Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nevada Rancher Standoff Against Fed Violence

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:53:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day 'range war'
-Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove cattle and was pulling out of the area
-Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
-The Bundy family says they've owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
-The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
-Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
-They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy's 900 cattle
-Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
-Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

Basically the government's land grabbing f*cked up around 50 ranchers and there was one left in this area: Cliven Bundy, a man whose family has owned the land for around 150 years. Using already-relocated "tortoises" as a cover-up, 200 armed thugs descended upon the property to steal his cattle. Cliven drew support, and once it was substantial the federal thugs left and gave him back his cattle. The story made me shoot a freedom jizz-harpoon through my shorts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 9:18:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:53:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day 'range war'
-Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove cattle and was pulling out of the area
-Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
-The Bundy family says they've owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
-The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
-Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
-They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy's 900 cattle
-Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
-Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

Basically the government's land grabbing f*cked up around 50 ranchers and there was one left in this area: Cliven Bundy, a man whose family has owned the land for around 150 years. Using already-relocated "tortoises" as a cover-up, 200 armed thugs descended upon the property to steal his cattle. Cliven drew support, and once it was substantial the federal thugs left and gave him back his cattle. The story made me shoot a freedom jizz-harpoon through my shorts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


He didn't own the land he was grazing on.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 9:31:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:53:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day 'range war'
-Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove cattle and was pulling out of the area
-Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
-The Bundy family says they've owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
-The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
-Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
-They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy's 900 cattle
-Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
-Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

Basically the government's land grabbing f*cked up around 50 ranchers and there was one left in this area: Cliven Bundy, a man whose family has owned the land for around 150 years. Using already-relocated "tortoises" as a cover-up, 200 armed thugs descended upon the property to steal his cattle. Cliven drew support, and once it was substantial the federal thugs left and gave him back his cattle. The story made me shoot a freedom jizz-harpoon through my shorts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


Ignoring, I see, that it was the government that originally obtained the land. Even if we grant your brand of libertarianism, that means that when they gave someone the land, there was the implicit contract that the government retained control over some aspects of it. Ergo, the government must be in the right.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 11:02:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 9:31:17 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:53:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day 'range war'
-Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove cattle and was pulling out of the area
-Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
-The Bundy family says they've owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
-The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
-Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
-They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy's 900 cattle
-Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
-Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

Basically the government's land grabbing f*cked up around 50 ranchers and there was one left in this area: Cliven Bundy, a man whose family has owned the land for around 150 years. Using already-relocated "tortoises" as a cover-up, 200 armed thugs descended upon the property to steal his cattle. Cliven drew support, and once it was substantial the federal thugs left and gave him back his cattle. The story made me shoot a freedom jizz-harpoon through my shorts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


Ignoring, I see, that it was the government that originally obtained the land. Even if we grant your brand of libertarianism, that means that when they gave someone the land, there was the implicit contract that the government retained control over some aspects of it. Ergo, the government must be in the right.

And the federal government purchased the territory that included Nevada from Mexico in 1849. Maybe he was granted land under the Homestead Act in which case he was only granted a maximum of 180 acres. He has 900 cows and the average acreage per cow for grazing 4 which means he needs roughly 3600 yards so he's clearly spilling over the Homestead limit. Not to mention he probably doesn't have the grant that proves he has a claim for homestead land rights. He was also paying the grazing fee to the federal agency that managed the desert area until 1993 which is in an admission of public ownership because of his active participation. He stopped paying because the BLM limited the cattle that could be grazed to counteract the degradation of the terrain, protect endangered species, and to force compliance of the Homestead Act limit.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 11:16:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And the federal government purchased the territory that included Nevada from Mexico in 1849
You say this as though Mexico ever had a right to it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:59:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And the federal government purchased the territory that included Nevada from Mexico in 1849
You say this as though Mexico ever had a right to it.

Well, they didn't either. The Native Americans did, possibly, but it is also quite possibly that they took it from a group that isn't around anymore. In which case we have the problem that it is, rightfully, no one's.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 9:31:17 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Ignoring, I see, that it was the government that originally obtained the land. Even if we grant your brand of libertarianism, that means that when they gave someone the land, there was the implicit contract that the government retained control over some aspects of it. Ergo, the government must be in the right.

Hail Hydra, nice to see you're always on the side of the oppressor. And that's actually false. Watch the video to understand why:
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 8:31:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:59:08 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And the federal government purchased the territory that included Nevada from Mexico in 1849
You say this as though Mexico ever had a right to it.

Well, they didn't either. The Native Americans did, possibly
That's neither a person nor an organization.

How does one acquire the right to property? By mixing one's labour. As an individual, not an ethnic group. With particular things, particular fields, mines, so forth, not with a country.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 8:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol sometimes I hate the government

And the government wonder why we look at them as some sort of oppressor that works against the people
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 9:01:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:53:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day 'range war'
-Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove cattle and was pulling out of the area
-Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
-The Bundy family says they've owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
-The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
-Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
-They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy's 900 cattle
-Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
-Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

Basically the government's land grabbing f*cked up around 50 ranchers and there was one left in this area: Cliven Bundy, a man whose family has owned the land for around 150 years. Using already-relocated "tortoises" as a cover-up, 200 armed thugs descended upon the property to steal his cattle. Cliven drew support, and once it was substantial the federal thugs left and gave him back his cattle. The story made me shoot a freedom jizz-harpoon through my shorts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


I heard this story, but from the liberal side of it all.

http://thinkprogress.org...
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 10:51:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bundy is in the wrong here. If he can turn out cattle free of charge and without a grazing lease, then I can turn my cattle out there as well. Anyone could. He's not being kicked off the land and refused grazing rights, he has refused to pay the grazing fee and is being kicked off. Big difference.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 1:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:36:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/14/2014 9:31:17 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Ignoring, I see, that it was the government that originally obtained the land. Even if we grant your brand of libertarianism, that means that when they gave someone the land, there was the implicit contract that the government retained control over some aspects of it. Ergo, the government must be in the right.

Hail Hydra, nice to see you're always on the side of the oppressor. And that's actually false. Watch the video to understand why:

Hydras are actually pretty cool. For instance, despite being in the same taxonomic group as jellyfish and coral, they live in freshwater. Also they are, biologically, immortal--you can kill them, but they do not age.

But that aside, if you have a point to make, you make the point. I'm not going to spend twenty minutes watching a video that, due to its basic format, will not include citations or allow me to closely examine individual claims. This is a debate website, not a "link to YouTube video" website.

At 4/14/2014 8:31:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:59:08 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And the federal government purchased the territory that included Nevada from Mexico in 1849
You say this as though Mexico ever had a right to it.

Well, they didn't either. The Native Americans did, possibly
That's neither a person nor an organization.

How does one acquire the right to property? By mixing one's labour. As an individual, not an ethnic group. With particular things, particular fields, mines, so forth, not with a country.

1. Justify the bolded.
2. Most Native American tribes were organizations. I'd say all, but I'm going to hedge my bets there.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 11:11:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 1:29:20 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
How does one acquire the right to property? By mixing one's labour. As an individual, not an ethnic group. With particular things, particular fields, mines, so forth, not with a country.

1. Justify the bolded.
I see no reason to justify a claim over nature as such. By mixing one's labor with nature, one creates something no longer nature-- more to the point, one creates something. Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

2. Most Native American tribes were organizations.
You didn't name some particular tribe, where some property claim of some sort could be analyzed in the particular. You named a race.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:02:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very encouraging! It's a breakdown of government which we knew was on the horizon. This will embolden the rabid right crazies even more and they will act out with their guns in their hands. Eventually one of the teabagger crazies will pull the trigger and that will cause the fed government agents to get serious.

The big shootup that is needed in order to restore sanity to the US. With a little luck some of the militia type will find the balls to keep on playing guns!
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 11:11:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I see no reason to justify a claim over nature as such. By mixing one's labor with nature, one creates something no longer nature-- more to the point, one creates something.

You didn't name some particular tribe, where some property claim of some sort could be analyzed in the particular. You named a race.

So I really should be guy paying the guy that's making my hamburger, and not McDonalds?
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:55:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 12:02:36 PM, monty1 wrote:
Very encouraging! It's a breakdown of government which we knew was on the horizon. This will embolden the rabid right crazies even more and they will act out with their guns in their hands. Eventually one of the teabagger crazies will pull the trigger and that will cause the fed government agents to get serious.

The big shootup that is needed in order to restore sanity to the US. With a little luck some of the militia type will find the balls to keep on playing guns!

Lol. To begin with this post is the missing piece. You're an anarchist so debates on government and politics exist outside your realm of reasoning because you don't recognize national sovereignty.

I noticed an inconsistency in your logic though. How can you want to ban all guns yet support a violent action against the government with said guns? On an idealistic level you can't have it both ways,
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 1:29:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 12:55:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 12:02:36 PM, monty1 wrote:
Very encouraging! It's a breakdown of government which we knew was on the horizon. This will embolden the rabid right crazies even more and they will act out with their guns in their hands. Eventually one of the teabagger crazies will pull the trigger and that will cause the fed government agents to get serious.

The big shootup that is needed in order to restore sanity to the US. With a little luck some of the militia type will find the balls to keep on playing guns!

Lol. To begin with this post is the missing piece. You're an anarchist so debates on government and politics exist outside your realm of reasoning because you don't recognize national sovereignty.

I noticed an inconsistency in your logic though. How can you want to ban all guns yet support a violent action against the government with said guns? On an idealistic level you can't have it both ways,

You're totally misunderstanding me. First, I'm not an anarchist, I'm a Canadian who understands that the US needs to bring the problem to a head before anything will start to improve. In other words, you need a shootout between the feds and the anti-gov wackos. Wackos being whatever motivates them, be it libertarian fantasies or teabagger racist hate or whatever.

So this is encouraging because it's going to add encouragement to the wackjobs to break the law in more ways and that will get the gov's attention. Eventually, the gov will have to act violently in the good of all the people. That means perhaps, a bunch of dead teabaggers and pseudo-libertarians.

And if it doesn't result in that then the even better alternative is a breakdown of government and a resultant breakdown of society in those afflicted pockets of injustice.

I don't want to ban all guns in the US. I'm anxious to see some gunplay by the above named freakshow which will lead to the only fix possible for the gun problem. Dead freaks at the hands of the authorities. And the reason for my concern is absolutely limited to my concern that US guns are leaking across the border to Canada and starting to increase our rate of gun violence and gun deaths. I'm also concerned for the good people of Mexico who are also suffering horrendously because of US guns crossing into their country. Soon if will be a worldwide problem, if it isn't starting to become that already.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 3:12:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 1:29:49 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 12:55:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 12:02:36 PM, monty1 wrote:
Very encouraging! It's a breakdown of government which we knew was on the horizon. This will embolden the rabid right crazies even more and they will act out with their guns in their hands. Eventually one of the teabagger crazies will pull the trigger and that will cause the fed government agents to get serious.

The big shootup that is needed in order to restore sanity to the US. With a little luck some of the militia type will find the balls to keep on playing guns!

Lol. To begin with this post is the missing piece. You're an anarchist so debates on government and politics exist outside your realm of reasoning because you don't recognize national sovereignty.

I noticed an inconsistency in your logic though. How can you want to ban all guns yet support a violent action against the government with said guns? On an idealistic level you can't have it both ways,


You're totally misunderstanding me. First, I'm not an anarchist, I'm a Canadian who understands that the US needs to bring the problem to a head before anything will start to improve. In other words, you need a shootout between the feds and the anti-gov wackos. Wackos being whatever motivates them, be it libertarian fantasies or teabagger racist hate or whatever.

So this is encouraging because it's going to add encouragement to the wackjobs to break the law in more ways and that will get the gov's attention. Eventually, the gov will have to act violently in the good of all the people. That means perhaps, a bunch of dead teabaggers and pseudo-libertarians.

And if it doesn't result in that then the even better alternative is a breakdown of government and a resultant breakdown of society in those afflicted pockets of injustice.

I don't want to ban all guns in the US. I'm anxious to see some gunplay by the above named freakshow which will lead to the only fix possible for the gun problem. Dead freaks at the hands of the authorities. And the reason for my concern is absolutely limited to my concern that US guns are leaking across the border to Canada and starting to increase our rate of gun violence and gun deaths. I'm also concerned for the good people of Mexico who are also suffering horrendously because of US guns crossing into their country. Soon if will be a worldwide problem, if it isn't starting to become that already.

HAHAHhhhhHhHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHJHAHAJAHAHAHAHAJAJJAJAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 11:11:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 1:29:20 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
How does one acquire the right to property? By mixing one's labour. As an individual, not an ethnic group. With particular things, particular fields, mines, so forth, not with a country.

1. Justify the bolded.
I see no reason to justify a claim over nature as such.

Too bad.

By mixing one's labor with nature, one creates something no longer nature-- more to the point, one creates something.

So? For that matter, what if I use the area to go out and look at birds? Or gather wild mushrooms? Is that "mixing my labor with nature?" You might have an argument about the mushrooms (incorporating the nutrients into your body), but birdwatching? You aren't really creating anything.

; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

What makes you think Mexico wasn't using that area of land in some way?

And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?

2. Most Native American tribes were organizations.
You didn't name some particular tribe, where some property claim of some sort could be analyzed in the particular. You named a race.

Because I'm not sure which particular tribe resided in the area and didn't feel like looking it up.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?

I purchased property from a man that had a deed, I farmer pays me to graze his cattle on my land. I guess the land is his now. Clearly he supersedes my contracted purchase. I mean we essentially have to redraw property lines on the entire if this premise is correct.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:31:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 12:43:31 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 11:11:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I see no reason to justify a claim over nature as such. By mixing one's labor with nature, one creates something no longer nature-- more to the point, one creates something.

You didn't name some particular tribe, where some property claim of some sort could be analyzed in the particular. You named a race.

So I really should be guy paying the guy that's making my hamburger, and not McDonalds?

You are paying the cashier, who produces the passing of the burger across the counter to you and the legal processing of the burger as becoming yours. He pays Mcdonalds, the organization, whose shareholders produced other things that they traded for capital which was then traded for this consideration. Mcdonalds pays others who provide services to its restaurants.
All parties involved agreed to this.

I believe it's fair, but even if it weren't fair, that would be okay, because they all agreed to it. If the Nevada Rancher WANTS to give his cattle to the government, and the government wants to take them off his hands, that's fine. It's where he never agreed to that and the government did it anyway where the problem happens.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:56:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/15/2014 11:11:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 1:29:20 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
How does one acquire the right to property? By mixing one's labour. As an individual, not an ethnic group. With particular things, particular fields, mines, so forth, not with a country.

1. Justify the bolded.
I see no reason to justify a claim over nature as such.

Too bad.
Do you see one? How do YOU justify a claim over nature?
I realize my sentence was ambiguous, in case you thought I was saying a claim on nature needed no justification. It does. It just doesn't have such a justification.

By mixing one's labor with nature, one creates something no longer nature-- more to the point, one creates something.

So? For that matter, what if I use the area to go out and look at birds?
The birds were already there. They still are. Unless you want to get into theoretical physics (i.e., not physics at the scale on which humans live), the only mixture that resulted from that is entirely in your brain. Which you owned anyway, you know.

Or gather wild mushrooms? Is that "mixing my labor with nature?"
Well, your labor is mixed with the mushrooms you gathered. Yes, you now own the wild mushrooms.

You didn't do anything useful to the land though.

You might have an argument about the mushrooms (incorporating the nutrients into your body), but birdwatching? You aren't really creating anything.
I agree, you don't own the birds, you do own the mushrooms.


; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

What makes you think Mexico wasn't using that area of land in some way?
BOP on affirmative. Remember, "Mexico" in this context means "Mexico's government." I don't think there's a giant building Mexico built that covered that landmass. I don't think Mexico was governed by a Nevadan farmer, or cattle rancher, and the area definitely isn't covered in a mine.


And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?
Say I plant some wheat on a patch of land. How do I determine what my property rights are there? Can I stop you from stepping on the wheat? Yes. Your feet will trample my wheat. You're interfering with my property-- you're removing the value I created. Can I stop you from stepping next to the wheat? Can't see why I could. Can I stop you from planting sorghum next to my wheat? Well, I dunno, I'm not a farmer-- if I wanted to I would have to give evidence to a court that you're interfering with my preexisting use. Can I stop you from flying over in an airplane? Can't see why I could, it's no skin off my wheat's nose that you're in an airplane. Can I stop you from planting tall bushes in a circle around my wheat? Yes, you're impeding my access to my wheat. Can I stop you from planting flowers at the height of the preexisting grass around my wheat? No, but you can't stop me from stepping on them, my wheat was there first, and therefore my path to my wheat by logical deduction was there first.

"Can I" here is shorthand for "Does a libertarian legal system allow..."


2. Most Native American tribes were organizations.
You didn't name some particular tribe, where some property claim of some sort could be analyzed in the particular. You named a race.

Because I'm not sure which particular tribe resided in the area and didn't feel like looking it up.
So you're asserting a useless hypothetical. Allow me to clear something up for you. No one from before the present use of cattle grazing is still alive. Even if they cultivated something on ground he's presently traversing,it's long since abandoned and irrelevant to his claim. He is not interfering with any existing use. If he gives up his career at the BLM's pressuring, a century after his death his great-grandchildren cannot possibly have a grievance against the great-grandchildren of the BLM's present employees. Said great grandchildren have no involvement in the matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:58:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:24:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?

I purchased property from a man that had a deed, I farmer pays me to graze his cattle on my land. I guess the land is his now. Clearly he supersedes my contracted purchase. I mean we essentially have to redraw property lines on the entire if this premise is correct.

You seem to think that original acquisition of a right being by a particular means somehow implies non-transferability.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:57:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:31:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

You are paying the cashier, who produces the passing of the burger across the counter to you and the legal processing of the burger as becoming yours. He pays Mcdonalds, the organization, whose shareholders produced other things that they traded for capital which was then traded for this consideration. Mcdonalds pays others who provide services to its restaurants.
All parties involved agreed to this.


Yes, and if the cashier doesn't put the money in the cash register and instead puts it into his pocket he will be prosecuted. And if the maker of the hamburger decides to eat it without paying he can be prosecuted. Both will most likely be fired with the force of law. Money by extension may be product but work itself does not imply ownership. A receipt, deed, and will are the only things recognized in a court of law as far as I know.

If the Nevada Rancher WANTS to give his cattle to the government, and the government wants to take them off his hands, that's fine. It's where he never agreed to that and the government did it anyway where the problem happens.

Bundy claims his family moved to the Gold Butte area 1877. The US payed for it in 1848, the Mexicans sold , the Native American worked it. So essentially the inception of Bundys claim happened after the original question of ownership. No matter how you try to define ownership. Grazing cattle is a degenerative process, and it cost money to maintain the land so the federal has every right to ask for a fee. He didn't pay the fee and his cattle were repossessed.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:58:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:58:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:24:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?

I purchased property from a man that had a deed, I farmer pays me to graze his cattle on my land. I guess the land is his now. Clearly he supersedes my contracted purchase. I mean we essentially have to redraw property lines on the entire if this premise is correct.

You seem to think that original acquisition of a right being by a particular means somehow implies non-transferability.

No I don't. You're misinterpreting. In a court of law recognized forms of transfer are titles, deeds, receipts, and wills. Does Bundy have one of those? Because quite happily I will chastise the governments actions if he does.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:58:56 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:58:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:24:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 3:52:31 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

; Property rights exist between rational beings whose lives depend on producing, who seek to maintain their production from one day to another and note that refraining from initiating force against another's production incentivizes the same treatment in return. Mexico produced nothing, but this guy produced a cattle herd.

And does that mean that if you aren't making use of every single bit of your property, I have the right to go and take it?

I purchased property from a man that had a deed, I farmer pays me to graze his cattle on my land. I guess the land is his now. Clearly he supersedes my contracted purchase. I mean we essentially have to redraw property lines on the entire if this premise is correct.

You seem to think that original acquisition of a right being by a particular means somehow implies non-transferability.

No I don't. You're misinterpreting. In a court of law recognized forms of transfer are titles, deeds, receipts, and wills. Does Bundy have one of those? Because quite happily I will chastise the governments actions if he does.

The dispute isn't about whether a transfer happened (Bundy isn't claiming to have bought the land), the dispute is about whether either the government or Bundy (or the guy who Bundy inherited the cattle from) engaged in valid original acquisition.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:14:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:57:11 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:31:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

You are paying the cashier, who produces the passing of the burger across the counter to you and the legal processing of the burger as becoming yours. He pays Mcdonalds, the organization, whose shareholders produced other things that they traded for capital which was then traded for this consideration. Mcdonalds pays others who provide services to its restaurants.
All parties involved agreed to this.


Yes, and if the cashier doesn't put the money in the cash register and instead puts it into his pocket he will be prosecuted.
Because he agreed not to do that when he took the job.

And if the maker of the hamburger decides to eat it without paying he can be prosecuted.
He agreed not to do that when he ordered off a menu.

Money by extension may be product but work itself does not imply ownership. A receipt, deed, and will are the only things recognized in a court of law as far as I know.
I hereby write on this paper that I own your arm. Wat do?
Papers such as you describe are documentation, not the source of the claim itself.

Bundy claims his family moved to the Gold Butte area 1877.
I don't actually care what his family did in 1877. I care what the facts were when he started grazing cattle that were his. Was he violating anyone's property rights? Did anyone have a valid prior claim? If not, he acquires a valid claim, there and then, and we don't have to worry about what happened in 1877.

The US payed for it in 1848, the Mexicans sold
Irrelevant unless the Mexican government had a valid claim. It probably didn't.

the Native American worked it.
Irrelevant, said person does not presently exist and your sentence probably isn't even true of the past.

So essentially the inception of Bundys claim happened after the original question of ownership.
Remains to be factually demonstrated.

No matter how you try to define ownership. Grazing cattle is a degenerative process, and it cost money to maintain the land so the federal has every right to ask for a fee.
Wait, what did the feds do to "maintain the land," when did they start doing it, and were they interfering with any valid claims that existed at the time they started doing it? This is a radical claim you've got here.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:19:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I amend this-- the question of the Native American is relevant if and only if all of--

-The Mexican government's claim interfered with the value the Native American derived from whatever he allegedly owned.
-The Mexican government's claim would otherwise have been valid
-The US government has no basis for an independent claim and therefore can only lay claim based on transfer from this invalid owner.

I doubt all of these premises except the last.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:41:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:19:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I amend this-- the question of the Native American is relevant if and only if all of--

-The Mexican government's claim interfered with the value the Native American derived from whatever he allegedly owned.
-The Mexican government's claim would otherwise have been valid
-The US government has no basis for an independent claim and therefore can only lay claim based on transfer from this invalid owner.

I doubt all of these premises except the last.

Well doubt isn't really a factual imperative. Let's for a second ignore the hypothetical Native American claim. Let's say they don't own it and never had a claim. The land was essentially surrendered in the Treaty of Guadaluoe Hidalgo, and attached to the treaty was a 10 million dollar purchase called the Gadsden Purchase. How does your claim supersede an actual receipt? The Bundys claim they populated the land in 1877, and I've seen no factual proof of this so at this point were taking their word, but still the inception of US ownership precede thde supposed Bundy clans settlement by 22 years. You can Google image the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

On Native American ownership. First, I would like to point out the Spanish were the first to "officially" colonize the territory that would become Nevada. The increasing Mexican population forced the Spanish to migrate/concentrate in the peninsula and the separation led to the establishment of a Mexican government in the territory. The area in question is the Gold Butte, and you can actually find cave drawings by Native Americans that inhabited the land long before the colonizers. So if you're statement is true then essentially you're saying the Native Americans have ownership. Did they not work the land therefore have the bottom claim according to your original statement?
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:14:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

He agreed not to do that when he ordered off a menu.

But if he's not offering off the menu he doesn't have a job. Come on man. Also I highly doubt a McDonalds employees signs a contract that says he will not steal. He doesn't sign a contract that says he's not going to piss in the Coke yet that would still get him fired. It's implied because the laws protect the ownership from destruction of THEIR property.

Irrelevant, said person does not presently exist and your sentence probably isn't even true of the past.

Neither do Bundys ancestors.

Wait, what did the feds do to "maintain the land," when did they start doing it, and were they interfering with any valid claims that existed at the time they started doing it? This is a radical claim you've got here.

Radical? Are you kidding me? Do you own land? Do you know how hard it is to maintain an acre of land? I own land and I charge a hefty sum to allow cattle to graze because they tear up fences, tear up soil, and the ranchers are constantly tearing up the driveways with their trucks. Sometimes I have to invest my own time and corral the animals myself because they slip out somewhere. Think about this way a acre is the size of football field. Schools and park managers hire a full time worker to manage a football field. The Gold Butte land is 340k acres Mojave desert that is filled with wildlife and constantly degenerating. You can't force the state of Nevada to do it hence the Bureau of Land Management. A small fee of $1.80 per head wasn't much to ask to keep the agency running.