Feds lay siege to Nevada ranch

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

But from my point of view the ones in the dz.com forum that twist stuff the most are on the left.

+1, without a doubt.
Including the moderators.

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

StreetScooby

Quote

The country is based on companies stealing land from indigenous people and exploiting it.

I know better than to respond to something like this, but I simply can't help myself here, quade...

Are you saying it wasn't? The Virginia and Plymouth companies would like to have you look at their portfolios.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

StreetScooby

Quote

But from my point of view the ones in the dz.com forum that twist stuff the most are on the left.

+1, without a doubt.
Including the moderators.

funny...I see it the other way. Those on the left seem more prone to silly logic failures, but it's much rarer that they post links to outright bullshit.

If you say "without a doubt," you probably need to more objectively evaluate your bias.

[craddock 0]

ok, so he did say what was quoted and much more that explains it a little better. And even more to the point it confirms he NEVER said children. My point was that it is so hard to take anything serious from people here when they deliberately lie and try and deceive.

On another note. It is not like he suggested they force women to the front. One was a lawyer that said she gladly would go to the front of the line. Are Feminists fighting for equal rights until they don't want them and want to hide behind behind being a women? Want it both ways? Or is the outrage that Women should be put in their place and not be allowed to stand up when these women know most if the world do not view Women the same and it would have an overwelming effect. Billvon's post is a prime example.

Maybe these women are trying to advance Feminism. I don't care. I just didn't like a Moderators deception

And I am not agreeing with what they did nor am I disagreeing. But for Billvon's to make it about children?..... I do not have the time to double check everything he says and post like this discredit most of it

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[masterrig 1]

StreetScooby

Quote

But from my point of view the ones in the dz.com forum that twist stuff the most are on the left.

+1, without a doubt.
Including the moderators.

Chubby Checker would be proud for all the 'twistin' going on around here!


Chuck

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Those on the left seem more prone to silly logic failures, but it's much rarer that they post links to outright bullshit.

If you say "without a doubt," you probably need to more objectively evaluate your bias.

Thanks for the feedback.

I rarely follow links on this website, so I really can't comment on the BS links. I do read quite a bit, and agree with your statement re: "silly logic failures". Specious is the word I find myself using most often these days. There are also quite a few people on this site that I simply choose to ignore, and it's possible you're seeing that as acceptance on my part. It's not, FYI. Moderator bias is pronounced here, IMO, and has been for a while.

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

craddock

ok, so he did say what was quoted and much more that explains it a little better. And even more to the point it confirms he NEVER said children. My point was that it is so hard to take anything serious from people here when they deliberately lie and try and deceive.

On another note. It is not like he suggested they force women to the front. One was a lawyer that said she gladly would go to the front of the line. Are Feminists fighting for equal rights until they don't want them and want to hide behind behind being a women? Want it both ways? Or is the outrage that Women should be put in their place and not be allowed to stand up when these women know most if the world do not view Women the same and it would have an overwelming effect. Billvon's post is a prime example.

Maybe these women are trying to advance Feminism. I don't care. I just didn't like a Moderators deception

And I am not agreeing with what they did nor am I disagreeing. But for Billvon's to make it about children?..... I do not have the time to double check everything he says and post like this discredit most of it

I would bet there are not a lot of feminists with that group. Most conservatives I grew up around have some rather stifling and backwards view of a woman's role in life.

How about this... Since these people wish to deny the existence of our federal government... I don't think they get to use our constitution to wrap their idiocy in.

[Boomerdog 0]

The following URL is offered as it is I think an opinion that clarifies the larger issue that many of us are debating here. I encourage all those here to read it regardless of the position each of us takes in this matter.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php

Don't let the title dissuade. Like books and their covers, don't judge the substance from the title.

This article also speaks to a larger issue of the unscientific poll conducted at the start of this thread; we are a divided country with two different visions of how to proceed into the future. The issues behind the competing visions are creating deep and irreparable divisions. The question now is whether all of us can step back and seek a compromise. History is a great teacher. The issues behind the Civil War were similar in nature in that no one was willing to compromise. Some issues such as slavery could not be compromised but other issues such as an internal colonialism imposed by an industrial North upon and agrarian South just might have been solved had cooler heads prevailed. Cooler heads did not prevail. The result; approximately 650,000 American dead, killed at the hands of other Americans. At the time, that was 3% of the population and that was quite substantial given that point in our history.

Serving in the military for many years had its academic responsibilities. Contrary to the belief of some, we do spend a lot of our time in classrooms studying the nature of war, civilizations, economics, politics and national security etc etc. While war is a series of extremely violent actions that produces horrific results, it is a result of many factors; the inability of two opposing parties to resolve violently what they could not peacefully.

Let's make no mistake, this was an armed confrontation of Federal Law Enforcement officers versus those sympathetic to Mr. Bundy. No shots were fired, no wounded, no death...THIS TIME. The next time may be different. The sad fact is, the issue out in Nevada is far from resolved and as the author argues, NEITHER side holds all the cards of virtue.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and I don't take much comfort but the issue is worth such action. All of us on both sides of the political spectrum would do well to take a few steps back and make a bold and concerted attempt to understand the position of the other. Those of us who have been in war and/or seen the results up close and personal know the horror and in the end amongst the smoldering carnage, the survivors ask, "What got us to this in the first place?"

This is my last post this subject but I still have to ask Billvon;

"Is that all you got?"

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

ok, so he did say what was quoted and much more that explains it a little better. And even more to the point it confirms he NEVER said children. My point was that it is so hard to take anything serious from people here when they deliberately lie and try and deceive.

At what point do my daughters stop being my children? If people ask me if I have any children, do I have to answer "Nope. I do have two daughters and a son, though. However since they're all over the age of 18, I have no children."

Or, perhaps, you are choosing to intrude your politically convenient bias into your interpretation of the word?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 798]

I don't expect many to even skip a beat.

Especially in here.

[StreetScooby 5]

Good read, and well put. +1...

We are all engines of karma

[GeorgiaDon 362]

I did read your linked article. To help others to do so, here it is in clickable form (as opposed to having to copy and paste into the browser bar): http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php

I agree that it would be good to have a discussion on broad issues, such as whether or not the federal government or individual states would do a better job of managing such lands, or what the priorities should be when decisions are made about what activities to permit.

Unfortunately, the article in question doesn't do that either, it just pushes a political agenda. That is made clear by the concluding paragraph:
"And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?"

Back in the 1870s, when the Bundy family was first granted grazing rights in the area, the entire West was considered to be wasteland. Any development of any kind was welcomed. It didn't matter to anyone, then, that the land was quite unsuited to ranching, with vegetation so sparse that dozens of acres are required to support one cow. The entire population of the US was less than 40 million, virtually all living east of the Mississippi. No-one thought anything was improper about displacing indigenous people, ideally by using them for target practice. No-one gave any thought to the environment, to some extent because most economic activity was agricultural, there were few big factories and no cars, and the population was so dispersed that air and water pollution rarely had an impact on people, especially non-working-class people. Just one other factoid that illustrates how different the 1870s were from today: the leading cause of disease and death throughout the South was malaria. We can't even imagine that from today's perspective.

Today the population has grown 10-fold. Activities that had little impact on people in 1870 are huge issues today. It is no longer acceptable to dump our wastes directly into the water or air, because that waste will go pretty directly into someone else. As we became more aware of the environmental impact of our activities, we also developed certain ethical principles, such as the idea that it is a bad thing to cause the extinction of species.

The BLM manages a huge amount of land, mostly in Western states. This situation exists for historical reasons. For example, the land that is now Nevada was purchased from Mexico, by the United States government in the Mexican Cession of 1848. This is why the Bundy's claim that the land belongs to the state of Nevada is incorrect, it is the US government that paid for that land. The BLM has to manage the land in accordance with all federal laws, including environmental laws, and considering the interests of all stakeholders.

Some sorts of potential development of BLM land will have a large environmental impact, others less so. Some potential developments benefit a few people, others lots of people. This is why permits require extensive documentation of environmental and economic impacts. In the case of the Bundy family, they have had to expand the land used for grazing far beyond the original boundaries, into areas that have never been leased to any rancher, into a state park, and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. This huge area is needed because the land is so marginal for cattle production. Cattle destroy vegetation, increase erosion, and profoundly alter the habitat. It's easy to tell at a glance land that is being used for grazing from land that is not. Other species, including tortoises, end up being excluded because of the removal of vegetation, which results in less food, increased ground temperatures due to lack of shade, further drying out of the land due to increased ground temperatures and loss of roots/organic matter in the soil, and increased erosion. All of this is done to provide wealth to one family, the Bundys.

On the other hand, other sorts of development such as wind farms and solar farms also have an impact, though that is very different. Some land is occupied by windmills/solar panels, and vegetation is removed to put those things in place. Once in place, they don't move around and continue to destroy vegetation. They do alter the local environment, though, and the BLM is required to assess that, and weigh it against other uses for the land.

The BLM also has to consider economic benefits of proposed development. Which is likely to benefit the most people, and do the most to stimulate the local economy: cheap and renewable energy to support local economic growth, or using a dozen or so acres to grow one cow?

What do you think brings more money into the local economy: a tourist magnet such as the Lake Mead National Recreational Area, which had over 6,000,000 visitors in 2011, or one ranch with about 700 cows?

[We'll leave aside for now the fact that the consiracy theory that Harry Reid wants the Bundys out so he can sell the land to the Chinese has been completely debunked.]

I suppose it kind of sucks in some ways that the country has changed in so many ways in the last 150 years. There are a lot more of us, and so it's inevitable that we step on each other's toes more than we used to. There's the old saying "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose", but how does that apply to your right to piss in the river that other people drink from, for example? It's inevitable that increasing populations mean that certain activities are more likely to impact people (so to speak), just as swinging your fist by yourself out in the middle of nowhere is different from swinging your fist in the middle of a crowded room. So the result is laws that regulate things that weren't regulated before, and people feel their freedom is being attacked. More specifically, because it is government that passes and enforces laws, people feel that it is the government that is restricting their freedom.

There is, I think, a lot that should be discussed. It doesn't help that situations such as the Bundy's immediately are seized on by those with an anti-government agenda, and immediately conflated with all sorts of untrue conspiracy stories and threats (starting with the Bundys) of violence.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[StreetScooby 5]

Good read, and well put. +1...

Now, how do we reconcile your post and Boomerdog's post in a balanced way?

We are all engines of karma

[craddock 0]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

ok, so he did say what was quoted and much more that explains it a little better. And even more to the point it confirms he NEVER said children. My point was that it is so hard to take anything serious from people here when they deliberately lie and try and deceive.

At what point do my daughters stop being my children? If people ask me if I have any children, do I have to answer "Nope. I do have two daughters and a son, though. However since they're all over the age of 18, I have no children."

Or, perhaps, you are choosing to intrude your politically convenient bias into your interpretation of the word?

Don

Jesus Christ. I knew some one would say exactly that even though I had hoped not. If you cant figure out what his intent by using the word children was I shouldn't be wasting bandwidth trying to explain it to you. But I probably will. He didn't say "his children" referring to to ex Sheriff. He said children.

And yes I expect people to refer to there own children as such and don't need you to point it out to me however the term "women and children" does not refer to it in that way. Why not just say Children then because it will be simpler and include the women as well?

We are all children if you want to go off your comment. It wasn't what he meant and most people understand that.

How is this? I am sleeping around with children. I am dating a child. I got a child pregnant. Everyone is a child according to your wonderful viewpoint. But most people now the word is not intended to be used that way. Now I have to find out what child I am going to fuck tonight. She will probably be a 41 year old child though.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

GeorgiaDon

Or, perhaps, you are choosing to intrude your politically convenient bias into your interpretation of the word?

Don

Just what is my politically convenient bias?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kelpdiver 2]

craddock

Jesus Christ. I knew some one would say exactly that even though I had hoped not. If you cant figure out what his intent by using the word children was I shouldn't be wasting bandwidth trying to explain it to you. But I probably will. He didn't say "his children" referring to to ex Sheriff. He said children.

JFC, indeed. This nuance of daughter v children is a niggling detail at best. You still have a guy very bluntly speaking of using human shields as a ploy. You're desparately trying to escape that reality with this silliness.

[craddock 0]

kelpdiver

JFC, indeed. This nuance of daughter v children is a niggling detail at best. You still have a guy very bluntly speaking of using human shields as a ploy. You're desparately trying to escape that reality with this silliness.

I am not trying to escape anything. I think the guy is a bit of a nut head for sure.

But Billvon intentionally used the word Children to make is sound like they were going to be lining up kids at the front of the line. Why else would he use the word? After all we are all children in the other context. I didn't like the intentional deception and spoke out about it. Now I am suddenly a far right winger and what not because I prefer to hear more truth out of a moderator. Hmm. Interesting

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

StreetScooby

Good read, and well put. +1...

Now, how do we reconcile your post and Boomerdog's post in a balanced way?

Well, I would suggest we would need to start with a beer.

After that, we might consider whether or not we can find common ground on some bigger picture principles (leaving the specific Bundy situation aside for the moment). For example, we might ask:

Who would do a better job of managing public land with the best interests of the owners (which would be the citizenry at large) in mind, the federal government or state governments? State governments would likely be more responsive to local issues, but they also might be more in the pocket of local "big men". It's a common complaint that politicians are only responsive to wealthy donors, how might that change if states had control of the land? Following on this discussion, one might ask if federal land should be transferred to state control. Would that be only BLM land, or national forest, national parks, etc as well?

Should there even be such a thing as "public land" at all, or should all such land be sold or otherwise put into private ownership? Texas did this when it was a republic, as I recall; the constitution forbade the government from owning land. As a result, to create parks such as Big Bend it was necessary to purchase and/or condemn land from owners (almost all ranchers). Of course, what happened was mostly that well-connected people ended up with plots of land as large as some European countries, and paid very little or nothing for the privilege. Should we just hand control of the land over to those with the deepest pockets, with the rest of us fenced out?

Where is a reasonable line to draw for environmental protection? Most people (maybe not all) would agree it should not be OK to pee in (or otherwise contaminate) shared resources such as water and air, even if those resources passed through private land. On the other hand, few people want the EPA to regulate mud puddles. There is a lot of territory in between. Wetlands, for example, remove a lot of toxins from water, recharge the water table that feeds wells, and is necessary habitat for wildlife such as ducks. In the past landowners could fill in wetlands as they wished, and as a result wetlands now are less than 5% of what they were originally (i.e. a couple of hundred years ago). At what point (if any) do such resources become so scarce, and the functions they provide so valuable, that society is justified in protected them at the expense of property owners right to do as they wish with their land? How much ecological disruption should a landowner be allowed to do? Suppose a productive trout stream runs through several properties, and one landowner wants to develop to stream in a way that renders it unfit for trout downstream, even though the water still flows. Should the interests of downstream property owners, who may enjoy trout fishing (and who may even have bought the property for that purpose) take precedence over the property owner who wished to develop the stream?

Are species other than humans entitled to any legal consideration or protection? Let's say you have the last remaining individuals of some plant species on your property, right where you want to build a house. Past attempts have shown that the plant doesn't survive transplanting to a new location. Is it reasonable to protect the last individuals of the species at the expense of the land owner being able to build a house? Does the situation change if they want to build a factory and employ 100 people? How about if there are 2 places where the plant grows?

There are probably many such issues to consider. This is what we (through the government) should do when we pass laws. Sometimes that may happen, but it seems often the legislative process is a knee-jerk response to crisis situations, poorly thought out.

Eventually we would come back to the Bundys and ask how these principles apply to them. Some other things to consider would be:

The Bundys never owned (i.e. paid for) any of the land in question. For a long time they were permitted to use some land, apparently without charge. In 1993 the land owner, the federal government (through the manager, the BLM) started to charge grazing fees and imposed restrictions to protect tortoise habitat. One question might be, if a landowner establishes one set of conditions at one point in time, does that mean those conditions can never change? If I let you stay at my house rent free for a while, can I never at any point start to ask for rent, or do I have to let you live there for free forever?

Now the Bundys have expanded their operation onto land that was not part of the original lease, and into a state park and national recreation area. Even if you (the "royal you", not you specifically) feel the original lease should be honored in perpetuity, do the Bundys have a right to just move in to and start using more land, outside of the original lease, just because they feel entitled to do so? If you have a nice swimming pool, and your neighbor decides they can make money by growing fish in it, can they just move in on the argument that you weren't using the pool in an economically productive sense?

I suspect many cases of beer would be consumed while resolving (or at least discussing) these and other questions.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote from Sheriff Mack: “I would have put my own wife or daughters there..."

"Daughters" doesn't specify an age, and they are (I presume) his children.

Perhaps you would have been happier had BV quoted something along the lines of "I would have put my own oppositely gendered legal spouse and XX-chromosome bearing F1 progeny, aged n1 and n2 years, there..." After all, one can never be too precise!

Or, perhaps, we can agree that a willingness to sacrifice your own family, or to deliberately put them in harms way, to make a political point is despicable.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[craddock 0]

GeorgiaDon

Quote from Sheriff Mack: “I would have put my own wife or daughters there..."

"Daughters" doesn't specify an age, and they are (I presume) his children.

Perhaps you would have been happier had BV quoted something along the lines of "I would have put my own oppositely gendered legal spouse and XX-chromosome bearing F1 progeny, aged n1 and n2 years, there..." After all, one can never be too precise!

Or, perhaps, we can agree that a willingness to sacrifice your own family, or to deliberately put them in harms way, to make a political point is despicable.

Don

Get over yourself. You are obviously a well articulated intelligent individual. But unfortunately posts like this have made me gloss over perhaps well written logical essays of yours.

I would have been fine if he said "his own children" or anything to that nature but even then the intent of BV's choice of words would have been clear. You are trying to make this about what is right or wrong by a definition stand point when you are completely(and intentionally) missing the point of intent. And doing so strictly because of which side of the isle you are on. I will later go out and find some right wingers to call out so you can get off your horse that I am somehow politically motivated in this matter to defend "my party"


BV did not use the words "women and children" to make readers think he was referring to full grown adult women that were his kids. That was not his intent. If you are so blinded by which side of the isle that you feel the need to defend then all the good well thought out points your want to convey and debate are lost upon some that may have been educated and swayed. (I could use your help on that sentence grammatically)

You feel the need to be right about such a simple point. And as I said I knew someone would fire back with this exact angle because what your are saying is factually true. I didn't need you to tell me that.

But your so blinded by your willingness to defend anyone in your party that you refuse to admit is was a cheap use of the phrase and was intended to imply the normal and customary definition of the for mentioned phrase. Otherwise it is redundant. Children already covered anyone else mentioned if that is the meaning. This is a known phrase and you insist on picking it apart to defend his actions.

His intent was clear. And by the way you write is sounds like you should be intelligent enough to realize that.

I will admit I am out of my league for the most part when it comes to politics with you and many other in this forum. So you don't need to stand your high ground to prove yourself to me.

BV's intent was clear and I find it despicably deceptive. Play with your definitions till your blue in the face. It won't change that

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Tell you what. I'll concede that "women and children" is subtly different from "wife and daughters", and does tend to convey an image of women holding babies.

To me, the idea of using one's wife and daughters as a human shield is not any better than the idea of using women and children. Perhaps there is a difference to others.

I don't think there is any requirement for the unpaid, volunteer moderators of this forum to refrain from expressing an opinion. Their only "job" is to make sure the forum rules (no jokes about pedophilia, no personal attacks) are respected. On the latter point they cut some slack, but (IMHO) they are on the receiving end of many obvious direct personal attacks that they generally let slide as well.

I'd be interested in your opinion of the more germain issues associated with this topic.

Cheers,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[masterrig 1]

Let me ask this... If, the BLM and other 'conservation' groups take away all the ranchland so as to make 'parks' out of that land, where do you suppose we'll get our food? What really irritates me is the idea presented here that farmers and ranchers are a bunch of dumb hicks. Just the opposite is closer to the truth. Farmers and ranchers today are college educated and work 'with' extension services as well as conservation groups. They do that so they can produce a good product for the consumption of this and other countries. They have learned from history and improved methods so as to continue to do something they love to do. They do all that through drought, wildfires, early snow storms, freezing temperatures flood, insect infestations and you name it. I would have to argue much of what your lengthy post, earlier in this thread contends. I've spent a lot of years in and around the farming and ranching business and have seen what the government agencies and conservation groups are doing to harm farming and ranching. They spread their lies and videos to get public support. In attempt to make farmers and ranchers some evil entity. The bottom line is greed on their part. They only see it their way. I've always understood that one gets farther through cooperation. Doesn't seem to work when it's their way or the highway.


Chuck

[GeorgiaDon 362]

The BLM isn't a "conservation group", and I haven't seen anyone here imply that farmers are "a bunch of dumb hicks". I certainly would never say or even think such a thing. You will no doubt be surprised to learn that my wife and I run (on the side, admittedly) a small farm where we produce and sell goats, peacocks, and chicken eggs, plus we have horses. We live in an agricultural community and get along very well with our full time farmer neighbors.

I'm curious about what you disagree with in my post. The matters of history, the encroachment of the Bundy ranch onto land they were never permitted to graze, and the economic impact of the Lake Mead Recreation Area are all easily verified facts. Perhaps you dispute my description of the impact of grazing on desert lands? If so, I'd assume you are fortunate enough to be living in an area that is actually suitable for large animal agriculture. I'd encourage you to check out photos of the Nevada landscape. Not every plot of land is equally appropriate for cattle ranching. If you need tens of thousands of acres to maintain only 700 head of cattle, you should question the viability of the enterprise. Or at least pay the landowner for the privilege of using the land.

On my drive from home to work, I pass a good dozen dairy and beef farms. Every one is on land the farmers actually own and manage. Not a single acre is government land. But around here farmers are also scrupulous about paying their debts, as I am sure is true where you live as well.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Well, I would suggest we would need to start with a beer.

Absolutely, and I'm buying the first round

Quote

After that, we might consider whether or not we can find common ground on some bigger picture principles

I am absolutely certain that we can, especially after a few rounds.

Quote

Who would do a better job of managing public land with the best interests of the owners (which would be the citizenry at large) in mind...

What is your take on private property, and the individual pursuit?

Quote

the federal government or state governments?

What's your take on state's rights? Do you prefer a "market" where there are 50 different experiments going on, or not?

Quote

but they also might be more in the pocket of local "big men".

That applies to all successful politicians, one way or the other. I'm confident there are ways to deal with this, such as full public accounting of all tax payer dollars, but that could well turn into another thread.

Quote

Following on this discussion, one might ask if federal land should be transferred to state control. Would that be only BLM land, or national forest, national parks, etc as well?

At this point in time, there is an enormous amount of history that has happened, a substantial amount of which has been beyond the scope of our Founding Fathers, IMO.

Quote

Should we just hand control of the land over to those with the deepest pockets, with the rest of us fenced out?

While I believe that capitalism is the best system yet demonstrated (as measured by the number of people taken out of poverty), I do not believe it is a stable system. It requires functioning markets, which require many buyers and many sellers. This tends to get out of whack over time. At the same time, markets provide a recourse that a centralized government doesn't. Don't like one seller, go to another. Don't like what the government is doing to you, not much recourse there.

Quote

Where is a reasonable line to draw for environmental protection? Most people (maybe not all) would agree it should not be OK to pee in (or otherwise contaminate) shared resources such as water and air, even if those resources passed through private land.

What does it mean to be a responsible citizen in a civilized society? Much of that must come from your family, then your aunts and uncles (...your culture, using my simple definition), then an education system. This is a major failing in our society right now.

Quote

At what point (if any) do such resources become so scarce, and the functions they provide so valuable, that society is justified in protected them at the expense of property owners right to do as they wish with their land? How much ecological disruption should a landowner be allowed to do?

At this point in my life, I am firmly convinced there is absolutely no such thing as "for the greater good" if someone else is making that decision for you. If you make that decision yourself, wonderful, you're being a responsible citizen. What other recourse is there besides an out of control government imposing some ill-defined will on you?

Quote

There are probably many such issues to consider.

Agreed. And responsible citizens should be doing that locally, not some entity 1000 miles away that thinks they are smarter than you, as a general rule, IMO.

Quote

The Bundys never owned (i.e. paid for) any of the land in question.

I do understand the issues involved here, and it is just another example to me that our federal government has gone completely out of control. Are you kidding me? This is all for some tortoise? Come on... If that land is so arid and inhospitable, pick them up and put them some other place.

The fact that the EPA is even thinking about shutting down coal power in this country is simple unfathomable to me, at this point in time. Real people will end up being hurt badly for some goal that this action will not have any significant effect on. Yes, I know this is a bit off topic, but it reflects my general view here...

Quote

In 1993 the land owner, the federal government (through the manager, the BLM) started to charge grazing fees and imposed restrictions to protect tortoise habitat.

While I feel for the tortoises, what's next on the list? Ants? Nature is going to do its thing, and we're not really going to change that much. BTW, here's a good book that I'm reading right now:
Mother Nature Is Trying to Kill You
Nature is not some peaceful place.

Quote

If I let you stay at my house rent free for a while, can I never at any point start to ask for rent, or do I have to let you live there for free forever?

That's your property, you're individual pursuit, and your call, IMO.

Quote

I suspect many cases of beer would be consumed while resolving (or at least discussing) these and other questions.

Absolutely, and I truly look forward to a day where we can do so.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Or, perhaps, we can agree that a willingness to sacrifice your own family, or to deliberately put them in harms way, to make a political point is despicable.

Uhm, how do you think we're enjoying the liberties we have in this country today? Many men put their fortunes and their families on the line.

We are all engines of karma