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. 

This was BS. A racsist racher didn't think he had to pay the fees that anybody else would - he abused public land for his own benefit, and then threatened the people in charge of enforcing the rules. This is a story of a racist farmer ripping the nation and the American people off for his own benefit. I am sorry you feel like it was a positive thing.

@ Vitro and others who make that argument. 

If the land is indeed public, it is not excludable.

So the land is either a private good or a club good. Do you believe government should own private goods or club goods?  

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. 

Mr Khan said: mai said: Mr Khan said:   The image i posted was a joke which you might not get (or might, if the rumors about Russia getting America's old sitcoms on TV are true), based on a TV character with the last name of Bundy. As for the case in question, the BLM Officers have backed off their efforts to seize his cattle for the moment, but the government's not just going to let this guy get his way. There's all sorts of stuff they could do, though, like place a tax lien against his cattle making any proceeds from sale of the cattle go straight into the government's coffers (taking away the money the cattle could earn without having to physically take the cattle). It would be better for all involved if they solved this peacefully, especially for the wives of the militiamen, as the militiamen apparently wanted to use them as meat shields? Patriotism at work, folks.

Russia actually has their own married with children.

There's a movement to do it, but generally the Federal government's stance has been to ignore the states, even when they pass laws demanding the state gives them their land.

Like Utah did in 2011.  Utah passed a law demanding the fedral government hand over the land and disperse it like they originally agreed to, and the federal government has basically just ignored them and took the state to court.

Generally the problem is that the enabling clauses in the western states constituions giving them control of the land were MEANT to be so private citizens didn't just start claiming private land left and right as soon as they got in the state, while the states distributed the land slowly over the course of a decade or two.

What happened in reality was, the states basically just held on to it.

Basically the federal government is welching on it's obligation and relying on the federal primacy law to do it.

Thats actually one of the problems here. Federal agencies, instead of working with local law enforcemnet, have decided to arm themselves, and arm them selves well. Mind you these are not people who are trained through the military. Almost every federal agency has a SWAT like unit. Why the need? You would think they would be able to work with local law enforcement.

this talks about some of them and how they have been growing http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund

To the rest complaing about him not paying tax, if you actually read up on it they basically taxed him out of operation, one of the things the revolution was fought over, they put taxes in place so unreasonable (not only because of the amount of the tax but the limit on cattle) that it was not possible to pay the tax. but to be honest if you guys aren't willing to research it id rather not discuss with you.

The drones says hallo..

(now we cant even make a revolution.. 10 persons can controll the world)

Its like you didnt even read the thread. Bundy (a rancher, not even of the state, with his militia allys) was able to put the feds back. I think a state would just fine. You have to remeber, the US government cant start shooting at Utahs populace with out reprocussions elseware. So they have to ask themselves, is it worth a potential greater uprising and loss of life to take control of the land or to relinquish it. With how easy it is for info to travel on the net it would be hard pressed for the US government to ever justify it.