Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:03 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
leady wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.


Sorry but can you spell out the specific issue besides trespass in a remote empty building without the strange juxtaposition to individual policing decisions in a completely different population, economic area etc. If its the open defiance of government, well I hope you apply that universally... Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.


Well, I personally have a problem with a group deciding they don't need to follow no steenking laws because they're armed, regardless of their colour or hickyness. And lets not forget this group got away with this kind of shit before. This is the issue.


The sad thing is, they have a legitimate gripe that has been largely drowned out by their own misguided actions. Had they simply occupied the building or engaged in organized protests, they would be bringing attention to an issue that a lot of Americans might support. The fact that they armed themselves has placed all of the attention on the guns.

If they've got a problem with the laws there are plenty of legit ways to try to change them in a democracy.


Agreed. This whole thing was misguided on their part. They've created a situation where all of the attention is on the guns and on them; and the thing they're actually protesting is barely an afterthought. They've also ensured that this ends badly from their perspective... even assuming a peaceful end. It's hard to imagine any scenario that doesn't involve extended time in jail - and at this point, that may be their best possible outcome.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:06 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The sad thing is, they have a legitimate gripe that has been largely drowned out by their own misguided actions. Had they simply occupied the building or engaged in organized protests, they would be bringing attention to an issue that a lot of Americans might support. The fact that they armed themselves has placed all of the attention on the guns.


In fairness, this exact strategy got them an utter crapton of media attention, whereas a normal demonstration of 150 people would make local news at best.

Not sure that being effective makes it right, but for effectiveness at getting attention, well, they did that. I'm not confident that they have a sound plan for stage two, though. I mean, they're talking crap about 'being prepared to stay for years', but they're begging the internet for help a few days in.

Edit: Also, I'm doubtful that they actually have 150. Pictures always show a crapton less. I think there might be some generous counting going on.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Update: The group, realizing they may be there a while, and maybe not having actually prepared for this all that well, has put out a call for donations. With their shipping address, naturally.

Reddit has boldly answered this call, and has graciously volunteered to supply them with things they may not yet realize they need, such as hopeless amounts of glitter.


Apparently, some redditors are considering sending them Sugar-Free Gummy Bears. Based on the (hilarious) Amazon reviews, I think that they'd probably prefer the drone strike.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

My use of the word "crapton" may be true in an unintended fashion.

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

leady wrote:
If you mean the ones that break the law should be arrested, then yes. The police response to resisting arrest should be consistent too.


I don't think you mean that, but I look forward to your new consistent zero tolerance approach to policing in other threads


It's hardly zero tolerance to arrest people for breaking the law.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

So, where does the tolerance come in, then?

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

I'm not one of the people asking for a drone strike on them in case you're wondering.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:28 pm UTC

Angua wrote:You must have missed it. Try again. https://twitter.com/IanKullgren/status/ ... _src=twsrc^tfw
They can talk the talk about fighting the good fight but can they walk the walk? Certainly the answer is no, if nobody is there to kill them. If you want to ship glitter here is the address. UPS might deliver. If you want to go visit, feel free. Everybody else is.
36391 Sodhouse Ln, Princeton, OR 97721
fws.gov
(541) 493-2612
The only people out there are the protesters and people waiting to see what will happen. The FBI are in a hotel 30 miles away. CNN will get tired when nothing happens. So will the gawkers. And when they get tired and cold most will go home. Currently it is a balmy 32 degrees. And then our heros will be out in the sticks waiting for their big moment. And waiting, and waiting, and...................

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:30 pm UTC

I suppose it's true that not demanding immediate mass murder is a sort of tolerance.

But it's the sort of thing that's so extreme that even proponents of zero tolerance policing don't openly advocate for that. Instead they advocate for rigid enforcement, and mandatory minimums on sentencing(one of the things causing this whole mess). Oh, and you inevitibly get unfair plea bargains being pushed hard because of the caseload. Another of the causes of this mess.

So yeah, you're a fan of zero tolerance policing, sounds like.

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I suppose it's true that not demanding immediate mass murder is a sort of tolerance.

But it's the sort of thing that's so extreme that even proponents of zero tolerance policing don't openly advocate for that. Instead they advocate for rigid enforcement, and mandatory minimums on sentencing(one of the things causing this whole mess). Oh, and you inevitibly get unfair plea bargains being pushed hard because of the caseload. Another of the causes of this mess.

So yeah, you're a fan of zero tolerance policing, sounds like.


I'm a fan of people who cause property damage and trespassing being at least arrested and charged, and I apply that to both armed and unarmed groups. I think there's a gap between that and zero tolerance policing. If it turns out that they're exactly the same thing, then yeah zero tolerance policing isn't as bad as it sounds.

EDIT: I guess it depends on whether the property owner wants to press charges? In any case, leady seemed to be trying to imply I only wanted the Bundyites to face consequences for their criminal damage and not say, Occupy protesters or something. That's what I was addressing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

Zero tolerance is opposed to discretion. Mandating a course of action for all police, regardless of circumstance. Mandating minimum sentencing, regardless of the judge's discretion.

It exists on a continuum, it's just that, as a society, we're still recovering from being on the extreme end of that spectrum. Too much discretion, and the effective power of judges and police become too great. Too little, and you build a machine that processes people into corpses and prisoners at an alarming rate. In the US, we're closer to the latter.

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

Discretions great as long as it's not "they're armed, leave them to it I guess". The suggestion the bias is *against* armed groups was surprising to see.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:02 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Discretions great as long as it's not "they're armed, leave them to it I guess". The suggestion the bias is *against* armed groups was surprising to see.


Well, literally every news media outlet ever manages to say the word 'armed' several times per piece, and it's the stated reason why some people are literally demanding their death.

That sounds like bias.

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:05 pm UTC

Yeah, I realised that after I posted it, was sorta doing something else at the same time. Ok, some people are pretty biased against them in their sentiment. I'll be interested to see what the differences in actual actions are after this though.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:14 pm UTC

I expect, in actual practice, police will be fairly hesitant to move against a large group with firearms. They're MUCH faster to respond when it's a single individual reaching for a "gun" that turns out to be a cell phone or something. Or a dog, that had the temerity to bark. The presence of many actual guns somehow induces moderation on the part of police.

It's my belief that this is because the former acts of violence stem primarily from annoyance or assertion of authority using violence, rather than actual fear.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby BlackSails » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:47 pm UTC

Where is the line between this and rebellion? (Ie, when does this turn into a military matter rather than a police matter?)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:05 am UTC

In this particular case it never does. If however the Governor of Oregon tried to protect the protesters with the state Guard it might become interesting.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:25 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Where is the line between this and rebellion? (Ie, when does this turn into a military matter rather than a police matter?)


According to this, it's basically at the authority of the President or Congress.
The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Where is the line between this and rebellion? (Ie, when does this turn into a military matter rather than a police matter?)


The difference between protest and rebellion is pretty clear. A rebellion tries to seize the seats of power by force. Protest is an attention grab to make a case.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby BlackSails » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
BlackSails wrote:Where is the line between this and rebellion? (Ie, when does this turn into a military matter rather than a police matter?)


The difference between protest and rebellion is pretty clear. A rebellion tries to seize the seats of power by force. Protest is an attention grab to make a case.


It doesnt have to be seats of power. If I got an army and took control over part of rural montana and called myself the Free Republic of Montana, and then threatened to shoot any trespassing invaders of the imperialistic United States, that would be a rebellion.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

They're actually draping the US Flag over the area. So at very least, they are "hyper-American" on this issue.

They're right-wing nuts, but they still consider themselves American and aren't really "rebellious" (despite their language)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
BlackSails wrote:Where is the line between this and rebellion? (Ie, when does this turn into a military matter rather than a police matter?)


The difference between protest and rebellion is pretty clear. A rebellion tries to seize the seats of power by force. Protest is an attention grab to make a case.


It doesnt have to be seats of power. If I got an army and took control over part of rural montana and called myself the Free Republic of Montana, and then threatened to shoot any trespassing invaders of the imperialistic United States, that would be a rebellion.


The sovereign citizen people are usually just crazy and weird, and maybe bad about paying their taxes, not a particularly credible rebellion. Nobody cares unless folks are attempting to wield power over others. There's a million little "micronation" movements that are mostly pointless.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:If I got an army and took control over part of rural Montana and called myself the Free Republic of Montana, and then threatened to shoot any trespassing invaders of the imperialistic United States, that would be a rebellion.
Well that certainly isn't a description of these fools. And it is a simplistic description. For a rebellion to be successful and dangerous you have to challenge the state in such a way as to be a hazard. Take 100 squares miles of Montana and declare it sovereign. And then proceed to starve and die of thirst. I can say anything but an army has to be supported, and a sovereign nation has to be able to do the things a state needs to do. The interior of the country is landlocked, if you grab it you are limited to what is in it.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

commodorejohn
Posts: 1182
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Birders bite back

Okay, this just got kinda great.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:51 pm UTC

Interesting. This seems to be heavy on hyperbole. "terrorists of the worst kind", huh.

I'd previously run across evidence that the federal grounds in connection with the Hammond case produced significantly less wildlife than nearby privately owned land. Was part of the long legal back and forth in the history surrounding the event. I think it was on the order of three times as much on private land. Which, really, isn't surprising. If you're grazing animals, you tend to arrange water for them, probably by digging ponds, and naturally, wildlife flocks to water.

The poaching, likewise, seems to be a reference to the Hammonds, as in the original case, that was among the charges, though they were not found guilty of that. I don't know that the current folks protesting have anything at all to do with poaching. Haven't seen anything either way, and a number of them are not locals, and it's not really hunting centric, so...I'm not 100% sure of what the bird-watchers are going for here.

Also, this doesn't seem to be an official thing put out by the organization as a whole. Just...some dude named Kevin who thinks he's a badass.

Man, I need to get some popcorn for this.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:51 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Newt
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Newt » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:29 pm UTC

Well, the original owners as of the start of recorded history there.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Chen » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:46 pm UTC

Burns Paiute Tribal Chair Charlotte Rodrique told reporters Wednesday that the tribe is concerned about damage to cultural artifacts. The group is "desecrating one of our sacred sites," she said.


Uh how sacred was the site if the government put some sort of outpost there anyways? And what cultural artifacts are still around that spot? Unless they're referring to the park in general (which is hard to consider "occupied" I'd think).

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:23 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -discount/

Cphite, can you elaborate on the legitimate gripe? It looks to me like they're welfare queens who are demanding free land. If a private owner rented the land, he'd be charging 10x the price that the bundys aren't paying.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

The idea that they are specifically aiming to buy near federal land is a little...off. There is SO much federal land there that it's hard to not do so, and when you consider that ranchers have very large chunks of turf, it's just going to happen.

And yes, market rates would be very different if public land were privately owned and managed, but...it's not. You can't ignore half or more of the market and come up with a realistic summary. Note that the Bundy issue is sort of distinct from the Hammond issue. There's a degree of co-opting there, but the stated purpose of the occupation is central to the Hammond issue, not the Bundy one.

In addition, the "93%" number relies on an average market rate. They do not live in an area where land is the average market rate. So, saying that the Bundys, in particular, are receiving welfare, is highly questionable.

Plus, this ignores the actual fact that his permit was revoked(due to a protected species thing, not due to non-payment). So, it was no longer a matter of paying normal rates, but of paying punative fines of over a million bucks instead.

Granted, a lot of that is referenced in the article itself, but these things make the headline very, very deceptive, and outright incorrect.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

But is the underlying issue that the ranchers are claiming land that isn't theirs? If the government owns the land its ok to take it? Why would you want government to be less market oriented? If anything it should go to the highest bidder and then weigh the benefit against environmental concerns. I wouldn't jump straight to free land to white dudes.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:But is the underlying issue that the ranchers are claiming land that isn't theirs? If the government owns the land its ok to take it? Why would you want government to be less market oriented? If anything it should go to the highest bidder and then weigh the benefit against environmental concerns. I wouldn't jump straight to free land to white dudes.


The thing that usually gets their panties in a twist is when the EPA declares some patch of grazing land as a wildlife refuge for an endangered species. They see it as the Federal Government exercising control over land rights that the Feds don't expressly have from the Constitution, and should be handled at the State, or better yet Local, or even better still at the level of an individual private land owner.

Basically they see no value in protecting endangered wildlife (especially if that wildlife habitat could be used for capital production like livestock grazing, factory construction, coal mining, etc. etc. etc.) therefore EPA protections on habitats are (on the lower end of the conspiracy spectrum) a waste of tax dollars and a pointless restriction on proper capitalist endeavors, or (if we swing to the high-tinfoilhat content end), an attempt by the Federal government to gain direct control over states and localities.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:33 pm UTC

But it's not their land, nor are they trying to buy it. It's always a balancing act between environmental and business concerns, but this isn't it. Like me and my school buddies could have equal claim and say they should save the land for our hiking trip. How is my claim any less valid?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:But it's not their land, nor are they trying to buy it. It's always a balancing act between environmental and business concerns, but this isn't it. Like me and my school buddies could have equal claim and say they should save the land for our hiking trip. How is my claim any less valid?


You're missing the part where they don't believe it's a balancing act between environment and business, that Sage Grouse habitat would be more productive as cattle grazing land, or as coal mines.

The other factor is a preference for private ownership. It's pretty ingrained in the U.S. consciousness that "King George" on his throne far far away shouldn't be telling the "Colonists" what to do, and a similar attitude exists in western states regarding the Federal Government way across the continent issuing edicts from their own "on high".

Now many people appreciate the National Parks / Federal Lands system and recognize it's place in promoting biodiversity, as well as it's commercial value in recreation and tourism. To groups like this "militia" that value is (at best) in question, and rather than having the Federal Government from wayy off on the east coast handing down edicts about how land should be used, they argue that such decisions should come from localities actually situated on or near those lands.

Edit:

See also: Parochialism.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

Whoever controls the land will want to exercise that control. Bundy wouldn't be any more happy if the land adjacent to his was turned into a strip mine or an open pit copper mine. Or if a richer cattle operation chose to starve his cattle by denying him access.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Whoever controls the land will want to exercise that control. Bundy wouldn't be any more happy if the land adjacent to his was turned into a strip mine or an open pit copper mine. Or if a richer cattle operation chose to starve his cattle by denying him access.


I completely agree. However their parochial view of the universe makes them immediately more suspicious of the federal government than their neighbor.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Whoever controls the land will want to exercise that control. Bundy wouldn't be any more happy if the land adjacent to his was turned into a strip mine or an open pit copper mine. Or if a richer cattle operation chose to starve his cattle by denying him access.

Ding ding ding. These "protestors" aren't going to be happy until we give them the land practically for free. That's the problem with renters, you lease then a bit, and they think own the joint.

I say the real problem is these cattlemen are very dependent on federal subsidies, and that makes them mad.

Edit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/po ... -says.html
In 2009, the analyst wrote a report that warned of a growing antigovernment movement & the possible recruitment of returning military veterans that could “lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists.” His words drew fierce criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative media, labeling the report an unfair assessment of legitimate criticisms of the government. The document was retracted after Janet Napolitano, who was then the Homeland Security secretary, apologized to veterans, and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch was quietly dismantled.Citing data from a 2013 report produced by the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, Mr. Ellison noted that, “Right-wing extremists have launched an average of 330 attacks a year and killed about 250 people between 2002 and 2011. These are dangerous people.” A survey of law enforcement agencies last year, conducted by the Police Executive Forum, found that 74 percent of the 382 agencies polled cited antigovernment extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats. “We believe that they were emboldened by their ability to run federal officials off at the point of a gun,” said Ms. Beirich. “Now, a year and half later, there have been no prosecutions whatsoever. Pointing a gun at a federal officer is a crime.”

TLDR The GOP is emboldening and covers up domestic terrorism from right-wing groups. AKA the GOP aids, and abets terrorists. It just so happens that one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. The same old deal is happening, whitey gets away with terrorism because their concerns are familiar, and easily explained. Darkies don't get that level of empathy, even though Islamic extremists share a majority of conservative views, like how modern culture is the root of the world's problems, and how great the good old days were, etc etc.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

The GOP is a white mans party. But it isn't just here. Worldwide we seem to be into a conservative cycle and the fringe is gaining traction.

Bundy gains importance because he gets press, and he gets validation because of the self focusing nature of the internet, where every nut can have his day. If you had been reading the NYT you would have seen an article about a fifteen year standoff that went on so long that a DA just dropped the charges. And nobody knew, including the local sheriff or the man at the center of it.

The difference between Black protesters and these militias is one of goals. The militias, or at least the most worrisome of them, would love nothing better than to trigger a civil war, Blacks just want a fair shake. And that difference is what makes the militias more dangerous, when confronted.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The GOP is a white mans party. But it isn't just here. Worldwide we seem to be into a conservative cycle and the fringe is gaining traction.

Bundy gains importance because he gets press, and he gets validation because of the self focusing nature of the internet, where every nut can have his day. If you had been reading the NYT you would have seen an article about a fifteen year standoff that went on so long that a DA just dropped the charges. And nobody knew, including the local sheriff or the man at the center of it.

The difference between Black protesters and these militias is one of goals. The militias, or at least the most worrisome of them, would love nothing better than to trigger a civil war, Blacks just want a fair shake. And that difference is what makes the militias more dangerous, when confronted.

There's kids on that compound who haven't met anyone not crazy in 15 years? How is this OK in any way?

I don't think the libertarian sympathizers here understand why the ranchers/right wingers there are so angry, so let's do a little history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upsho ... ref=upshot
Spoiler:
How did the federal government get the land?
The history of federal land ownership has been largely one of divestiture and public use, not acquisition. As the United States expanded across the continent, it did so by purchasing or taking the land that became new states. (Among the groups it took land from were Native Americans.)
Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading and land grants, which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. The government also tended to allow free use of unclaimed lands by ranchers and others, though there were skirmishes over the years when settlers tried to fence in public land or claimed land in Indian territories. That strategy worked well in the Midwest, where very little land remains in federal hands. East of the Mississippi, for example, the federal government owns only 4 percent of land.
But in the 11 states in the West (including New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, and not counting Alaska), a combination of geography and politics slowed things down. The many mountainous, arid and difficult-to-reach tracts of land in the West simply weren’t attractive to farmers. Settlers claimed the few valleys where farming was feasible and built towns. The only thing most of the remaining land was good for was grazing, but cattle ranchers and sheep herders needed large tracts of land to feed their livestock, not the smaller parcels they could claim through homestead policies.

Isn’t the government protecting that land?
As conservation became a more important public policy goal, and politicians became concerned about substantial corruption involved in earlier land sales, efforts to hand over large tracts of federal land slowed. Some land was set aside for parks, wilderness and conservation.
Much of the 247 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management is available for leases to ranchers seeking grass for their cattle and to companies that extract minerals or oil. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, where Ammon Bundy and his supporters have occupied a building this week, is set aside as conservation land, where no development can take place. The federal land in Nevada that was central to Cliven Bundy’s 2014 dispute with federal officials was available for grazing to cattlemen willing to pay a lease fee, but with restrictions meant to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

Why are there cattle grazing on it? In the early 1900s, cattle farming became a speculative boom because farmers realized that the federal government was basically giving away a valuable free commodity: grass. This quickly became a problem that economists call the “tragedy of the commons.” Everyone was allowed to let cattle graze the millions of acres of public grass. Ranchers, local officials and lawmakers got together and created a law called the Taylor Grazing Act, which effectively created a federal body called the Division of Grazing to manage the grazing of these lands.

So, why the anger?
Grumbling about federal control of local lands is nothing new. But research from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service suggests that the federal government is a decent, if inflexible, landlord. Compared with private owners, it tends to charge lower rents for grazing and mining permits. Some of the land could be sold to individuals, and some has been — the government has sold hundreds of thousands of acres in the last 25 years. But that probably won’t help the protesters. “The ranchers couldn’t afford to buy these lands anyway,” said John Freemuth, a professor of public policy at Boise State University, who studies land-use policy. In recent years, Congress has considered legislation to transfer ownership of public lands from federal hands into state control. Advocates say that state ownership would be more responsive to the preferences of the people who wish to use the land. But studies have established that there would be substantial administrative costs for states if they took over. And the federal government transfers a lot of its leasing revenue back to states to compensate for the taxes the states might have collected if the land were in private hands. If they owned the land, the states would have to collect rents and administer permits themselves. An economic study from Utah in 2012 found that taking over land management would cost the state government a substantial sum: $275 million a year. It may turn out that if the states own it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for a different set of reasons.

TLDR: This is entirely a matter of money. The vast majority of the land is of low quality so nobody but ranchers wanted it. Ranching is a terrible business model, so it requires a lot of land (aka money) to do it. The ranchers are too poor to buy up the land, and too poor to even lease the land at the large discount already provided. When the states considered administering it from a local level, they realized they were too poor to administer it. (aka the ranchers taxes would rise, which they are too poor to pay for).
TLDR x2: Ranchers poor =>angry. In this case, the Libertarian solution is a lie. The ranchers will just be angry at another level of government.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests