| whatever said: 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. |
We are talking about civil disobedience, legitimacy of laws and authority is the entire basis of the concept. And if land is public then it is also by definition non-excludable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludable
In economics, a good or service is called excludable if it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it
But the land is a common good, which is also non excludable but rivalrous.
