Bundy Ranch the Wrong Hill for Libertarians to be Dying On
Here is something I find deeply ironic: On the exact same day that Conservatives were flocking to the desert to protest Cliven Bundy's eviction from BLM land, San Francisco progressives were gathering in the streets to protest tenant evictions by a Google executive. To my eye, both protests were exactly the same, but my guess is that neither group would agree with the other's protest. I think both protests are misguided.
In the case of Cliven Bundy, I agree with John Hinderaker, right up to his big "But...."
First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.
It is the rest of the post after this paragraph with which I disagree. He goes on to explain why he is sympathetic to Bundy, which if I may summarize is basically because a) the Feds own too much land and b) they manage this land in a haphazard and politically corrupt manner and c) the Feds let him use this land 100 years ago but now have changed their mind about how they want to use the land.
Fine. But Bundy is still wrong. He is trying to exercise property rights over land that is not his. The owner gave him free use for years and then changed its policy and raised his rent, and eventually tried to evict him. Conservatives and libertarians don't accept the argument that long-time tenancy on private land gives one quasi-ownership rights (though states like California and cities like New York seem to be pushing law in this direction), so they should not accept it in this case. You can't defend property rights by trashing property rights. Had this been a case of the government using its fiat power to override a past written contractual obligation, I would have been sympathetic perhaps, but it is not.
I would love to see a concerted effort to push for government to divest itself of much of its western land. Ten years ago I would have said I would love to see an effort to manage it better, but I feel like that is impossible in this corporate state of ours. So the best solution is just to divest. But I cannot see where the Bundy Ranch is a particularly good case. Seriously, I would love to see more oil and gas exploration permitted on Federal land, but you won't see me out patting Exxon on the back if they suddenly start drilling on Federal land without permission or without paying the proper royalties. At least the protesters in San Francisco likely don't believe in property rights at all. Conservatives, what is your excuse?
I suppose we can argue about whether the time for civil disobedience has come, but even if this is the case, we have to be able to find a better example than the Bundy Ranch to plant our flag.
On more reflection, I suspect I was in error: what Nevada got in the quid pro was statehood in exchange for not getting any State Trust land. The other states (after the 13) got grants (or similar) from the Feds of 1/36th to 4/36 of the state.
The feds owned almost all the land at one time and what was not given away through homesteads, mining patents and other transfers remains federal. In Az only about 20% is private the rest is national forest, state trust land, Indian reservations, parks and wildlife refuges, military bases, BLM, and perhaps others I forgot.
By some accounts, BLM land was land that no one wanted, which is why it was not for example homesteaded or turned in the a National Forest.
That has got to sting (assuming the President or Ms. Clinton have any shame).
Here is the truth folks , Harry Reid & DC sold China energy company the land for cheap to prevent China from dumping those bonds which would collapse the whole corporate/fiat currency debt slave industry...The BLM head was put in place by Reid & his son Rory is involved with the energy company, The BLM is a criminal tool used by the phony corporation named UNITED STATES founded in 1871....
The Federal reserve is running out of places to hide those treasury bonds & selling off the land to China is their last resort....time to end the Fed & end the corporate scam that was perpetrated in 1871...
The problem is that in most cases, when a
citizen gets into a battle with the federal government, they have
already lost. Once the grazing allotment was handed down in 1993, Bundy really had no chance. The ranch that his family had owned for a hundred years was
suddenly worthless, his income was destroyed, and he had no way to mount
a legal battle that could cost millions. His case was weak anyway (from a legal
perspective, not a moral perspective), and like most citizens, he didn't
have the resources to mount an effective fight. I'm sure the most
infuriating thing, is that these ranchers knew that BLM could have
accommodated them. They just didn't want to. They had no problem
accommodating a solar facility on land populated by the same tortoise.
Is it political? Is the BLM petty and vindictive? Is it populated by
democrats and environmentalists who hate rich white Republican ranchers?
The ranchers certainly think so. Was it a coincidence that BLM went
after these folks in 1993 after they showed up in 1992 to protest against the forest
service in support of another rancher who was facing felony charges for
clearing brush? And that that rancher had written a book on how to
protect your water rights against the BLM? Most of his fellow ranchers
accepted the reality of the situation. That doesn't mean they weren't
bitter. 20 years later, a thousand of them and their friends are still
angry enough to walk straight into a federal SWAT team, and dare them to
shoot. I don't see this ending well for Bundy. Worse, he doesn't
appear to be winning the public relations battle, except with fellow
ranchers. But he is fighting this in the only way that he knows how,
and I feel for him and his family.
I am still collecting information and forming opinion on the Bundy case. I am not sympathetic to the Branch Davidians in the Waco case because the preponderance of the evidence shows that the deaths were caused by the sect rather than by the government. However, I am sympathetic to the victims in the Ruby Ridge case because the preponderance of the evidence shows not only government overkill but also that the government tried entrapment to get the Weaver to be an informant.
It is easy to say that Bundy does not have ownership rights so that the government can do anything it wants to do with its land. However, there is a deeper issue here: over my lifetime, I have seen the government move from being a protector of liberty to a gun-toting authority that is myopic about enforcing the political agenda of the politcally powerful. If Bundy can galvanize opposition to this inappropriate and distorted role of the government, then I do wish him success.
"By nominal fees I mean that the BLM doesn't recoup money spent and they are much cheaper than any free market price."
1. BLM is a government agency, by definition, they have no need to recoup the money spent. However, there are plenty of areas (camping fees) where the government is well above free market prices and still can't break even, so that by itself proves nothing about the reasonableness of the grazing fees?
2. Just what is the free market price for grazing fees? Are there even any free market actors selling grazing rights?
"no need to recoup the money spent." -- Taxpayers might differ on that point.
Current private grazing land lease rates are on the order of 10 to 30 dollars per AUM. The value of the federal grazing fee is something like $1.35. It is an apple/orange thing, but the private prices guide federal fees. Federal fees are low enough that they aren't the primary cost. Dealing with cattle in rough terrain can be the limiter. You also have to have a nearby associated ranch capable of off-season forage. These private ranches basically have associated federal grazing rights built into their price. If you're expanding your operation, you can end up investing similar amounts if you re leasing or buying out ranches with federal rights.
1) The government should not be involved in marriage.
2) Private business owners have the right to refuse service for their own reason.
How is that in conflict?
My reply got lost. Basically, even if the Davidians did what was claimed by the ATF/FBI, what the ATF and FBI admitted to doing was reckless and completely contradictory to their stated goals of (1) peacefully ending the siege and (2) rescuing the children and other innocents. Pumping in huge amounts of gas, even if it were not ignited, would have killed the children just from breathing it in. Smashing a perfect wind tunnel with their military tanks to allow the windy Texas weather to stoke any fire efficiently and introducing a high level of gas which when burned created deadly cyanide compounds, plus losing the front door (which could show who shot first), was highly suspicious. But even if you disregard that, their PsyOps, use of tanks to assault the church, and use of high levels of gas was reckless, no matter how bad the Davidians were.
"Taxpayers might differ on that point."
No, the government should not be a profit making entity. In any case, the one government entity that is legally obligated to recoup the money it spends (the USPS) can't manage it.
Profit is one thing. Loss is another. Not to say some stuff isn't worth subsidizing, it's just worth thinking about when you do, and the level of loss/subsidy is a subject of continual tension.
"Profit is one thing. Loss is another."
Who do you think they are going to recoup their losses from? The taxpayers of course. So they get the money they spend from taxes then they are supposed to recoup their spending from the same people who were taxed to have the money to spend in the first place? Do you really think any taxpayer with a brain would support that?
"Same with Amtrak. If you want to bitch about their losses have the
intelligence to recognize the congressional role in mandating service
between Podunk and Middle of Nowhere and frequency elsewhere. Not to
mention other rules on personnel."
What on earth make you think I don't recognize that? These are government entities. There is no way to separate their operations from politics. This is the very reason why these entities will never manage to even operate at a breakeven point.
The subject was grazing fees. I argued the rate was nominal, kept low by tax dollars, and not putting any ranchers out of business. If you have evidence otherwise please continue. I have to say you've sort of lost me.
They were being divested through the Homestead Act until 1976 but the Western United States being unattractive for farming lead to many allotments in the Western States to languish after all the prime land around water sources were taken. Federal policy towards all this land changed in the 1950s when it could be use as leverage against States so the land claims were ended and the acts repealed in 1976.
I consider this massive landholding to be a major hindrance to the Western States and major jurisdictional problem that needs to be resolved by divesting all this land back to the states. Its even worse right now as most of this land is easily convertible to some sort of national monument by executive order. Bill Clinton named 7 national monuments in his Presidency in Arizona alone, something that's always left a bad taste in my mouth since.
The Native Americans have far more rights with respect to their land because they signed (many of them) treaties with the US government as if they were sovereign nations accepting peace terms after a war. Therefore, the use of the lands they have been granted is subject to their trible rules and their 'nations' are granted certain war indemnities as a agreement for them to cease hostilities. So, that is not a good example.
Yes, the support for Bundy and the reason libertarians should support Bundy is because the attack on him is a sign of the oligarchy on the march. This was not about the cows or about the desert tortoise. This was about more money for the oligarchy and was being orchestrated be Harry Reid.
"Less than clear motives"...
Read the UN's Agenda 21. This plan explains why "they will close the roads so no one will ever go on [these lands] again." Bundy's daughter warns that "Utah is next."
In the short term, I can certainly see how competition for water rights and land development could motivate powerful and unethical people to commit the kind of acts Bundy's daughter describes.
Whether or not Cliven Bundy is violating federal law, the militia's show of force should remind the powerful elite that We the People may not go along so easily when they try to intimidate and manipulate us.
National Monuments and UN World Heritage sites.
With regard to Clive Bundy's racist rant:
http://youtu.be/__n5Bgxx-68