NationStates

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Grazing fees are theft! La vache qui rit 2016!

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.

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

Why should I pay to feed his cows? Isn't it enough that I buy the cows for my tacos?

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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?

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....

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.