Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 9:02 AM
276 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD (4 members, 272 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,415 Year: 29,021/21,208 Month: 1,087/1,847 Week: 10/452 Day: 10/115 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   The Bundys and the Armed Occupation of a National Wildlife Refuge
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


(1)
Message 211 of 254 (815511)
07-20-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
07-20-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Do I really have to point out the difference from the Bundy situation?

Oh, I know the essential difference. The Bundies and their cohorts were in the wrong while the anti-ban protesters are in the right. When it comes to protests, civil disobedience, and even armed rebellion, you'd better make sure that your cause is just and that the means that your methods are appropriate to the injustice you are opposing.

It's kind of weird to me to begin with when some people claim that they believe that the laws should be followed and the authorities should be obeyed, but when the go on to laud the law-breakers on their side they come across as hypocrites.

If you agree that sometimes it's necessary to protest against an electoral majority or even to break the law to fight against injustice, then I agree with you. But then you better remember that there is no mechanism that prevents people you disagree with from also concluding that similar activities are appropriate against what they perceive as an injustice.


Patriotism is the excuse that countries give to themselves for their failures. – Stephen Marche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 07-20-2017 2:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 212 of 254 (815514)
07-20-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
07-20-2017 9:48 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Faith writes:

I don't consider the term "tyranny" to be a problem in this context where government force is used against citizens exercising their freedom of assembly to protest government ownership of land they have no right to, depriving the citizens of its rightful use, making them pay more than they can afford for that rightful use, then confiscating their cattle and arresting some of them.

Seriously?

Bundy refused to pay grazing fees for decades. He didn't own the land his cattle were grazing on. He was told to pay up. It went to court, and the courts ruled he had to pay. He got his due process. He still refused to pay. Confiscation of property to pay court ordered fees is well within the law.

He is nothing more than a greedy cheapskate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-20-2017 9:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 9:57 PM Taq has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 213 of 254 (815522)
07-20-2017 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Taq
07-20-2017 5:19 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Allow me to advocate for the devil here:

Confiscation of property to pay court ordered fees is well within the law.

He is nothing more than a greedy cheapskate.

I don't know or care about him personally, but I do see where there's room for a principle to stand by in this general case.

If I am hungry and find a lake on public property, and I fish a meal out of it, it is well within the law for the state to confiscate my property (money) in the form of a fine for fishing without a license.

But is it right?

In principle, public land should be available to me to use for my general welfare without the state hassling me about it. I understand that regulating fishing to prevent over-doing it can be warranted, but I see the other side of the coin too.

A particular judgement is on a case-by-case basis, and I have no interest in debating the Bundy case, itself.

I just wanted to make a counter-point to there being "nothing more" than greed, in the general sense of opposition to legal court ordered property confiscation. 'Cause there's the principle too.

Granted: if they say that it's not about the money, then you know that it is about the money


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 07-20-2017 5:19 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 1:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(7)
Message 214 of 254 (815531)
07-21-2017 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2017 9:57 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
n principle, public land should be available to me to use for my general welfare without the state hassling me about it

What if your city spends money maintaining a lake as a public reservoir? Can you come by and use up the water for your for profit enterprise for free? What happens to my share of the water?

You can make up rule you want and call it a principle. But is this one justified? How about a principle that the atmosphere is free so anybody ought to be able to put pollutants in it?

There is no justification for a principle that property that is kept up at public expense can be confiscated by a single member of the public for free. Because we all cannot graze our animals, there is a rationing system in place involving money; money which is used to keep the place up. In this case, the federal government manages the property for the rest of us.

How about trees in a national forest? Do you think you ought to be able to cut those down without paying the public back? Why you and not someone else?

You fish on public property, but you buy a license to do that. If you don't you are going to be hassled.

The land is owned by the federal government. I can understand an argument that the state would be a better place to regulate the land. But I don't see that a for profit enterprise ought to able to just grab it up without paying the rest of us the value of what it is worth. That principle you are trying to invoke is called the stealing principle.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 9:39 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 215 of 254 (815550)
07-21-2017 9:02 AM


I don't know what all the issues are with respect to public land, but I'm impressed with the fact that the Federalist Papers strongly argue for state and not federal control of the land, which makes the 80% federal ownership of Nevada's land highly suspect. I'm sure nobody would argue that just any use of the land by the public is permissible, there would have to be guidelines, and use for grazing would seem to be high on the list. Then there are questions about fees for use, how much and so on.
Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 9:23 AM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 216 of 254 (815559)
07-21-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
07-21-2017 9:02 AM


I wouldn't accept that claim without some quotes. But the Federalist papers are not law. They are useful in discerning the intent of the Founders.

However, the Constitution is law and states:

quote:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Many court cases over many years have established that "Property belonging to the United States" explicitly means the Federal government may own property. And it does. And it has the rights of any property owner.

If someone dislikes that our legal system provides many avenues for changing it. Armed rebellion is discouraged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 9:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 9:33 AM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 217 of 254 (815561)
07-21-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by JonF
07-21-2017 9:23 AM


Since you agree that the Federalist Papers intend to interpret the mind of the Founders, and the law you cite originated when much of the land now within particular states of the USA was undefined Territory, and the Founders should be understood as desiring the states to have sovereignty over their land, then there is plenty of cause for objecting to the current situation. The Bundy protest was a peaceable assembly by everything I've read, not an armed insurrection even if some of them were legally armed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 9:23 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:45 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 222 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 218 of 254 (815563)
07-21-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-21-2017 1:45 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
There is no justification for a principle that property that is kept up at public expense can be confiscated by a single member of the public for free.

As a member of the public, they also own that land.

That principle you are trying to invoke is called the stealing principle.

If I can't use the land I own to feed myself, then in what way do I own it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 1:45 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 219 of 254 (815569)
07-21-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2017 9:57 PM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
New Cat's Eye writes:

If I am hungry and find a lake on public property, and I fish a meal out of it, it is well within the law for the state to confiscate my property (money) in the form of a fine for fishing without a license.

But is it right?

Yes, it is right. Those regulations were put in place by our elected officials. It is the public determining how they want their public lands run through their democratically elected officials.

Also, this bit from the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:24 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 220 of 254 (815570)
07-21-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
07-21-2017 9:33 AM


Faith writes:

Since you agree that the Federalist Papers intend to interpret the mind of the Founders, and the law you cite originated when much of the land now within particular states of the USA was undefined Territory, and the Founders should be understood as desiring the states to have sovereignty over their land, then there is plenty of cause for objecting to the current situation. The Bundy protest was a peaceable assembly by everything I've read, not an armed insurrection even if some of them were legally armed.

Again, the Federalist Papers are not law. They were written by some of the founders, but not all. Some of the ideas in the Federalist Papers were not put into the Constitution on purpose because some of the other founders disagreed with them.

The law of the land is that the US owns that land, and the US can, by law, charge grazing fees. Bundy was even allowed to have his case heard in court, and it was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 9:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


(4)
Message 221 of 254 (815574)
07-21-2017 10:52 AM


It seems that some people don't quite understand how "joint ownership" works in real life.

Go out and buy some stock in a corporation. You are now an owner of that business.

Now go into the corporate headquarters and try to take some stuff.

Write a two page essay on your experiences and what you have learned.

(Sadly, it seems that some people will have ended up learning, "I need to bring a gun next time!")


Patriotism is the excuse that countries give to themselves for their failures. – Stephen Marche

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 222 of 254 (815582)
07-21-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
07-21-2017 9:33 AM


Armed is armed.

The Constitution is law, and I've pointed out what part is relevant and how it's been interpreted. If you want to discuss the Federalist papers bring the quotes and analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 9:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 223 of 254 (815591)
07-21-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 9:39 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
If I can't use the land I own to feed myself, then in what way do I own it?

You have the same say on how the land is used as you do a fighter jet bought with public money.

You own the land in a similar way that you own a piece of a company when you own stock in it.

You own the land with hundreds of millions of the rest of us; you can petition the federal government for what the rules are for its use. At least you don't have to check with all of us first.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 9:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 2:25 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 224 of 254 (815599)
07-21-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Taq
07-21-2017 10:41 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
Yes, it is right. Those regulations were put in place by our elected officials. It is the public determining how they want their public lands run through their democratically elected officials.

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:41 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 225 of 254 (815600)
07-21-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by NoNukes
07-21-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Bundys victims of Constitution-violating government tyranny
You have the same say on how the land is used as you do a fighter jet bought with public money.

I can just walk into public land, I can't do that with a fighter jet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2017 11:32 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2017 12:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017