Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: BLM Stands Down

  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Springfield, Illinois
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Hi Patriot Thanks very much for the explanation, its nice to get a rather clear description and it helped me do further research to understand the issue.

    The problem here is Bundy and the Bundy family don't own the land they are grazing on. They don't hold a legal title to it and they never have. They don't have any legal right to it. They own their ranch of course, but not the land in question here. That land is owned by the federal government and pretty much always has been.

    There is a long tradition of allowing ranchers to graze public land and later that was codified by leasing it to prevent disputes and over grazing. but never at any time have the ranchers had any legal claim to it or to determine how it is used. They have simply been allowed to graze there. They also lease land for timber harvest, oil extraction and many other uses.

    The family may feel entitled due to the long history of leasing and using that land but they have no true legal right to it. That isn't to say there is no argument at all, but when push comes to shove if you don't own it you don't control it and the family doesn't own the land nor ever did they. They use it and had a contract to do so that has been in the family for some time. But a contract is not a guarantee the contract will never end.

    Its one thing to disagree with the policy and argue that we should continue to have the family use the land and lease it for grazing, but as with all things in the government you have to contend with what everyone else wants as well. It is public land controlled by the public, not just by the local ranchers.

    But they have used the threat of force to effectively control the land use for themselves even though it is not theirs by legal right and that strikes me as wrong whatever the traditional practices are. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of traditions.



    Unless they were there prior to state hood that would not be true. Public land was designated when statehood was established. (1864)

    I can certainly sympathize with them and I'm not really all that much of a conservationist, but I think if you decide to make a stand and break the law then you have to take on the label of a lawbreaker willingly. Not pretend the law is something it's not.

    Please clarify: pretty much always has been.
    Just because government makes something a law, that does not mean it's right.
    Let's take law and government out of the equation for a moment.

    Person claims property. They live and maintain the property for a very long time.
    Someone wants to take said property. This person defends it.

    I see that your issue with this is that you believe this is government property.
    Has the government lived there, has the government maintained the property? No.

    Let's keep in mind as well that the government killed Bundy's cattle.

    So, you think that this man who maintains and runs this land can justifiably have this land and cattle taken from him due to taxes?
    Taxation is theft. He never consented to a tax and neither did his family when they homesteaded the ranch.

    No one has the right to take your money (or property) from you if you do not consent. Not even the government.
    I know you said you feel sympathetic towards the Bundy family, is that because you know that what the government is doing to them is wrong?

    Just because something is law, that does not make it right.
    Last edited by PatriotDani91; June 5th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,432
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotDani91 View Post
    Please clarify: pretty much always has been.
    Before Nevada was made a state the land was in a somewhat different legal state and prior to that of course it was either part of some native american nation or not claimed by any state or individual. I was qualifying always since obviously it is not accurate in the expansive sense.

    Just because government makes something a law, that does not mean it's right.
    Let's take law and government out of the equation for a moment.
    Sure but its still the law and if you break it you are a law breaker. Rosa Parks was a lawbreaker for instance. That doesn't mean she was wrong but she was still breaking the law and embraced that fact. Mind you she didn't threaten to use violence but you take my point I think.

    Person claims property. They live and maintain the property for a very long time.
    Someone wants to take said property. This person defends it.
    Claiming something doesn't mean you own it unless you have legal charter to own it. Maintaining something doesn't make it yours either. You are basically saying that squatters are entitled to ownership. I'm pretty sure if I decided to Squat on Bundi's ranch he'd chase me off of it because it doesn't belong to me.

    I see that your issue with this is that you believe this is government property.
    Has the government lived there, has the government maintained the property? No.
    That is how governments work, they have sovereign territory. Without the monopoly of force to secure it then anyone could come and take Bundi's farm and he would have no recourse. If they have more guns they would own it. Any US land not deeded to private individuals is property of the government. When Bundi's family homesteaded that land was not part of the grant. My family in Alaska also homesteaded and they didn't just get to keep whatever land they liked, the homestead had a given size and only that land belonged to my family.

    Let's keep in mind as well that the government killed Bundy's cattle.
    Yes, they were killed during the round up while they were on government property illegally.

    So, you think that this man who maintains and runs this land can justifiably have this land and cattle taken from him due to taxes?
    How did taxes cause any of this? He owned money for using the land for grazing. If you use a service you have to pay for it. Its not his land, he is not justified by law in grazing there. He can only use it with permission from its owners which is the state in this case.

    Taxation is theft. He never consented to a tax and neither did his family when they homesteaded the ranch.
    Taxation is not theft. Taxation is how a state manages to pay for its expenses. Taxation is not consented to. It is not voluntary. Just as a state has a contract with its people its people have a contract with it.

    No one has the right to take your money (or property) from you if you do not consent. Not even the government.
    That is incorrect. Rights are established through law. If there is no law there are no rights.

    I know you said you feel sympathetic towards the Bundy family, is that because you know that what the government is doing to them is wrong?
    No, I simply understand that if you have a long tradition of doing something and you feel you are not doing any harm that it is hard when someone wants to change that. Putting the welfare of turtles over a human family feels foolish, especially if the family in question is yours. But I don't always agree with everyone I sympathize with.

    Just because something is law, that does not make it right.
    No, but you had said he had a right to that land, and in fact he does not which is what I am arguing. It might be nice if he had title to that land, or it could be beneficial, but it is not true. It is not his land and he doesn't have the right to graze cattle on it without permission or paying the owner.

    If I cam and build a tent on your lawn you would like insist I leave or pay for the privilege. Its your land so you control it. That land does not belong to Bundy.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Springfield, Illinois
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Before Nevada was made a state the land was in a somewhat different legal state and prior to that of course it was either part of some native american nation or not claimed by any state or individual. I was qualifying always since obviously it is not accurate in the expansive sense.



    Sure but its still the law and if you break it you are a law breaker. Rosa Parks was a lawbreaker for instance. That doesn't mean she was wrong but she was still breaking the law and embraced that fact. Mind you she didn't threaten to use violence but you take my point I think.



    Claiming something doesn't mean you own it unless you have legal charter to own it. Maintaining something doesn't make it yours either. You are basically saying that squatters are entitled to ownership. I'm pretty sure if I decided to Squat on Bundi's ranch he'd chase me off of it because it doesn't belong to me.



    That is how governments work, they have sovereign territory. Without the monopoly of force to secure it then anyone could come and take Bundi's farm and he would have no recourse. If they have more guns they would own it. Any US land not deeded to private individuals is property of the government. When Bundi's family homesteaded that land was not part of the grant. My family in Alaska also homesteaded and they didn't just get to keep whatever land they liked, the homestead had a given size and only that land belonged to my family.



    Yes, they were killed during the round up while they were on government property illegally.



    How did taxes cause any of this? He owned money for using the land for grazing. If you use a service you have to pay for it. Its not his land, he is not justified by law in grazing there. He can only use it with permission from its owners which is the state in this case.



    Taxation is not theft. Taxation is how a state manages to pay for its expenses. Taxation is not consented to. It is not voluntary. Just as a state has a contract with its people its people have a contract with it.



    That is incorrect. Rights are established through law. If there is no law there are no rights.



    No, I simply understand that if you have a long tradition of doing something and you feel you are not doing any harm that it is hard when someone wants to change that. Putting the welfare of turtles over a human family feels foolish, especially if the family in question is yours. But I don't always agree with everyone I sympathize with.



    No, but you had said he had a right to that land, and in fact he does not which is what I am arguing. It might be nice if he had title to that land, or it could be beneficial, but it is not true. It is not his land and he doesn't have the right to graze cattle on it without permission or paying the owner.

    If I cam and build a tent on your lawn you would like insist I leave or pay for the privilege. Its your land so you control it. That land does not belong to Bundy.

    Rosa Parks didn't use violence. Neither did Bundy. This was self defense. He didn't go attack anyone.

    So for example, when the colonialists settled this country they didn't own it? Of course they did. They claimed the land, killed off the people who couldn't defend it and defended the land from the British.

    If someone else wanted to come and take Bundy's farm, do you not think he would defend it just as he did against the government?

    I do not agree that this is government property because the government says to supposedly have a claim to the land because of a law they passed.

    This has everything to do with taxes. They are seizing the land because of fines they have given him because he did not sell his grazing rights.
    Now, if the government is having people sell their rights that means that those are their rights, not a right the law has given them.

    Taxation is not theft? It's involuntary and I did not agree to it. Where is this contract that I never signed?

    Rights are not granted by law. They are granted by your creator. They are natural rights that no one has the right to take from you.

    This is the whole issue about the land grabs.
    You ask these people who have lived there their entire lives, who never had to pay taxes or worry about tortoises before who's land it is.
    They will tell you it's theirs. Just because a law was made after the fact that they've been on this land (without taxation I might add) that does not mean that a law that they have no say over, gives the government the right to take this land.

    That's why the Bundy's were justified in defending it. They claimed it and they defended it.
    If they couldn't defend it then I would say it's too bad for them but they did.
    And none of this weakened the government at all.

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,432
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotDani91 View Post
    Rosa Parks didn't use violence. Neither did Bundy. This was self defense. He didn't go attack anyone.
    They did not commit violence no. But that was not my point. My point is she didn't claim to be acting in accordance to the law, she willfully broke the law and admitted it. Bundy seems to think the law is on his side even though the courts have ruled otherwise. You seemed to be claiming he was within the bounds of the law because the land was rightfully his.

    So for example, when the colonialists settled this country they didn't own it? Of course they did. They claimed the land, killed off the people who couldn't defend it and defended the land from the British.
    Well the colonists took it for the British, then revolted and took it for themselves. And yes they conquered the land and thus took ownership by establishing sovereignty over it. Now if there were no government and I killed Bundi and his allies and took the land then I would also own his ranch. If the state killed them all and claimed the land they would then own it.

    But many of us decided at some point that this kind of killing people and taking their stuff was not how we wanted to decide ownership as it led to a lot of needless bloodshed.

    If someone else wanted to come and take Bundy's farm, do you not think he would defend it just as he did against the government?
    He would certainly try. In this case the state backed down not because they could not take it, but because they decided the violence would not be worth while. Rightly so I think.

    I do not agree that this is government property because the government says to supposedly have a claim to the land because of a law they passed.
    Tough nuggies, you happen to be wrong and there isn't anything you can do about it realistically.

    This has everything to do with taxes. They are seizing the land because of fines they have given him because he did not sell his grazing rights.
    Now, if the government is having people sell their rights that means that those are their rights, not a right the law has given them.
    Those are fines, not taxes. Fines are based on specific behavior, taxes are things everyone owes as a matter of duty as a citizen of the country. He was not forced to sell, they revoked his permit. He does not have a right to graze on that land yet does so anyway. He is charged a legal fine for that violation of the use of the land.

    Taxation is not theft? It's involuntary and I did not agree to it. Where is this contract that I never signed?
    It is part of the american social contract. If you are a citizen and reside in our sovereign territory then you must pay taxes to support the state. If you wish to not pay taxes then you should leave the society and its sovereign territory. AKA you only have a right to live here if you agree to the terms.

    Rights are not granted by law. They are granted by your creator. They are natural rights that no one has the right to take from you.
    I am a creation of the natural world and the natural world doesn't care one way or another what happens to me. I have no natural rights to anything. Nature kills indiscriminately and removes liberties the same way.

    A bear can take my rights any time it likes, so can a storm, so can a man. I only have real rights if I can establish and defend them. Without social cooperation we tend to find that impossible. Rights only exist when we cause them to exist.

    This is the whole issue about the land grabs.
    You ask these people who have lived there their entire lives, who never had to pay taxes or worry about tortoises before who's land it is.
    They will tell you it's theirs. Just because a law was made after the fact that they've been on this land (without taxation I might add) that does not mean that a law that they have no say over, gives the government the right to take this land.
    They are wrong. They have had a contract with the state to allow them to graze. There is no guarantee that that contract will last forever. The owner of the land decided it no longer wanted to allow grazing on that land and so that grazing had to stop. It was not a decision the Bundi family is allowed to make because they don't own that land. They never have. They only owned rights to graze on it and those rights are at the discretion of the owner of the land.

    The law never changed, it has been the same turtle or no turtle. What changed was the land owners decision on how to use that land. Its their land, its their decision how it should be used.

    That's why the Bundy's were justified in defending it. They claimed it and they defended it.
    If they couldn't defend it then I would say it's too bad for them but they did.
    And none of this weakened the government at all.
    The defended it because the government decided they didn't want to hurt them. They are trying to be responsible.

    Bundi is in the wrong because he is using someone else's property without their permission.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: July 4th, 2011, 11:58 AM
  2. ODN Survey on Stands
    By Trendem in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2006, 03:13 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 5th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •