BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[GreenBean]

BREAKING: 200+ "Militarized" Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

We’ve seen before at Ruby Ridge and Waco that the feds won’t hesitate to treat peaceful American citizens as hostile and confront them with full armed force. This is happening yet again in Clark County, Nevada.

For over twenty years now, a battle has raged between cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy has been using federal land to allow his cattle to graze, and the BLM has argued that this is “trespassing” because the land is protected and because Bundy has not paid required grazing fees.

Wonder if they will kill him like Clinton killed the people in Waco and Ruby ridge

I doubt it - he doesn't seem to have a political Agenda [The Rancher] just a free-loader. Public Lands yes, but he's been using them as his own.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have no problem with the removal of property taxes. But do it all over, not in just a special case.

And you actually purchased your computer. The Bundy family has apparently just allowed their cattle to graze on public land for years.

As I have said, even Cliven Bundy has stated that it is public land.

It doesn't matter what Bundy says. Just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.

In regards to my computer, I did the same thing Bundy's family, and other ranchers did, to their land, only I did it indirectly. They mixed their labor directly with unowned, unoccupied land, thus creating their own property right into it. Now my computer was already owned by somebody else before I owned it, but my labor indirectly led me into owning it. The principle remains the same regardless of whether you've directly or indirectly mixed your labor with that which you now own.

The government had no right to take that land from its rightful owners, even if those owners never really thought of themselves as the owners.

Except the Bundy family never owned the land. The fact that they allowed their cattle to eat the grass off that land does NOT equate to ownership.

If you deny that the people who originally mixed their labor with the land own the land then you essentially negate all property rights, because that's how property rights come into being.

 

[WinterBorn]

These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.

And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.

You were given a receipt for the purchase of your computer. If Bundy can show a receipt where he paid his grazing fees - no problem.

IMHO - a very poor analogy.

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We send 200 armed men to defend the grass on puplic land but none to defend our diplomats under seige. Grass that grows back.....

 

[JimH52]

Haven't really followed this story, so I'd like to get a few points cleared up. Is the ranch itself on so-called federal property where they're trying to protect the tortoise, or is he simply letting his cattle roam off of the ranch into federal property?

His ranch is private, he grazes on federal property.

His family has run this business this way for generations. It's really a political issue, not an environmental one. It's motivated by the competition I'm sure. Factory farming uses Bovine growth hormones, antibiotics, enclosures, small spaces and grain fed beef. I'm sure this is motivated by a desire to shut him and organic farmers like him down.

Grass fed beef, organic beef is a niche market, it's highly competitive.

If you do the research, you will find that the BLM euthanized hundreds of these tortoises instead of nursing them back to health because it was too expensive. Likewise. they are spending two million to round up his cattle, when he only "owes" a million in back taxes.

It is about power and control. It is about crony capitalism, or corporatism.

http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/video-rancher-cliven-bundy-family-faces-sniper-rifles-govt-standoff-americans-disappearing-rights-tortoise/

There's no much good clean food out there anymore. Good health starts with the right food. Get rid of that, and people will need this rotten deathcare system.

So are you advocating that he be allowed to continue to defy a federal judge? What happened to the "law and order" Republicans?

 

[hangover]

Next, the ranchers will want to graze their cattle in Yellowstone National Park for free, and kill all the Buffalo, deer and elk, so the cattle will have enough grass. I'm sure you wouldn't mind them grazing in your yard, huh.

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn't matter what Bundy says. Just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.

In regards to my computer, I did the same thing Bundy's family, and other ranchers did, to their land, only I did it indirectly. They mixed their labor directly with unowned, unoccupied land, thus creating their own property right into it. Now my computer was already owned by somebody else before I owned it, but my labor indirectly led me into owning it. The principle remains the same regardless of whether you've directly or indirectly mixed your labor with that which you now own.

The government had no right to take that land from its rightful owners, even if those owners never really thought of themselves as the owners.

Except the Bundy family never owned the land. The fact that they allowed their cattle to eat the grass off that land does NOT equate to ownership.

If you deny that the people who originally mixed their labor with the land own the land then you essentially negate all property rights, because that's how property rights come into being.

I deny that allowing cattle to roam free entitles you to ownership of all the land on which they roam. Yes, I am sure the Bundy's mixed sweat with the land. My great-great-great grandparents did the same as sharecroppers. But they did not own the land. And the Bundy's owned the land they claimed and improved. They do not own every acre that their cows wandered across.

By your method, every time a fence broke and cows got out would increase the size of the ranch.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You were given a receipt for the purchase of your computer. If Bundy can show a receipt where he paid his grazing fees - no problem.

IMHO - a very poor analogy.

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

 

[regent]

Great idea, and I'm all for it, I mean if a person is peaceful he has a right to take federal land as his own. With that reasoning, and since I'm a peaceful person, can I claim the same land as the peaceful rancher claims? On second thought why crappy range land why not Yosemite or Yellowstone.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Next, the ranchers will want to graze their cattle in Yellowstone National Park for free, and kill all the Buffalo, deer and elk, so the cattle will have enough grass. I'm sure you wouldn't mind them grazing in your yard, huh.

That's about as likely as you making a rational post.

 

[WinterBorn]

We send 200 armed men to defend the grass on puplic land but none to defend our diplomats under seige. Grass that grows back.....

Hopefully the grass will grow back. Over-grazing and the subsequent erosion are common problems on the federal lands out west.

But the Bengazi thing is not relevant here. I agree that the administration should be held accountable for that travesty. But it has no bearing on this topic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except the Bundy family never owned the land. The fact that they allowed their cattle to eat the grass off that land does NOT equate to ownership.

If you deny that the people who originally mixed their labor with the land own the land then you essentially negate all property rights, because that's how property rights come into being.

I deny that allowing cattle to roam free entitles you to ownership of all the land on which they roam. Yes, I am sure the Bundy's mixed sweat with the land. My great-great-great grandparents did the same as sharecroppers. But they did not own the land. And the Bundy's owned the land they claimed and improved. They do not own every acre that their cows wandered across.

By your method, every time a fence broke and cows got out would increase the size of the ranch.

Sharecroppers were working on land already owned by others. It is in no way analogous to the situation at hand.

You deny that mixing your labor with unowned, unoccupied land gives you a property to that land, but you're good with the idea that politicians can simply claim that they own land they've likely never seen, let alone mixed their labor with, and that's legitimate?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the fact that they waited and did NOT rush in makes this mess the fault of the feds??

lmao

40% of America's beef cattle have died. Insane mishandling by the state of California and the Federal government in a relocation effort of cattle from drought stricken California destroyed the entire commercial beef stocks.

California Farms Going Thirsty as Drought Burns $5 Billion Hole - Bloomberg

Milk and Beef prices will rise to records, with milk expected to hit $10 a gallon and ground beef more than $20 a pound.

U.S. Cattle Herd Shrinking to 63-Year Low Means Record Beef Cost - Businessweek

Given this, the timing of an attack on a beef producer, with the expected outcome being the destruction of yet another large herd, is beyond suspicious.

If one were to seek the destruction of the American Middle Class, a solid strategy would be to create exponential increases in the costs of food and fuel.

Oh, I paid $4.19 for regular yesterday.

 

[Meister]

Anyone who calls those murderers at Waco "peaceful American citizens" is a lying piece of shit. Period.

so the children that died were not peaceful

The murderers who hid behind them and refused to let them leave have their blood on their hands.

any story that laments those "peaceful American Citizens" who murdered men women and children and then blamed it on law enforcement is written by a piece of shit liar.

Period.

Why would I read any further?

The feds could have and should have waited them out. They were fully contained, and there shouldn't have been any collateral damage.
The whole issue was a mess, and Koresh was a wacko, but the way it went down didn't have to go that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

 

[farmer]

We send 200 armed men to defend the grass on puplic land but none to defend our diplomats under seige. Grass that grows back.....

No we are sending 200 armed men to evict someone for not paying his rent and has no intention of leaving.Who also has made comments about not leaving peacefully.

 

[nodoginnafight]

These are simply state-created indicators of ownership, but irrelevant to whether the property right is rightfully that of the ranchers who mixed their labor with the land. I own this computer that I'm writing this post on, but if I had to prove that I would probably find myself coming up empty. I have no deed to this computer, in other words, but it's still my property. The government can't simply come and take it from me.

And no, as a libertarian I would say they do not owe taxes on their own property. That makes no sense at all. If I own something where does anybody get the right to tell me that I have to pay them a fee to use it? That would indicate that they own it, which is not the case.

You were given a receipt for the purchase of your computer. If Bundy can show a receipt where he paid his grazing fees - no problem.

IMHO - a very poor analogy.

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Nope, Bundy NEVER had a receipt because he NEVER owned the land. You are right in that the rightful owner of Bundy's grazing land is obvious - it is the people of the United States of America. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made for anything else. From the very beginning there was an understanding that the land did not belong to the ranchers. The ranchers never made any improvements or put up fences, or erected any structures, or any of the other things that indicate ownership now did they?

Nope - because they understood from day 1 that this land was not theirs, but they would be allowed to graze their cattle their as long as they abide by the rules. The rules changed. This guy paid his fees for x number of years - an indication of his consent to the rules. Allowing cows to graze on the land is not "mixing work and the land." The cows who were grazing were the only ones doing any "work." So by your standard, the cows own the land.

Later - he decides he disagrees with the rules. He'll pay his grazing fees to the county, but not the Feds.

All these facts indicate that Bundy 1) acknowledged the land was not his 2) acknowledged his debt for grazing fees

Just because you suddenly don't agree with a law, doesn't mean you have the right to take up arms in order to disobey that law.

Your contention that Bundy (even though he doesn't realize it) owns the land, is indefensible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

The federal government "owns" land because the federal government has simply declared it to be so, and it has backed this claim up with the threat of violence. As we are seeing here. It has done nothing to take legitimate ownership of any land, however.

A bad law is no law at all, and should not be enforced.

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

 

[bodecea]

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

Because the Feds have owned the land since they won it in the Mexican War AND paid $15,000,000 for it.

Mexican Cession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bodecea]

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

The federal government "owns" land because the federal government has simply declared it to be so, and it has backed this claim up with the threat of violence. As we are seeing here. It has done nothing to take legitimate ownership of any land, however.

A bad law is no law at all, and should not be enforced.

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

So, who owned the land BEFORE the Federal government "simply declared it to be so"?