How can we own the land? Native American's were here first, why don't they own it? They, too, have a preemptive right that's not being observed.
Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
How can we own the land? Native American's were here first, why don't they own it? They, too, have a preemptive right that's not being observed.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
You are correct about the Native Americans they are truly the ones who have been screwed in our pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, since we the United States govt purchased the land from Mexico. Then the state of Nevada has turned over to the Federal government and BLM most managing rights.
But should they have? Why did they?
Sorry, I was continuing my above post in edit mode while letting that first line stand. If you care, go to my little rant in the LTE today for a basic framework of my point of view. Briefly, I realize that "property" and precedents are are negotiable in politics. Things change, and governments change, and "ownership" or "rights" change.
Ambrose Bierce crystalized this concept in his Devil's Dictionary, I think it was his definition of speech. . .. "the music with which we charm the serpents that guard another man's treasure".
I actually support the priority of government, in it's ideal manifestation as described by Lincoln with the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people", but I realize we have a huge tradition of injustices to practically every minority that has gotten in the way of "progress" as envisioned by our movers/shakers in our entire history.
A reading of the history of the Cherokee nation would be just one example. My kids understand their mothers' belief that they are descendants of about sixth generations removed cherokees on that trail of tears.
I support good management of our lands, and even private lands, for the benefit of all life and for future generations. . . . but I rage about what I see as government policy hijacked by politically-connected interests.
I could rage about a lot of stuff. I worked for a corporation and saw it's owner deliberately take it into bankruptcy to shed over a hundred million in debt owed mostly to 401k accounts managed by Wells Fargo, and then buy it back at court auction because, conveniently his buddies in the BLM had just sued him for a Billion dollars and nobody else would touch his company. After the auction was over, the BLM dropped the lawsuit. . . .
I would characterize the BLM's dealings with Bundy as abuse of power, corrupt, and another outrage. It serves no good purpose to apply science or policy arbitrarily to individual cases for reasons of favoring other parties. . . . .It also serves no good purpose to move ranchers off grazing lands that they have used for generations, generally, because I believe such use is actually beneficial in several aspects.
But Bundy's rights originated in public land policy. A lot of folks don't understand he is objecting to arbitrary edicts, not public policy. I doubt even Cliven Bundy is correctly understanding what he is actually doing. . . . He might think he "owns" the land, he might think it should be administered by the State of Nevada or Clark County Nevada, but his position was taken because he was arbitrarily attacked by the BLM over a false claim of detriment to some turtles.
Last edited:
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
I just don't want to sit around and see people using false nostalgia to work up misguided false patriotism. The United States has always had problems I just can't stand the right drumming up this false sense of entitlement to a false glazed over past.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
No they shouldn't have done what they did. But, we can recognize that it was wrong as one way to make amends.
I get that too, but remember that a blind squirrel is gonna find a nut some day. Just because on the immediate surface he's a cry baby that doesn't think he should have to follow the same rules as the rest of us doesn't mean there isn't an injustice being done. But that's why this isn't going to lead to a revolution, just feelings of resentment that maybe, someday, compounded with something a little less foggy, might lead to a revolution.
It's like an oreo.
Whiney little cattle rancher hijacking the price of beef WAY up(have you seen beef prices lately?) while whining about grazing fees/cattle head limits
Whole mess of civil liberties, states rights, and other legit issues in the middle
Racist redneck hillbilly hoping to get as much support from anyone and everyone possible with as little effort as possible
But recognizing it as wrong and changing the laws at this point makes the government look weak.
You sure that's the right answer?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
That's deep, deep, level of ignorance. I would say more, but this is the wrong thread for that.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
Personally I'm more outraged about the corporate money that is buying our government than some rancher that is choosing to circumvent laws and fees that have been on the books since before Ronald "the demigod" Reagan. I know that their is the argument which came first the chicken or the egg to the whole Cliven Bundy debate. But, meanwhile the SCOTUS has put in place first Citizens United and now they have made a decision on the McCutheon case which are far worse and have much larger consequences for us. Our country is turning from a Republic to and Oligarchy before our eyes.
Remember in this whole argument that Cliven Bundy is choosing to break the laws.