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

[Ifreann]

Which really changes nothing about my question, which is less about this specific situation and more about similar situations generally. But don't let me keep you from reading things I never said from my posts.

You referred specifically to the BLM Rangers in your comment, which would tend to suggest you were speaking about this situation. But in any case...
It applies in general as well. Before surrounding a dude's ranch with SWAT, Rangers, and snipers out of some type of fear he might walk out and try to stop a government action related to enforcing a law he is breaking (in this specific case, running cattle on public land) the government can arrest that man for the law he is in violation of. Hell, if that man makes threats about stopping the government action related to enforcing the law he is breaking, he can be arrested for that as well.

I really don't get how you're missing that what I'm trying to explore is the juxtaposition of a desire for less militarised LEOs and a support for this "victory" of armed protesters over law enforcement, but I think I've lost interest in trying to explain it any further.

[Gauthier]

You referred specifically to the BLM Rangers in your comment, which would tend to suggest you were speaking about this situation. But in any case...
It applies in general as well. Before surrounding a dude's ranch with SWAT, Rangers, and snipers out of some type of fear he might walk out and try to stop a government action related to enforcing a law he is breaking (in this specific case, running cattle on public land) the government can arrest that man for the law he is in violation of. Hell, if that man makes threats about stopping the government action related to enforcing the law he is breaking, he can be arrested for that as well.

I really don't get how you're missing that what I'm trying to explore is the juxtaposition of a desire for less militarised LEOs and a support for this "victory" of armed protesters over law enforcement, but I think I've lost interest in trying to explain it any further.

Explanations in an anti-government circlejerk? You heretic!

[Jocabia]

They have the deeds to the land; the same thing that gives every other property owner ownership of the property.

Who wrote the deeds?

I'm pretty sure the rancher doesn't want to go down this path. Who declares that he owns the cattle the government is taking? What right does he have to his land besides "I said so"?

You stay on that path and nobody owns anything the rancher is screwed.

[Trelso]

http://news.msn.com/us/nevada-cattle-rancher-calls-on-local-sheriffs-to-join-his-cause
Now this freak wants US sheriffs to join him in his crazy ass temper tantrum.

It'd be kinda very funny if the sheriffs listened and overthrew the US government. (Not that they're going to of course, but I mean, come on, what the fuck does he think they're going to do?)

[Occupied Deutschland]

You referred specifically to the BLM Rangers in your comment, which would tend to suggest you were speaking about this situation. But in any case...
It applies in general as well. Before surrounding a dude's ranch with SWAT, Rangers, and snipers out of some type of fear he might walk out and try to stop a government action related to enforcing a law he is breaking (in this specific case, running cattle on public land) the government can arrest that man for the law he is in violation of. Hell, if that man makes threats about stopping the government action related to enforcing the law he is breaking, he can be arrested for that as well.

I really don't get how you're missing that what I'm trying to explore is the juxtaposition of a desire for less militarised LEOs and a support for this "victory" of armed protesters over law enforcement, but I think I've lost interest in trying to explain it any further.

And I'm uncertain what point you think you were making, as the already militarized LEOs were present long before armed protestors or militia and were, in fact, the impetus behind the militia arriving at the locale in the first place.

[Sibirsky]

My thoughts: this whole situation is not about the government or the cattle it's about one old hard ass refusing to pay a fee to use public lands. Who believes he's above the law and everyone around who thinks "I ain't no criminal but I have the right to use land that's not mine without laying so suck it government guys"

The government is right, only because the US is not a democratic State in structure but, rather, a Federal Republic. Were this guy to try his shenanigans in, say, ancient Athens.... I'd have to agree with him.

If no one owns the governmental authority, then no one owns "government land."

Of course.... reality tends to kick you in the ass harder than you expected.

This makes no sense. The system of governance is irrelevant.

The government is only right because they make the rules. The government is morally wrong.

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

The government is right, only because the US is not a democratic State in structure but, rather, a Federal Republic. Were this guy to try his shenanigans in, say, ancient Athens.... I'd have to agree with him.

If no one owns the governmental authority, then no one owns "government land."

Of course.... reality tends to kick you in the ass harder than you expected.

This makes no sense. The system of governance is irrelevant.

The government is only right because they make the rules. The government is morally wrong.

In a democracy the government is made up of the common people. So, what you're saying is that the American people are morally wrong.

[Sibirsky]

It's the governments land, not his. Make him pay.

The grazing fees are cost prohibitive.

Source? 53 ranchers until the early 90s. One (who has been refusing to pay) since then.

This is basic fucking common sense.

Yes, lets make beef cost prohibitive. Lets mandate everyone become a vegetarian.

[Sibirsky]

This makes no sense. The system of governance is irrelevant.

The government is only right because they make the rules. The government is morally wrong.

In a democracy the government is made up of the common people. So, what you're saying is that the American people are morally wrong.

Don't throw this naive bullshit at me.

First of all, the elected representatives do a poor job of actually representing the public. Second of all, the BLM is not an elected agency. And the BLM writes the laws, relevant to this case.

[Sibirsky]

This makes no sense. The system of governance is irrelevant.

The government is only right because they make the rules. The government is morally wrong.

In a democracy the government is made up of the common people. So, what you're saying is that the American people are morally wrong.

Common people that are not subject to the same laws. Common people that have authority to make rules for everyone to follow. Common people that invade nations and imprison people.

Are you sure you know the definition of the word, common?

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

In a democracy the government is made up of the common people. So, what you're saying is that the American people are morally wrong.

Don't throw this naive bullshit at me.

First of all, the elected representatives do a poor job of actually representing the public. Second of all, the BLM is not an elected agency. And the BLM writes the laws, relevant to this case.

I know they do a poor job of representing the public, but the public still put them in office. Those people in office then appoint people to the BLM, meaning that the BLM is, by extension, run by the people.
I'm well aware that US democracy is far from the perfect paradise some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is. But I also know, that it isn't as bad as some people think it is.

[Britcan]

It's the governments land, not his. Make him pay.

The grazing fees are cost prohibitive.

Source? 53 ranchers until the early 90s. One (who has been refusing to pay) since then.

This is basic fucking common sense.

Yes, lets make beef cost prohibitive. Lets mandate everyone become a vegetarian.

It really doesn't matter if the grazing fees are cost prohibitive. The land belongs to the government so they can set the rates however they want to. The rancher can either pay and use the land or refuse to pay and not use the land. The issue here is that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by not paying but still using the land.

[Sibirsky]

Don't throw this naive bullshit at me.

First of all, the elected representatives do a poor job of actually representing the public. Second of all, the BLM is not an elected agency. And the BLM writes the laws, relevant to this case.

I know they do a poor job of representing the public, but the public still put them in office. Those people in office then appoint people to the BLM, meaning that the BLM is, by extension, run by the people.
I'm well aware that US democracy is far from the perfect paradise some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is. But I also know, that it isn't as bad as some people think it is.

This is irrelevant. Even if you believe in democracy, there is nothing democratic about the BLM.

Your "by extension" claim is not an extension. It's light years away.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Don't throw this naive bullshit at me.

First of all, the elected representatives do a poor job of actually representing the public. Second of all, the BLM is not an elected agency. And the BLM writes the laws, relevant to this case.

I know they do a poor job of representing the public, but the public still put them in office. Those people in office then appoint people to the BLM, meaning that the BLM is, by extension, run by the people(1).
I'm well aware that US democracy is far from the perfect paradise some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is. But I also know, that it isn't as bad as some people think it is.

This is flawed logic. The BLM is run by SOME people who are under little influence from common people because of their status as appointed officials.

In fact, that's commonly one of the DEFENSES of the BLM. That their managers won't be as prone to influence by majority opinions which might be wrong. The issue however, much like with other governmental agencies, is that lobbying groups can gain a firm foothold through influence over those managers (and/or their bosses) which influence them into policies beneficial to those lobbying groups. At one time this influence was largely perpetrated by 'Copper Kings' and cattle barons in the West, but has now swung in another direction (in part due to new expanded powers under the Endangered Species Act) and is now the primary domain of the Sierra Club and other self-proclaimed "environmentalist" groups which have a naivety-influenced and ignorance-fueled hard-on against land-usage for logging, ranching, mining, or other such activities, contrary to desired usage in the states that land is located in.

[Sibirsky]

The grazing fees are cost prohibitive.

Source? 53 ranchers until the early 90s. One (who has been refusing to pay) since then.

This is basic fucking common sense.

Yes, lets make beef cost prohibitive. Lets mandate everyone become a vegetarian.

It really doesn't matter if the grazing fees are cost prohibitive. The land belongs to the government so they can set the rates however they want to. The rancher can either pay and use the land or refuse to pay and not use the land. The issue here is that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by not paying but still using the land.

Do you even think, before you type? Making something useful, cost prohibitive does not matter?

The issue here is corruption. Harry Reid is the problem.

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

I know they do a poor job of representing the public, but the public still put them in office. Those people in office then appoint people to the BLM, meaning that the BLM is, by extension, run by the people.
I'm well aware that US democracy is far from the perfect paradise some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is. But I also know, that it isn't as bad as some people think it is.

This is irrelevant. Even if you believe in democracy, there is nothing democratic about the BLM.

Your "by extension" claim is not an extension. It's light years away.

I agree that I worded the bit on the extension poorly. However, there still is a connection. The BLM creates policies that are intended to make labor easier and more efficient for both the workers and the employers. How do they know what policies to create? By listening to the people. Of course, they don't always make the right choices, but at least they try.

[Sibirsky]

This is irrelevant. Even if you believe in democracy, there is nothing democratic about the BLM.

Your "by extension" claim is not an extension. It's light years away.

I agree that I worded the bit on the extension poorly. However, there still is a connection. The BLM creates policies that are intended to make labor easier and more efficient for both the workers and the employers. How do they know what policies to create? By listening to the people. Of course, they don't always make the right choices, but at least they try.

They try? Hooray, they get an A for effort!

And since when has the BLM been listening to the people? That's the NSA's job. The BLM does not listen to the people.

This has been addressed.

Yes, they sure are trying to enrich a bunch of cronies.

[Britcan]

It really doesn't matter if the grazing fees are cost prohibitive. The land belongs to the government so they can set the rates however they want to. The rancher can either pay and use the land or refuse to pay and not use the land. The issue here is that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by not paying but still using the land.

Do you even think, before you type? Making something useful, cost prohibitive does not matter?

The issue here is corruption. Harry Reid is the problem.

In terms of rights to the land it absolutely doesn't matter. The land is owned by the government, regardless of wether the fee they charge for using it is cost prohibitive or not. Just because they made the fee to use the land cost prohibitive doesn't mean that someone is permitted to use the land without paying.

[Sibirsky]

Do you even think, before you type? Making something useful, cost prohibitive does not matter?

The issue here is corruption. Harry Reid is the problem.

In terms of rights to the land it absolutely doesn't matter. The land is owned by the government, regardless of wether the fee they charge for using it is cost prohibitive or not. Just because they made the fee to use the land cost prohibitive doesn't mean that someone is permitted to use the land without paying.

Using your logic, absolutely nothing matters, except laws.

Harriet Tubman? Rosa Parks? Criminals. Lock them up.

The cost of compliance must be taken into account when determining fees.

[Shie]

All land is government land paid to use through taxation. Those ranchers will face the wrath of tanks for not paying their fees.

[Britcan]

In terms of rights to the land it absolutely doesn't matter. The land is owned by the government, regardless of wether the fee they charge for using it is cost prohibitive or not. Just because they made the fee to use the land cost prohibitive doesn't mean that someone is permitted to use the land without paying.

Using your logic, absolutely nothing matters, except laws.

Harriet Tubman? Rosa Parks? Criminals. Lock them up.

The cost of compliance must be taken into account when determining fees.

Nice strawman you have there.

I never said that nothing matters except laws, I said that the government owns the land and they have the right to restrict the usage of the land through the use of whatever fees they see fit to impose.

[Sibirsky]

All land is government land paid to use through taxation. Those ranchers will face the wrath of tanks for not paying their fees.

We have private property here. Not all land belongs to the government.

Using your logic, absolutely nothing matters, except laws.

Harriet Tubman? Rosa Parks? Criminals. Lock them up.

The cost of compliance must be taken into account when determining fees.

Nice strawman you have there.

I never said that nothing matters except laws, I said that the government owns the land and they have the right to restrict the usage of the land through the use of whatever fees they see fit to impose.

Yeah. And you do not see a problem with the fees being cost prohibitive.

[Britcan]

Nice strawman you have there.

I never said that nothing matters except laws, I said that the government owns the land and they have the right to restrict the usage of the land through the use of whatever fees they see fit to impose.

Yeah. And you do not see a problem with the fees being cost prohibitive.

I don't see that them making fees cost prohibitive forfeits their rights to the land.

[Sibirsky]

Yeah. And you do not see a problem with the fees being cost prohibitive.

I don't see that them making fees cost prohibitive forfeits their rights to the land.

It doesn't. But it sure as hell gives cause to those resisting.

[Britcan]

I don't see that them making fees cost prohibitive forfeits their rights to the land.

It doesn't. But it sure as hell gives cause to those resisting.

How? The fees are what they are. You can pay them and use the land or refuse to pay them and not use the land. Refusing to pay the fees while still using the land is theft, plain and simple.