Early Retirement Extreme Forums

This came up in the DOOM! thread and I didn't want to continue derailing it. Apparently the Bureau of Land Management had a standoff over the weekend with a Nevada Rancher named Cliven Bundy and hundreds of protestors who arrived to prevent the BLM from confiscating his cattle. I hadn't even heard about it in the MSM (surprise, surprise).

http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-bundy-ranch-688/

http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-you ... being-told

And my favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb0qJLhea8

"This is what the government calls an attempt to resolve the matter administratively and judicially, which is: give us all your cattle which we will sell to pay the fines we imposed upon you to save a tortoise that we are currently murdering ourselves, or--we will shoot your family."



Not sure what to make of all this, but it sure is crazy.

I think this is a good test case for DHS and other agencies to see how armed citizens react to certain situations. They can use it to adapt future policies in case of domestic emergencies (e.g. what happens if the government needs to confiscate farm food during a famine and the farmer isn't willing to take fiat currency?)

I'm guessing drones will be more useful in a future situation, though I've seen years ago on some TV show a vehicle that could use sound, or launch tear gas, etc. Small arms won't penetrate armored vehicle and if they want to shoot at drones it's not-a-big-deal. If someone like DHS was willing to use additional non-lethal force, I think the protestors could safely be arrested without the government having to resort to real violence.

I'm just glad the feds had the wisdom and restraint to do what they did.... The loss of face must be hard for some of them to accept. We'll see what happens next (hopefully no swat death squads).

Spartan_Warrior wrote: http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-bundy-ranch-688/

On Friday, Paul told Cavuto that the Bundy family “had virtual ownership of that land because they had been using it,” yet the law is “not clean enough.”

My family has been using the sidewalks in our neighborhood for generations. If I want to put a food cart on "our" sidewalk I would have to get a permit and pay a fee. How does this differ?

@Ego: From what I can gather, the difference is that in your example, your family has already been running the food cart for generations before the government decides to start hassling you with fees and permits. Additionally, even after paying the fees, the government puts an arbitrary limit on how many hot dogs your food court can sell.

At the end of the day, though, it seems pretty obvious that the Bundy family is, legally speaking, in the wrong--eminent domain and all that.

The more interesting part of the story to me is all the conspiracy theories--from Harry Reid and Chinese solar panels to the endangered desert tortoise. Also, the broader question of whether what the government claims as its legal right is, in fact, right, i.e. just/moral.

Don't forget the NWO. The comments on the one video were completely delusional.

firefighterjeff wrote:

jennypenny wrote:It doesn't matter if the Nevada rancher was right or not. My point was that the word went out (my inbox lit up that day) and people immediately headed to Nevada to help. That's the part that's significant to my mind. It made me think that people who've bunkered up aren't necessarily alone after all. A loose network of people with similar mindsets seems to be developing.

Well, I would disagree about being right or wrong. But yes, people will band together and can thwart immediate action. The government doesn't want another Waco. I really dislike using law enforcement as pawns for your agenda however. Every jackass out there has a phone with video capabilities that they are hoping to use to their advantage, even if it involves provocation and heavy editing.

I guess I see this as the federal government using Bundy and others as pawns to further their agenda, too. Did it seem like an appropriate use of force? It seemed like a show of force more than an attempt to resolve the situation to me. I am very supportive of local law enforcement. I'm a little sick of it at the federal level. Does every government agency need a swat team?

To go back to Ego's example, if authorities tried to shut the family business down, I would be very pleased to see all of the neighbors come out to show support and make sure Ego's family was treated fairly. That's what I think happened here (minus the ubiquitous youtube idiot brigade present at any newsworthy event).

Ego wrote:

Spartan_Warrior wrote: http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-bundy-ranch-688/

On Friday, Paul told Cavuto that the Bundy family “had virtual ownership of that land because they had been using it,” yet the law is “not clean enough.”

My family has been using the sidewalks in our neighborhood for generations. If I want to put a food cart on "our" sidewalk I would have to get a permit and pay a fee. How does this differ?

Actually, if you let your neighbor build their fence over your property, eventually in many places it becomes theirs. There are similar rules for access/use as well. It is even less straightforward when it comes to cattle and grazing- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-range_grazing

A friend sent me a couple links about this, and I think the context JP originally posted it in is right, a few armed people can stop the government (as if we need this demonstrated after the wars in the ME)...at least while we're still in the epoch of the gun...but regarding who was wrong here, I have no idea and don't care to guess...

firefighterjeff wrote:The guy didn't pay the fees necessary to lease land that didn't belong to him; the government sought payment through confiscation of his cattle. Isn't that the gist of it? Am I missing something here?

Yes you are... Many of the traditional western occupations have basically been shutdown through federal policies... I imagine Nevada rancher is a difficult life. Here's some background:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... are-coming

"He notes that more than 50 other ranchers have been bankrupted, intimidated, and forced to give up their land and legal property rights. He is, he points out, “the last man standing”; and now that generations of ranching families have been driven out"
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... v-face-off

This has been his family's way of life for 150 years... I'm not saying he is right, but he clearly feels like he doesn't have a lot of options.

firefighterjeff wrote:Regarding the swat team reference, law enforcement is screwed whatever they do or don't do. They are placed in a no-win situation every day of their careers and I guarantee you that none of them are enjoying being part of this circus.

I've had jobs I didn't like, jobs I didn't agree with morally, jobs that were too dangerous, jobs that were thankless... You know what I did? I refused orders and sometimes I found another job.

@JohnnyH - both links say the Bundy land is being confiscated and that Bundy is being denied grazing permits. As far as I can tell, Bundy never held title to the land and the grazing rights/permits can continue as long as he pays the fees. Bundy hasn't paid the fees... he said he tried to pay the county, which naturally declined the payment since it's Federal land these days. Bundy refuses to pay the fees to the current manager of the lands. Federal agents/contractors are removing the trespassing cattle... those cattle are consuming resources that rightfully can be used by ranchers who have paid their grazing fees. I don't see any Bundy-titled land being confiscated, so it seems to be hyperbole on the part of his backers.

What I see is a guy who dodged the fees for the use of land for 20 years now using guys with guns to enforce that state of affairs against the law.

Imagine the land were privately owned.

The whole circus looks completely absurd to me.

So the fact that his family had been grazing this [almost useless and uninhabited] land since before there was a BLM or before there were any fees is irrelevant?

JohnnyH wrote:So the fact that his family had been grazing this [almost useless and uninhabited] land since before there was a BLM or before there were any fees is irrelevant?

Tragedy of the commons. Regulation is often a necessary evil.

I don't think TotC is coming into play (we're talking 1 struggling rancher w/ less than 1k cattle)... People who have been using the land since before the regulatory body existed should get some kind of Grandfathering. Federal regulatory body shouldn't be able to redefine the rules and fees at their whim.

For native Americans this is accepted as a matter of course... For white rancher, even though the time frame is very close to the establishment of many reservations, not so much.

BLM land should be managed by the states, that seems very clear.

JohnnyH wrote:So the fact that his family had been grazing this [almost useless and uninhabited] land since before there was a BLM or before there were any fees is irrelevant?

Yes. Can't whoever owns land begin to impose a fee? If it were a private landowner suddenly commanding a fee for the use of his land, would not paying those fees be justified? Or do they have a right to free government land as a subsidy to their cattle business? I really try to see the case here, but I just can't.

@Felix: In the American west there are countless examples of people using the land before it was even part of a state. Their use precedes any supposed government ownership (We claim this land for Spain!).

Secondly, the federal government is NOT a private landowner, this is PUBLIC land... More and more they're excluding access to it, frustrating people who have historically earned a living from it.

JohnnyH wrote:@Felix: In the American west there are countless examples of people using the land before it was even part of a state. Their use precedes any supposed government ownership (We claim this land for Spain!)...

The Western US is much different from most places, and it is hard for most people to comprehend some of this. The ranchers were recently prohibited from grazing the BLM land that abuts our property, and they are still very pissed.

JohnnyH wrote:People who have been using the land since before the regulatory body existed should get some kind of Grandfathering. Federal regulatory body shouldn't be able to redefine the rules and fees at their whim.

But Bundy says he's perfectly willing & able to pay the grazing fees. Only he is unwilling to pay them to the BLM despite the fact that the BLM has been managing and assessing fees for far more than 20 years.

If it is public land, it is held by the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land

I can understand how this is frustrating, that's perfectly understandable, but this guy just puts himself above the law.

What you are arguing for is a right to public land. I'm surprised, because that's usually my position.

firefighterjeff wrote:Proof? With 50 other rancher families having been forced out of their land there should be reams of examples of how the government forced them off of their land.

Come west of the Rockies and ask anyone... Few posts back, even Seneca has first hand experience with this. Countless accounts on the internet, but maybe not from this county in NV.

firefighterjeff wrote:In some professions by refusing orders (legitimate orders), that automatically implies you will be looking for another job shortly. Before we beat up on law enforcement too much consider having to deal with people like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/f ... -standoff/

Some people are crazy, and people in uniform make handy-dandy targets for deranged people. Somebody has to deal with these idiots.

What makes an order "legitimate"?... The guy you are quoting as an idiot, IS [former] law enforcement.

I see which side you're on. But before any protestors showed up there were 200 militarized police surrounding an elderly couple and their son. Spending upwards of 5 million dollars to punish this guy. Considering the destruction of property, that hundreds of cattle were killed during this roundup and that the collected cattle could in no way result in recoup of debts owed, I think punish is the correct term.

The fact that the feds sent an entire company of militarized agents is disgusting... They were the ones threatening to fire on the crowd (again who is deranged?), not the other way around. The reality is the knew they had an inferior force and position (how many of these were there?):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_ ... NEVADA.jpg

The people you are insisting are crazy and deranged idiots exercised total restraint... Something that the feds and the increasingly militarized police are not known for.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap