lands for the all of the people. Not for philandering with the Chinese and courting up personal profit ventures for Reid and Son.

- - - Updated - - -

oh, but when the law becomes threatening, you are supposed to hit your knees and beg for forgiveness?

 

As I said earlier, point me to a court decision which substantiates your contention.

The feds bought the land from Mexico. Before Nevada was made a state. They never relinquished ownership.

Different issue and irrelevant to Bundy not posting his lease. I might even agree with you, but it is dies not change the facts of Bundy being in default.

He's a freeloader leeching off the government, hence everyone. He should have been bounced years ago.

I despise freeloaders. I don't care if they are welfare moms in a ghetto or ranchers abusing public land. One is no better than the other, and my personal expirence is more with the later.

 

You missed my point. The poster to which I replied inferred that Bundy was 'worse than a welfare leach {sic}'. I was merely pointing out that Bundy, at least, produced something for the good of society, and therefore was 'better than a welfare leech'. Reading for comprehension comes with practice, keep at it!

 

First off, welfare mommas do not contribute from the trough they drink from. That's a real leech. Corrupt politicians force you to pay for their corruption, grand larceny. Law enforcement and the local courts earn their paycheck at the point of a gun, outright theft. These people account for trillions and trillions.
And you're hung up on one guy, whom you allege is failing to pay for your care and up-keep?
And in case you have forgotten, without a court order to remove those cattle, those rosebud LEO just became rustlers. So the only people who can bend the rules or violate the law is the government? Why is that?

 

Your logic escapes me.

Bundy has lost any court case he tried to weasel out of his obligations.

Bundy is being enriched illegally and immorally by not paying his lease. Why should he get free grass when millions of other farmers don't.

He is a criminal leech.

 

I say if they can farm that land, even enough to feed their families, then let them.
But by and large, nothing that amounts to anything will grow there. Just to put it in perspective he was grazing around 150 head of cattle on 35,000 acres....it deprives you of nothing, personally. You've probably enjoyed his beef.
Courts do not always get it right.

 

It doesn't matter if your stealing .03 cents or $1500.00.

Both are stealing. Just because there is a low AUM index doesn't mean he didn't benefit by getting free grass.

And if you don't know what AUM is without looking it up, you don't understand the issue.

Nor do you understand range land ecology. I do.

 

oh, so a solar farm and all of its construction, designed for Chinese profit is soooooooooo much better. Now, if you were complaining about sheep, I might say that an ecological impact needs to be done because they eat the roots as well as the stalks.
Their poo is the next best thing to guano for fertilizer.
they cannot consume all of the grass that is there.
Why not take a stand for what is Right instead of relying upon those chair-polishing bastards out of DC spout as rhetoric.
The courts don't always get it right, and you know it. Backing bad law is still backing bad law, no matter how you color it "legal".......
Why not stand beside your fellow American?
Where is your line in the sand for government intrusion?

 

Different issue totally.

Open a new thread on that, and we may agree on some of those issues.

It had nothing to do with Bundy leeching off public land.

There is no defense for what Bundy had done.

Only excuses.

 

so, you wont draw a line in the sand........nice, but you'll feed your neighbors to the beast called government...nice....

 

Ah the wet dream of the anacaps ; so in your ideal world only those who can pay for liberty and security can enjoy it and the more they can pay the more they can have of both.

The state is manned by products of society, where you think politicians grew up in the moon ? when society generates criminal minds in big doses no system can save you .

 

Now Bundy thinks "the Negro" would be better of as a slave picking cotton.

What a loser.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cliven-bundy-racist-comments-slaves-ranch-2014-4

 

really, how droll. How does this affect the scope of things since you dragged the race issue card into a debate about grazing rights?
How does this alter what Reid and Son have done? I thing you are deliberately distracting from the events on hand....