That land belonged to the Native tribes before being stolen by some "white" settlers or a "white" government. Then it was bought or leased from the thieves.
Yeah, and before that the Native tribe who lived there at that time stole it from some other Natives who lived there and who had probably stolen it from someone before them and so on since the first humans came to North America. The story is the same world wide.
It's sad, and WRONG, to take land (or any other property) which doesn't belong to you. But, Mr. Bundy* didn't steal that land. No one who originally owned that land before someone stole it is still alive, and some undoubtedly left no descendants whatsoever, having been wiped out in the process of having their land stolen.
Sometimes there is just no way to fix a past wrong. What are you going to do? Obsess over it and hate everyone and everything until perfection is achieved?
As I have said multiple times in the past, at some point you just have to wipe the slate clean and forgive past offenses and say "Never again!" That, or you'll never have any peace.
-
*I'm not saying he is necessarily a wonderful guy. I don't know him. Everyone- including myself- has flaws and faults. He may even frequently recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or "support the troops", or something hideous like that. I'm speaking narrowly here. If you can't stand up for the rights of a bad guy when you see him being violated, your support of the good guy in the same situation is cheapened. And no matter how bad Bundy may or may not be, the thugs calling themselves "government" are always worse, and are the ultimate bad guys in this situation. I'm glad they got beaten in this first skirmish of the war. I hope if they try to attack again their loss is even more dramatic.
.
I predict, in a few weeks there will be a tragic unexplained fire with no survivors.
ReplyDeleteThere shouldn't be any government owned land for the BLM to manage, except, as in the U.S. Constitution, property necessary for forts, arsenals, etc. If people want to save the desert tortoise, which is really what this is all about, let them ban together, buy the land, and fence it off.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all convinced it really has anything to do with tortoises, but I would gladly protect habitat for something like that on property I owned. I have never owned property that didn't wind up cleaner and better for the natural inhabitants after I got it.
ReplyDeleteGood news, the government backed down.
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2014/04/13/why-the-feds-chickened-out-on-a-nevada-ranch-n1823838/page/full
I hope so... I'm afraid they just knew when they were outnumbered and ran away to strike a sneak attack another day.
DeleteMy experience with confronting government on issues of rights and property, and from what I can remember, this applies to everyone I know who became (either by choice or chance) is that we have not seen an instance of it where everybody came 'with clean hands' to the hearing or prosecution of the case.
ReplyDeleteBundy's case is another example of people claiming to rely on rights when they have themselves been willingly involved in equitable law or commercial code activity for years and now wish to shed the burdens and claim a (natural or fundamental) right to something.
It is easy to understand people reacting hysterically to the government seizures and threats as if their natural rights had been expropriated at gunpoint, but it just is not true.
Bundy (unless the reports I read are false) has taken advantage of the land that the BLM claims for many years, accordingly paid use fees etc. and then stopped paying. That in itself is probably the right choice if he desires to make a claim for the land, but that is a case that needs to be made. It is obviously contested by some (the fed) and needs to be resolved lawfully.
As it stands, the people who are aligning themselves with him, offering to protect him from the armed agents who are there, are putting themselves at risk when there is no clear issue of rights at stake.
Nevermind, we don't need to have or state a case. We just need to get our blood up and go smashing into the barricades. It will end badly and by that I mean, there will be no trial of the facts regarding rights, land or other property because the instant case will be about assaulting federal agents executing their duties (by warrant issued form a lawful court). How could it be otherwise?
The best way to approach this would be first to sue or prosecute the offender (federal agency) for the violations of law constituting the seizure of the land (the seizure that brought the land under control of the fed).
You just have to attempt legal remedies before you go picking up your guns. Sorry to say, I think this is another example (do you remember Ed Brown in NH from a few years ago?) of a group of pure-hearted and generous people being drawn into a conflict over someone with a criminal or at least questionable history of interaction with the government.
Sorry to blather on, but isn't there anybody out there who wants to bring a case to the courts (or to the people generally) without the history of entering into a contract and then repudiating it?
I'd like to see one.
Rich
I remember Ed & Elaine Brown, and I was actually comparing these cases in my mind a few days ago. And, I agree that neither case is a real liberty advocate facing down "government".
DeleteI am reminded, too, of the Manning case. Why can't someone be a hero for liberty without first embracing the other side?
I personally have no desire to challenge any "government" policy or action in a government-controlled court. Just too obvious a case of conflict of interest. There are no real courts in America that will hear a case involving the "government" and come to a just decision. Now, I can see the utility of doing so, to convince people who believe in The State. Those people don't include me.
I understand why liberty advocates don't want to go to court. Ihave been there enough times and with enough good causes of action to know firsthand how abusive and unjust (and unconstitutional) the judges, lawyers and various other denizens of the LEGC (law enforcement growth community) behave and how badly people are treated when they attempt to find justice there.
DeleteBut not all judges are malicious and anti-rights and unjust. There are still good resons to make your case, just because that's the currency on which all these government actions depend. And we can make good cases. And we can also get public notice by making a case.
The real reason for doing so is a gesture of good (peaceful, and not subordinate to teh powers that be) intention - so that those who know where the power is but not necessarily how it has been abused and corrupted, can witness for themselves that there are good, logical and understandable arguments (and laws that protect) freedom.
There used to be people around here who were not afraid to stand up in court, or on teh streets... Where have they all gone?
Is it like that where you live? (nobody fights anymore, nobody trioes to stand up)
Liberty or Death.
Rich
Since I don't believe in the authority or legitimacy of government courts their opinions on things doesn't really matter to me. Even a "good judge" is propping up an illegitimate "system".
DeleteBut, yeah, the arguments for going to court are similar to the arguments for voting. To show a desire to try everything "peaceful" first.
There really is no one around here willing to stand up. They pretty much all worship The State, the military, and religion- and consider them indivisible. The only dissent is that most of the locals think everything would be just fine if The State was controlled by "conservatives" instead of "liberals"/Obama.
My columns in the two local papers are very shocking- to the point people often can't even see what I'm saying- to the locals. I'm pretty much amazed I am still published.
you are right.
Deleteliberty or death