NATION

PASSWORD

I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Who's right in this whole debacle

The BLM "Bureau of Land Manegment" i.e. the government
263
66%
The Nevada Rancher
71
18%
Half & Half
29
7%
Neither
35
9%
 
Total votes : 398

User avatar
Republic of Coldwater
Senator
 
Posts: 4500
Founded: Jul 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of Coldwater » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:28 am

Shilya wrote:
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Why are the Feds getting involved in this?

Because it's federal land.


If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?

User avatar
Shilya
Minister
 
Posts: 2609
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shilya » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:30 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because it's federal land.


If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?

Because the taxes pay for maintaining and defending the land. They don't give him usage permits larger than anyone elses. If he uses the land - everyones land - then he gets to pay extra for it.

Turns out you can't decide on your own how the land of 300 million people is to be used.
Impeach freedom, government is welfare, Ron Paul is theft, legalize 2016!

User avatar
Olivaero
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8012
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Olivaero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:30 am

To be honest he is using the land. Those other ranchers are using the land. It seems to me they shouldn't have to pay for something just because the federal government got there and claimed it first. I'd be fine with somne other regulatory mechanism but the people working the land should have the right to commonly own the land. (also I find it stangely ironic that the right here is pushing for free common ownership of something It's a pretty left wing position to take)
British, Anglo Celtic, English, Northerner.

Transhumanist, Left Hegelian, Marxist, Communist.

Agnostic Theist, Culturally Christian.

User avatar
Republic of Coldwater
Senator
 
Posts: 4500
Founded: Jul 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of Coldwater » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:33 am

Shilya wrote:
Republic of Coldwater wrote:
If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?

Because the taxes pay for maintaining and defending the land. They don't give him usage permits larger than anyone elses. If he uses the land - everyones land - then he gets to pay extra for it.

Turns out you can't decide on your own how the land of 300 million people is to be used.


What is the land used for anyway? The government could actually allow some people to use this land, as it has no use otherwise.

User avatar
Shilya
Minister
 
Posts: 2609
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shilya » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:35 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because the taxes pay for maintaining and defending the land. They don't give him usage permits larger than anyone elses. If he uses the land - everyones land - then he gets to pay extra for it.

Turns out you can't decide on your own how the land of 300 million people is to be used.


What is the land used for anyway?

How would I know?
The government could actually allow some people to use this land, as it has no use otherwise.

Sure, they do.
Once those people pay for it. The government acts in the common interest here. The land is a publically owned commodity individuals want to use. It's in the interest of the public that the usage generates revenue.
Impeach freedom, government is welfare, Ron Paul is theft, legalize 2016!

User avatar
L Ron Cupboard
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9054
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby L Ron Cupboard » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:37 am

I think citizens should have the right to enjoy publicly owned land as individuals, as in national parks, but if you make commercial use of it you should have to pay.
Last edited by L Ron Cupboard on Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
A leopard in every home, you know it makes sense.

User avatar
European Socialist Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4844
Founded: Apr 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby European Socialist Republic » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:42 am

Grazing fees are theft! La vache qui rit 2016!
Economic Left/Right: -7
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.9
I am a far-left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 9.13
Libertarian: 2.62
Non-interventionalist: 7.34
Cultural liberal: 9.12
I am a Trotskyist.
Cosmopolitan: 71%
Secular: 80%
Visionary: 62%
Anarchistic: 43%
Communistic: 78%
Pacifist: 40%
Anthropocentric: 50%

Legalize Tyranny, Impeach the Twenty-second Amendment, Term Limits are Theft, Barack Obama 2016!
HOI4

User avatar
AiliailiA
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27722
Founded: Jul 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AiliailiA » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:36 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because it's federal land.


If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?


Why should he get financial benefit from land that everyone else too has paid for through taxes?

Or in other words, why should factory workers, shop staff, doctors, and in fact other ranchers who own the land their stock graze on, subsidize this particular rancher by providing through their taxes the land that his stock graze on ..?

He gains more benefit from the federal land than they do. So he should pay.
My name is voiced AIL-EE-AIL-EE-AH. My time zone: UTC.

Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Ethel mermania wrote:
Ifreann wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: eugenics :
What are the colons meant to convey here?
In my experience Colons usually convey shit

NSG junkie. Getting good shit for free, why would I give it up?

User avatar
Eaglleia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17378
Founded: Feb 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Eaglleia » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:42 am

Just sounds like some cheapskate to me, the BLM's in the right here.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:44 am

Why should I pay to feed his cows? Isn't it enough that I buy the cows for my tacos? :unsure:
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
McCatsonia
Envoy
 
Posts: 215
Founded: Jan 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby McCatsonia » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:52 am

Gig em Aggies wrote:The people coming to his aid certainly thinks he's better then the government so they might also think he can use his mind to control his cattle

If by people thinking he's better than the government you mean rational people then yes, they probably do think he can use his mind to control his cattle - just like I can use my mind to type this message via instructing my fingers press buttons.

User avatar
AiliailiA
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27722
Founded: Jul 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AiliailiA » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:53 am

Eaglleia wrote:Just sounds like some cheapskate to me, the BLM's in the right here.


It says in the article he refused to pay fees in protest against an environmental regulation. Reading between the lines, he was probably limited in where he could let this cattle drink (as cattle do seriously degrade natural sources of water).

Such civil disobedience is all very well, providing he's prepared to take the consequences. It does hurt the government (they don't get the fees, and they have to pay rangers to remove the stock ... perhaps eventually they have to pay to imprison him or other protesters if they get violent).

He's got to be prepared to make a sacrifice though. Like anyone who refuses to pay taxes "in protest", his commitment to it must be proven by sacrifice on his own part, because there's an obvious financial incentive for anyone to refuse to pay taxes and anyone can say it's in protest, whether it is or not.

I wonder how much of that $1 million is interest on his debt ...
My name is voiced AIL-EE-AIL-EE-AH. My time zone: UTC.

Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Ethel mermania wrote:
Ifreann wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: eugenics :
What are the colons meant to convey here?
In my experience Colons usually convey shit

NSG junkie. Getting good shit for free, why would I give it up?

User avatar
Sdaeriji
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Sdaeriji » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:54 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because it's federal land.


If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?


Why should non-rancher taxpayers subsidize this man's business expenses for him?

Seriously, private grazing on public lands is literally the archetypal example of the tragedy of the commons.
Farnhamia wrote:What part of the four-letter word "Rules" are you having trouble with?
Farnhamia wrote:four-letter word "Rules"

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19902
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Costa Fierro » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:11 am

Ailiailia wrote:It says in the article he refused to pay fees in protest against an environmental regulation. Reading between the lines, he was probably limited in where he could let this cattle drink (as cattle do seriously degrade natural sources of water).


I don't think it's so much to do with where the cattle drink, as the runoff of effluent into streams and rivers, not to mention potential issues arising from soil erosion can cause substantial water pollution.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:53 am

Shofercia wrote:
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:So he's refused to pay the grazing fee, more or less blatantly breaking the law, and people are coming to protest in his support for breaking the law? :blink:


It's called the Ukrainian Syndrome. It's when you use land/gas that belongs to someone else, and then refuse to pay, while arming yourself.

I thought "Ukrainian Syndrome" was where you are coveted by Putin....
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Alyekra
Minister
 
Posts: 2828
Founded: May 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Alyekra » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:55 am

The government does not own everything by default. There is no moral obligation to pay them for using the land.
(FOR LEGAL REASONS, THAT'S A JOKE)

65 dkp

User avatar
Olivaero
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8012
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Olivaero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:58 am

Alyekra wrote:The government does not own everything by default. There is no moral obligation to pay them for using the land.

If they hold the deed to the land however surely capitalism dictates that they do? I mean property rights are supreme and all...
British, Anglo Celtic, English, Northerner.

Transhumanist, Left Hegelian, Marxist, Communist.

Agnostic Theist, Culturally Christian.

User avatar
Alyekra
Minister
 
Posts: 2828
Founded: May 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Alyekra » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:05 am

Olivaero wrote:
Alyekra wrote:The government does not own everything by default. There is no moral obligation to pay them for using the land.

If they hold the deed to the land however surely capitalism dictates that they do? I mean property rights are supreme and all...


I can manufacture a piece of paper that says I own the entire planet, but that doesn't make it true.
(FOR LEGAL REASONS, THAT'S A JOKE)

65 dkp

User avatar
Shilya
Minister
 
Posts: 2609
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shilya » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:11 am

Alyekra wrote:The government does not own everything by default. There is no moral obligation to pay them for using the land.


I'm amazed how people always treat the government as a magic separated entity ruling over the land from high above.

This is your land. It belongs to you and 300 million other people in the country. The government merely manages it, because calling 300 million people and asking them what they think about it isn't very practical.

As such, the government tries to manage in your best interest. Everyones taxes go towards maintaining and defending it. So everyone should also get compensation when someone uses it, otherwise the one using it rips 300 million other owners off.
Impeach freedom, government is welfare, Ron Paul is theft, legalize 2016!

User avatar
Olivaero
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8012
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Olivaero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Alyekra wrote:
Olivaero wrote:If they hold the deed to the land however surely capitalism dictates that they do? I mean property rights are supreme and all...


I can manufacture a piece of paper that says I own the entire planet, but that doesn't make it true.

Surely then no one can own any land? I mean all Land ownership is ultimately because at some point some one decided that they were the ones who owned it and they had the biggest stick.
British, Anglo Celtic, English, Northerner.

Transhumanist, Left Hegelian, Marxist, Communist.

Agnostic Theist, Culturally Christian.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163846
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:16 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because it's federal land.


If this is the case, then this man has already paid for it, via taxes, why should he pay even more to use the land that he paid through taxes?

The same reason you can't sleep in Obama's bed or look athrough Clinton's porno stash. Taxes aren't your money after you pay them. The federal government's property is not your property.


Republic of Coldwater wrote:
Shilya wrote:Because the taxes pay for maintaining and defending the land. They don't give him usage permits larger than anyone elses. If he uses the land - everyones land - then he gets to pay extra for it.

Turns out you can't decide on your own how the land of 300 million people is to be used.


What is the land used for anyway?

Grazing cattle.
The government could actually allow some people to use this land,

It does. People graze cattle there.
as it has no use otherwise.

It does have a use. Grazing cattle.


Alyekra wrote:The government does not own everything by default.

But they do own this land.
There is no moral obligation to pay them for using the land.

And I'm sure that will sustain him when the government seizes his property to cover the money he owes them.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Esternial
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 54391
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:17 am

Olivaero wrote:
Alyekra wrote:
I can manufacture a piece of paper that says I own the entire planet, but that doesn't make it true.

Surely then no one can own any land? I mean all Land ownership is ultimately because at some point some one decided that they were the ones who owned it and they had the biggest stick.

Your ownership of a plot of land is determined by a piece of paper that is officially acknowledged by the government of the country that actually owns the land you walk on. Other people can buy this piece of paper and then sell it to other people or build a house on it before selling both the house and the land to someone else.


For some reason people have the impression that they have the right to things they actually don't, and then they throw a temper tantrum.
Last edited by Esternial on Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163846
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:19 am

Olivaero wrote:
Alyekra wrote:
I can manufacture a piece of paper that says I own the entire planet, but that doesn't make it true.

Surely then no one can own any land? I mean all Land ownership is ultimately because at some point some one decided that they were the ones who owned it and they had the biggest stick dick.

*cough*
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Olivaero
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8012
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Olivaero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:20 am

Esternial wrote:
Olivaero wrote:Surely then no one can own any land? I mean all Land ownership is ultimately because at some point some one decided that they were the ones who owned it and they had the biggest stick.

Your ownership of a plot of land is determined by a piece of paper that is officially acknowledged by the government of the country that actually owns the land you walk on. Other people can buy this piece of paper and then sell it to other people or build a house on it before selling both the house and the land to someone else.

I was taking what he was saying to the logical conclusion.
British, Anglo Celtic, English, Northerner.

Transhumanist, Left Hegelian, Marxist, Communist.

Agnostic Theist, Culturally Christian.

User avatar
Olivaero
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8012
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Olivaero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:22 am

Ifreann wrote:
Olivaero wrote:Surely then no one can own any land? I mean all Land ownership is ultimately because at some point some one decided that they were the ones who owned it and they had the biggest stick dick.

*cough*

God damn If this were enshrined in law adult film stars would be never want for anything ever again.
British, Anglo Celtic, English, Northerner.

Transhumanist, Left Hegelian, Marxist, Communist.

Agnostic Theist, Culturally Christian.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Infected Mushroom, Varsemia

Advertisement

Remove ads