By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
whatever on 27 April 2014
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
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.

I personally don't believe states (or federal states) can own property, mostly because their funds and tools are stolen with the use of force. I believe the only proper way to obtain unowned land is homesteading with tools and funds that were not stolen. I believe the only proper way of obtaining owned land is by purchasing it. But let's assume the state can own land, and that this property is "publicly" owned. Let's also assume taxation is justified and all people who pay taxes must be represented in the government (this is also something I contest.) If we make those assumptions, then if one has a disagreement with how the land should be used, and they think that the federal government is unfair on permitting who should use it and for what, then it is perfectly reasonable, as a person who has at least some ownership of the land, but is forbidden from using it - to declare the government as being unfair and to disobey it. If other people agree with you, and want to participate, it makes (from this perspective) perfectly moral sense. Now let's look at this from Bundy's perspective. He doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of the federal government, and believes all of the land he is grazing is owned by the state of Nevada. Since the state of Nevada refuses to take payment for the grazing rights, it is in his eyes, implicit consent that he does not need to pay for its use. He also did attempt to pay the federal government, but found the rules too unfair, and turned to civil disobedience. 

My personal issue with this whole scenario; however, is when the government retaliates and steals (or attempts to steal) even more of  his property (in this case the cattle.) If I were using your property without your permission, and kept using it even after you expressed your disaproval, it doesn't give you the right to go to steal my property, as a means for retribution. It does give you the right, however, to seek retribution for the damage to your property from some legal means, but the value must equal the damage to your property, and I'm certain that Bundy's cattle did not eat 1 million dollars worth of grass or induce 1 million dollars worth of damage to the property. 

Just because someone doesn't recognize the legitimacy of something, doesn't make it reality.  It makes him delusional.  If land is public, then by definition, he doesn't own any of it, never mind "some" of it.

And you obviously have no idea how much damage cattle can do to an area if you think 1 million dollars is too high.  For the length of time he was using it, 1 million dollar is much too low.