Ruminations on the events at the Bundy ranch.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. In it appeared this language:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
He goes on to argue that when that consent is withdrawn, the people have a right to alter or abolish their current government. Let's put that aside for a moment, and examine a few of the facts of the case.
Legally, Bundy has no leg to stand on. There are hand-waves toward adverse possession, or homesteading, but in the end, no, the courts executed the law. But is that the end of the story? No.
Laws are purportedly enacted by elected representatives, are then handed down to regulatory agencies to be translated into policy. Such policy also has the force of law. After that, these legislated laws and regulatory laws are brought before the courts, where unelected judges determine whether or not those laws meet with their reading of both previous cases and the constitutions of their jurisdictions. Now, it's pretty transparent there that the representation of "the people" is a little sparse in this. Elected officials, or frankly, anyone that can be held to account in any way, are thin on the ground when determining how law is implemented.
So, the Bundys acted illegally, first by continuing to graze 600 cattle after being ordered to reduce his herd, second, by refusing to pay the BLM for the grazing rights they had denied him. However, when examining matters of law, sometimes it is beneficial to go back to the beginning. How did that land come to be under BLM control? The short form is, by conquest. The Mexican American war of 1848 resulted in that land being ceded to "The US". In practice, it was given over from Mexico to the US government, as trustees for the US people. At that time, homesteading was very much in effect, so a great deal of the land was occupied and passed from public to private hands. However, in the early and middle 20th century, the federal government, without passage of any law, shifted policy toward retaining federal ownership of that land, generally placing regulatory hurdles toward the practice, and making it impractical to attempt to exert a "homestead" claim. In 1976, officially terminated the process by enacting the "Federal Land Policy and Management Act". Why did they terminate the practice? Because land has uses, and the federal government can collect more revenue by permitting private entities to exercise those uses than they can if the land is in private hands.
This is why the US parks service is one of the foremost road construction organizations in the nation (second to the interstate system, to which forestry roads connect).
In the process of this, large numbers of opportunities for corruption were created. Anyone that has ever attempted to get a permit from any level of government knows that things work more smoothly for the connected. But that is another story.
Which brings us to the Bundys. In 1995, the land they were grazing on was re-designated as desert tortoise protection land, and he was ordered to reduce his grazing herd from 600 to 150 (on 600,000 acres, so an average of 1 cow per 6 square miles). It was redesignated to make way for a solar project for a Chinese firm for which Harry Reid's son worked. 10 years later, the solar project was canceled, but the damage was done, all the other ranchers were out of business, and Bundy was in a long court battle. A court battle that he lost.
So, at this point, the federal government attempted enforcement of the court's decisions. A public hue and cry resulted, and a rebellion ensued. Yes, it was a rebellion. There is no other word for when hundreds of people show up armed and prepared to engage in a firefight with the authorities. The authorities backed down.
NOW
After all of that background, it becomes time to examine the morality of the issue.
Here, we return to the Thomas Jefferson Quote. "The consent of the governed". When there is a rebellion, participated in by a significant number of parties that are not involved in the case, meaning that they are there purely for moral reasons, they don't stand to gain anything if they win, or lose anything if they fail (other than maybe getting shot/imprisoned), it might be time to question whether such consent has been withdrawn. Then it becomes time to look at how we got here to begin with.
So, elected officials passed a law that said that this land was under the BLM. The BLM, quite capriciously, decided to revoke the grazing rights of a family that had been on it for the better part of a century, as well as others that went out of business, in favor of a project in a field that is rife with fraud and abuse of government funds, and with connections to some high ranking officials. I have to say that I support the rebels on this one.
But what does that say about governance going forward? Are we now to live in a nation that is, as my friend Shannon recently pointed out that living in "the tyranny of the armed" is a chilling thought. She's right about that. If we live in a society where the law can be set aside whenever someone points guns at the feds, then we really are not substantially better than mob rule. But that begs the question of what we are now? Essentially, the arbitrary creation of laws by unelected bureaucrats makes us not a republic, but rather a new form of government entirely. It isn't a meritocracy, or an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, or a democracy, it's more of... An Arbitrocracy. A government of random actions based on factors that cannot reasonably be predicted, and can easily destroy lives or create vast wealth. So, given that, is it better or worse to have a society where, if enough people feel strongly enough, they over-ride the law? I would say that it sounds better to me. In the end, there is only one check to government power, and that is the might of the armed populace... And it's starting to wake up to that fact.
So, in your consideration of this case, try thinking, not of Bundy himself, he's just the black swan. Instead, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Did you vote to end homesteading?
2) Did you vote to give control of 85% on the state of Nevada to the federal government?
3) Did you vote to destroy the businesses of all the ranchers in that county?
4) Did you vote to give preferential treatment to the solar firm?
Would you have?
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
He goes on to argue that when that consent is withdrawn, the people have a right to alter or abolish their current government. Let's put that aside for a moment, and examine a few of the facts of the case.
Legally, Bundy has no leg to stand on. There are hand-waves toward adverse possession, or homesteading, but in the end, no, the courts executed the law. But is that the end of the story? No.
Laws are purportedly enacted by elected representatives, are then handed down to regulatory agencies to be translated into policy. Such policy also has the force of law. After that, these legislated laws and regulatory laws are brought before the courts, where unelected judges determine whether or not those laws meet with their reading of both previous cases and the constitutions of their jurisdictions. Now, it's pretty transparent there that the representation of "the people" is a little sparse in this. Elected officials, or frankly, anyone that can be held to account in any way, are thin on the ground when determining how law is implemented.
So, the Bundys acted illegally, first by continuing to graze 600 cattle after being ordered to reduce his herd, second, by refusing to pay the BLM for the grazing rights they had denied him. However, when examining matters of law, sometimes it is beneficial to go back to the beginning. How did that land come to be under BLM control? The short form is, by conquest. The Mexican American war of 1848 resulted in that land being ceded to "The US". In practice, it was given over from Mexico to the US government, as trustees for the US people. At that time, homesteading was very much in effect, so a great deal of the land was occupied and passed from public to private hands. However, in the early and middle 20th century, the federal government, without passage of any law, shifted policy toward retaining federal ownership of that land, generally placing regulatory hurdles toward the practice, and making it impractical to attempt to exert a "homestead" claim. In 1976, officially terminated the process by enacting the "Federal Land Policy and Management Act". Why did they terminate the practice? Because land has uses, and the federal government can collect more revenue by permitting private entities to exercise those uses than they can if the land is in private hands.
This is why the US parks service is one of the foremost road construction organizations in the nation (second to the interstate system, to which forestry roads connect).
In the process of this, large numbers of opportunities for corruption were created. Anyone that has ever attempted to get a permit from any level of government knows that things work more smoothly for the connected. But that is another story.
Which brings us to the Bundys. In 1995, the land they were grazing on was re-designated as desert tortoise protection land, and he was ordered to reduce his grazing herd from 600 to 150 (on 600,000 acres, so an average of 1 cow per 6 square miles). It was redesignated to make way for a solar project for a Chinese firm for which Harry Reid's son worked. 10 years later, the solar project was canceled, but the damage was done, all the other ranchers were out of business, and Bundy was in a long court battle. A court battle that he lost.
So, at this point, the federal government attempted enforcement of the court's decisions. A public hue and cry resulted, and a rebellion ensued. Yes, it was a rebellion. There is no other word for when hundreds of people show up armed and prepared to engage in a firefight with the authorities. The authorities backed down.
NOW
After all of that background, it becomes time to examine the morality of the issue.
Here, we return to the Thomas Jefferson Quote. "The consent of the governed". When there is a rebellion, participated in by a significant number of parties that are not involved in the case, meaning that they are there purely for moral reasons, they don't stand to gain anything if they win, or lose anything if they fail (other than maybe getting shot/imprisoned), it might be time to question whether such consent has been withdrawn. Then it becomes time to look at how we got here to begin with.
So, elected officials passed a law that said that this land was under the BLM. The BLM, quite capriciously, decided to revoke the grazing rights of a family that had been on it for the better part of a century, as well as others that went out of business, in favor of a project in a field that is rife with fraud and abuse of government funds, and with connections to some high ranking officials. I have to say that I support the rebels on this one.
But what does that say about governance going forward? Are we now to live in a nation that is, as my friend Shannon recently pointed out that living in "the tyranny of the armed" is a chilling thought. She's right about that. If we live in a society where the law can be set aside whenever someone points guns at the feds, then we really are not substantially better than mob rule. But that begs the question of what we are now? Essentially, the arbitrary creation of laws by unelected bureaucrats makes us not a republic, but rather a new form of government entirely. It isn't a meritocracy, or an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, or a democracy, it's more of... An Arbitrocracy. A government of random actions based on factors that cannot reasonably be predicted, and can easily destroy lives or create vast wealth. So, given that, is it better or worse to have a society where, if enough people feel strongly enough, they over-ride the law? I would say that it sounds better to me. In the end, there is only one check to government power, and that is the might of the armed populace... And it's starting to wake up to that fact.
So, in your consideration of this case, try thinking, not of Bundy himself, he's just the black swan. Instead, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Did you vote to end homesteading?
2) Did you vote to give control of 85% on the state of Nevada to the federal government?
3) Did you vote to destroy the businesses of all the ranchers in that county?
4) Did you vote to give preferential treatment to the solar firm?
Would you have?