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

[Sibirsky]

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.

What part of cost prohibitive do you not understand? The BLM is attempting to destroy his livelihood.

[Geilinor]

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.

What part of cost prohibitive do you not understand? The BLM is attempting to destroy his livelihood.

Thousands of other ranchers are doing fine paying the fees. If you have evidence that it's cost prohibitive, present it.

[Sibirsky]

What part of cost prohibitive do you not understand? The BLM is attempting to destroy his livelihood.

Thousands of other ranchers are doing fine paying the fees. If you have evidence that it's cost prohibitive, present it.

There were 53 ranchers in Clark County up until 1993. After 1993, when the fees were raised, only one remained. The one that has been refusing to pay the fees.

This is... very simple really.

[Swanderfeld]

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.

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

[Geilinor]

Thousands of other ranchers are doing fine paying the fees. If you have evidence that it's cost prohibitive, present it.

There were 53 ranchers in Clark County up until 1993. After 1993, when the fees were raised, only one remained. The one that has been refusing to pay the fees.

This is... very simple really.

Correlation is not causation.

[Geilinor]

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

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

You can only refuse to pay when it's the government, according to Sibirsky.

[Sibirsky]

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

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

What?

Is the person dependent on the TV to make a living? Has the person's family been using the TV for 137 years?

[Sibirsky]

There were 53 ranchers in Clark County up until 1993. After 1993, when the fees were raised, only one remained. The one that has been refusing to pay the fees.

This is... very simple really.

Correlation is not causation.

Right. As soon as the fees were raised, all the ranchers decided they no longer wanted to make money on the ranching business. But not because of the fees. Just because.

[Geilinor]

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

What?

Is the person dependent on the TV to make a living? Has the person's family been using the TV for 137 years?

It doesn't matter how long his family has been using it, the land doesn't belong to him.

[Sibirsky]

So would it be justifiable for a person to take flat screen from the shop because he can't afford the TV and its cost prohibitive for him to purchase it?

You can only refuse to pay when it's the government, according to Sibirsky.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

People refuse to pay the private sector all the time. And they have a right to do so.

[Sibirsky]

What?

Is the person dependent on the TV to make a living? Has the person's family been using the TV for 137 years?

It doesn't matter how long his family has been using it, the land doesn't belong to him.

His livelihood matters.

The point is, the analogy was idiotic.

[Britcan]

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.

What part of cost prohibitive do you not understand? The BLM is attempting to destroy his livelihood.

Are you saying that an entity cannot set it's own fees for a good or service it is offering?

The government has set the fee to use it's property, if the individual doesn't want to pay the fee then they are not permitted to use the property. The matter isn't more complicated than that.

[Sibirsky]

What part of cost prohibitive do you not understand? The BLM is attempting to destroy his livelihood.

Are you saying that an entity cannot set it's own fees for a good or service it is offering?

The government has set the fee to use it's property, if the individual doesn't want to pay the fee then they are not permitted to use the property. The matter isn't more complicated than that.

I'm saying the entity may as well ban grazing on the land. There is no difference. Hence the term cost prohibitive.

Given their reasoning for doing so, I am strongly against the BLM in this case.

[Geilinor]

It doesn't matter how long his family has been using it, the land doesn't belong to him.

His livelihood matters.

So if I'm renting mall space and the mall increases the rent, I can stop paying?

[Britcan]

Are you saying that an entity cannot set it's own fees for a good or service it is offering?

The government has set the fee to use it's property, if the individual doesn't want to pay the fee then they are not permitted to use the property. The matter isn't more complicated than that.

I'm saying the entity may as well ban grazing on the land. There is no difference. Hence the term cost prohibitive.

Given their reasoning for doing so, I am strongly against the BLM in this case.

Banning grazing would still be perfectly acceptable. It's their land and they can restrict grazing on it if they wish.

The reason for doing so is irrelevant as the rancher has no right to be using the land while refusing to pay the fees.

[Sibirsky]

His livelihood matters.

So if I'm renting mall space and the mall increases the rent, I can stop paying?

Malls do not arbitrarily raise rents to enrich cronies. Rents are driven by market forces.

[Sibirsky]

I'm saying the entity may as well ban grazing on the land. There is no difference. Hence the term cost prohibitive.

Given their reasoning for doing so, I am strongly against the BLM in this case.

Banning grazing would still be perfectly acceptable. It's their land and they can restrict grazing on it if they wish.

The reason for doing so is irrelevant as the rancher has no right to be using the land while refusing to pay the fees.

The reason is the only thing that matters.

[Tekania]

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

How much should he pay?

1. Grazing fees owed, not counting interest.
2. Grazing fees owed, with interest on past debt.
3. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines for non-payment.
4. Grazing fees owed, with interest and fines and including the cost of the attempted BLM impoundment of his cattle

That last one is the kicker. I think Bundy should pay this debt (and if he can stay in the ranching business, growing some feed on his property, feedlotting, and running another 150 head wherever BLM or other landowners give him permission to ... then good luck to him). But it would actually be quite unfair to bill him for the costs incurred in the BLM roundup operation.

Those damn-fool "militia" did more to ruin his business than the BLM ever did. They made it too dangerous to actually impound and remove the trespass cattle — disarming the criminal so to speak, and a very merciful response to the crime — and may have ruined Bundy if the BLM takes that tack.

To me, option 4 is too much. For all that Bundy encouraged "militia" to come onto his property or camp nearby to support him, the sad old git isn't responsible for their presence or their actions. They came, and they caused the vast escalation of costs for the BLM to enforce the court order.

Bundy did not employ the "militia" to take his side. They volunteered. There would be poetic justice if they now saw the man they sought to support fined for their presence and attitude. But poetic justice isn't justice. Scapegoating isn't justice. Martyrdom isn't justice. Bundy should be held to pay no more than if that idiotic "militia" had not turned up in his defence against a lawful government operation. Bundy called for support, but he did not and could not exercise any control over how the supporters behaved once they turned up.

In short, I'm against option 4. I don't think Bundy should be held liable for the expense of the BLM's failed attempt to confiscate the cattle.

I'm somewhere between option 2 and option 3, for what the federal government should settle for. Arresting Bundy (for contempt of court) is an option also, but it doesn't fit into the scale of "what should he pay?". Between 2 and 3: Bundy should pay all his back fees, with interest, and fines for not paying before should be reduced pro-rata, according to his ability to pay.

Notwithstanding that Bundy probably doesn't keep good books and may have gold buried somewhere, his ability to pay can be adequately assessed by his income record. Live or slaughtered cattle sales leave a big paper trail. Payment of ranch hands less so, but it wouldn't help Bundy at all to claim expenses not previously declared (ie, paying ranch hands under the table) because that would have the IRS on him.

And if he can't pay what he owes, then tough luck Cliven Bundy. Cattle ranching is a business, and businesses sometimes fail.

The last one is actually what he owes based on court judgement now. As the court judgement specifically gave Bundy 45 days to remove the cattle and then authorized the BLM to remove any remaining Bundy cattle after that data at his expense. Which is normal. If one is ordered by teh court to do something that is in your power to do, one has to do it, and if one does not and the other party must act to enforce the requirement of the order, then it is done at your expense as you were responsible to do it.

[Geilinor]

So if I'm renting mall space and the mall increases the rent, I can stop paying?

Malls do not arbitrarily raise rents to enrich cronies. Rents are driven by market forces.

BLM employees ("cronies") earn fixed compensation.

[Sibirsky]

Malls do not arbitrarily raise rents to enrich cronies. Rents are driven by market forces.

BLM employees ("cronies") earn fixed compensation.

Who said anything about BLM employees? I'm talking about Rory Reid.

[Geilinor]

Banning grazing would still be perfectly acceptable. It's their land and they can restrict grazing on it if they wish.

The reason for doing so is irrelevant as the rancher has no right to be using the land while refusing to pay the fees.

The reason is the only thing that matters.

The reason is that it is their land and they can set the rent. You can't force an entity to sell at a price they can't afford.

[Sibirsky]

The reason is the only thing that matters.

The reason is that it is their land and they can set the rent. You can't force an entity to sell at a price they can't afford.

Can't afford?

[Britcan]

Banning grazing would still be perfectly acceptable. It's their land and they can restrict grazing on it if they wish.

The reason for doing so is irrelevant as the rancher has no right to be using the land while refusing to pay the fees.

The reason is the only thing that matters.

Why?

The fees for the use of the land were set and the rancher refused to pay the fees but continued to use the land. The rancher is now being punished for continuing to use the lands without paying fees. The reason for the rising of the fees is entirely irrelevant.

[Geilinor]

BLM employees ("cronies") earn fixed compensation.

Who said anything about BLM employees? I'm talking about Rory Reid.

What do the Reids have to do with the BLM?

[Geilinor]

The reason is that it is their land and they can set the rent. You can't force an entity to sell at a price they can't afford.

Can't afford?

Why is the government obligated to set bargain-basement prices?