the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

[Mr Khan]

sc94597 said:

Mr Khan said:

Quite rightly. There is a place for civil disobedience, but grazing fees are an acceptable part of rancher culture (the reason why even friggin' Glenn Beck ditched this guy), even if it is the feds you're paying money to. The question of federal ownership is largely peripheral to this story, which is more about a guy who thinks he can get something for nothing, what the Right would normally call a moocher.

Couldn't the bolded be said of any political injustice  that entails civil disobedience? Was racism not a culture in the Jim Crow south? What about woman and religous opression, aren't they acceptable parts of their respective cultures? It seems like a silly argument to justify whether or not something is worthy of civil disobedience by if it is unacceptable culturally, since you know civil disobedience tends to be countered against popularly held cultural (and consequently political) beliefs. That is of course, assuming a democratic society in which the law somewhat represents the views of the population. It's this principle which leads to the reason for why all attempts at liberal govenrnments limit the political process and power that is attainable and protect the rights of individiduals and minorities against majorities. 

A valid point, but grazing fees are not universally "public land grazing fees" paid to the state or federal government. Land-use is as big a part of Western American culture as land ownership is, and folks would boo this man as a moocher if he were grazing on privately held land and refusing to pay. How is it when the ownership changes, suddenly freeloading is "sticking it to the man?" It's just that the federal government happens to own a lot of land out west.