Bundy has been grazing cattle there for more than two decades, but the last two decades he has been in violation of the terms the BLM set for him (and he has not been paying his fees since then which is where the dollar figure comes from). You can read some background from a former official at….
You Apodment-dwelling latte sippers don't understand that Grazing Cattle on Public Land is a Right Guaranteed by God.

Mr. Bundy likely caught a dose of SovereignCitizenitis & BoGritzenza back 2 decades ago. Right around the time that Al Gore tried (and failed) to reform the 1872 Mining & Grazing Laws.
Trying to make sense of right wing fanatics is pointless. They use guns to overcompensate for their station in life while claiming welfare and deriding socialism.
Bundy sez "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."

Good luck with that. Article 1 of the Nevada state constitution sez
But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
I hope they take his ranch and his cattle and throw his pathetic militia ass in jail for the rest of his life.
I thought Federal Land was funded by tax payer dollars? If it is, than why should he need permission to graze his sheep on land paid for by his tax money?
In other news: Local right wing gun nut sends his kids to public schools without paying for it...
Once upon a time, progressives wrote songs like this:…
I see those times have unfortunately changed.
A decent breakdown of the history of this issue.…
Read that back to yourself out loud.
@6: I don't think you understand the meaning of that song.
Why, yer right @5! All dem federal tax dollars I pay fund dat dere US Militarary too, and well by gum I need some help 'round my here house. I don't need per-mission to get dat military to dig sum trenches fer my irrigation, right? Dey diggum trenches good I hears! And how 'bout dem hummers dey is always buzzin around in? I needa go to de casino so's I can spend my money where de guvernment can't get it, so send over the hummers my tax dollars is payin for too! Now I gots ta thinkin, that land he be grazin his cattle on -- why, I think that's where I'm gonna dump all this garbage I been collectin for 30 years. You don't think he'd mind me dumpin all this oil and paint and azbestos and whatevre other garbage I got where he's a grazin his cattle, right? My tax dollars is jes as important as hiz!
ummmm a bunch of cattle grazing actually changes the land a bit. Do I as a tax payer have to right to go hiking without worrying about a sheep dog attacking me? I think I do. I pay taxes, can I build a house in the sculpture park? How about a little office building to make my living in?
The problem isnt that hes ever there, its that hes been using land that the taxpayers(not just him) pay to preserve as nature, not as nature, but as a cattle ranch. Thats, uh, illegal.
@5, you are a stone cold moron. Take your little theory to Yellowstone Park and try blowing past the entrance gate without paying the park fee and see where that gets you. Yeah, you have to pay if you want to stay in the lodge, too. The fact that schools aren't run by the federal government just amplifies my point: you're a boob.

So, as one of these taxpayers, I can just squat a few hundred head of cattle on any old "public land"? Great! I think I'll start at the closest intersection to where ever you work. I mean, it's public land, so it's perfectly legal, and you clearly won't object to the minor inconvenience of not being able to drive to your place of employment, or having the public sidewalks blocked by my herd, right?
@7--He sounds almost reasonable while sticking to the history until he goes off the rails with the unsupported libertarian paranoia. Kinda undermines the whole spiel once you start inferring that the president is illegitimate because "only 20% of Americans voted for him."
Here's the fascinating part of this.

I tried to think back to all the citizens demanding rights vs. Government troops conflagrations -- the Whiskey Rebellion, Haymarket Square, Kent State -- where it didn't end up with the citizens being shot at, teargassed, ... and this is the only one that I know of where the citizens won! (Ever.)

Also, seems to me that this guy is probably more a victim of the people who think that all cattle should be fed corn (subsidized by You Know Who) -- corn they were never intended to eat -- vs. grass, which they most certainly should only eat.


CSITDMFOTP. (Sorry Bailo)
The number one lesson I learned from the protest is that if you want to have influence on federal policy you need one of two things: 1. A ton of money and a willingness to bribe (er, I'm sorry, *support*) elected officials (the recent events in Nevada really don't speak to this point but it has become so self-evident that it needs to be on any list); and/or 2. attend rallies/protests packing heat. Yep, me and my pansy signs and cheering/clapping/singing. What a waste of time! In the future I'll just bring my guns to a protest and maybe, just maybe, the feds will pay attention. So terrorism does work! Good to know.
Having been to Burning Man 3 time I have some first hand experience reading about how BLM operates. They're not the worst thing ever but their tactics are usually nothing more than bullshit. I really disagree with the bribes they take to allow fraking on no longer protected lands. That activity is fine because they pay their bribes. This guy is bad because he didn't pay his bribes. I can't help but draw comparisons to squatters rights in this case. Maybe I just really want individuals to have the power to tell the government to suck it. Maybe I just think BLM land is better used letting some dude raise his cattle than it would be for some company to fracture the land. I dunno what it is. I want to root for this guy and his group no matter how stupid they are. Because fuck these asshole government jerks. We didn't even elect them. They can fucking suck it.

On the latter point, you need a huge media apparatus to support you every time you so much as fart. The feds weren't scared of getting killed by Bundy's militia, they were scared of *killing* the militia. Ruby Ridge and Waco taught the feds some very important lessons: You don't fuck with white, right wing wackos. Excessive use of force against black or brown people: That's a-okay.
"Land" and "A park" are two different things. "Land" implies wild and open and not developed while "park" must be regulated and maintained.
And was there damage caused by his animals grazing? If so, fine him or throw him in jail. But if there was no damage than what's the big deal?

The guy is bad because he didn't pay his *rent* and because he's overgrazing the land with a herd six times the legal size. *He* can fucking suck it.
If so, fine him or throw him in jail.

What the fuck do you think they're trying to do? Grow up or get lost.
First, I like your Capitol Hill accent.
Second, "dumping" and "grazing" are two different things. Last time I checked, cattle didn't cause as much damage as toxic waste...sure, they could cause damage if there is overgrazing, but that's not the issue as it's stated.
Look at it this way: a park has a $5 fee per child that runs around in the park. Would a tax payer be morally justified in saying "hell no" to paying the $5 fee to let their kids enjoy a park because they MAY damage something? Yes.
If he damaged the land by letting his animals graze there, prove it in court and fine him or throw him in jail. Otherwise let him. If no one owns the land, it is open for all.
What are the charges? Damaging public land or just using it? If I damage a local park, fine me...if I let my kid skip in the park without paying the ten dollar "child skipping fee" to something that is already funded by my tax payer dollars and you want to fine me, you can feel free to massage my colon with your tongue.
Now, if he did damage the land and said damage was proven, that's a whole nether story.
Darkly enough, What Cliven Bundy is doing is not so different from what various commercial mining and forestry interests are doing: Extracting lucrative resources from federal lands without paying much if anything.

The only difference is Mr. Bundy isn't a corporation, nor mega-wealthy and doesn't have a pile of lobbyists to schmooze congressers to get his way. He's just one guy, so much, much easier to come down on him like a pile of bricks.
"Park" and "Land" are two different things. National Parks are under a different category than simple undeveloped land owned by the Federal Government. Parks need funding, rangers, foresters etc while land is just left to be wild.
You seem to not understand the difference between "lands" and "National Park", and yet I'm the "Stone Cold Moron". Okay.
Good points.
Also, there is the issue of there being no land in America that is just "free", as in no one owns it. Once upon a time land was just land, and now it's either owned by a private entity or the government.
Common sense should say that everyone owns the forests, mountains and trees. If they are not damaging them people should be free to use them as they see fit. If he was causing massive pollution, fine him, but I doubt that is the case here.

And once upon a time cattle could roam free across the west:
Unfortunately, that has changed.

And a very good point about corn. All the liberals blasting this guy don't get that if he wasn't letting them eat natural grass his cows would be eating something from Monsanto...
@27: totally agreed! Another good way to prevent massive pollution and overuse of land and the need for aggressive federal oversight would be to establish a simple fee structure. That way only people who benefited from using the land would have access to it, it wouldn't get overused, and the Feds wouldn't be going in there all the time to push people around.
From the wayback machine, 1999, and a quote from Bundy. He's been at this a LONG time, now it's just more mud to throw at the Obama Admin.…

All across the West, the BLM is moving to curtail grazing, and doing so in a way that hasn't brought a concerted response from Western Senators, who seem content with knowing that the grazing fees have actually dropped to $1.35 per month. But radical change is being accomplished, one grazing lease at a time. The method is simple. As these leases come up for renewal, BLM administrators are cutting the numbers of cows allowable under the allotments on fragile parcels of land-sometimes by as much as 85 percent. This policy is being bolstered by other strategies: Urban Western counties are themselves buying up leases and ranch lands; environmental groups are bidding on state-owned allotments; the USDA's Forest Service is tightening its adherence to the Endangered Species Act.

The upshot? "They're squeezing us out," says Cliven Budy, a rancher in southern Nevada.
Why pay anything? Just register that you have X amount of Cattle and you will use X location for X time. If it ends up polluted, they can look up the registration and fine the person who did it or but him or her in jail.
And this article neglected to mention something...THIS GUY'S FAMILY HAS BEEN USING THIS LAND SINCE THE 1800s! It was essentially his family's land WAYYYY before new government regulations. At the very least they could grandfather this guy in and make an exception.
Here's a real story about this issue:…
His family was on that land BEFORE the Bureau of Land Management was even founded. Nice to see Paul Constant totally botch the story.

Next up: Native Americans live on Reservation without paying for the land they are taking from the US government. Damn right-wing hacks...
@31: Subtle. I like it. 9/10, would get trolled again.
@31 Didn't know you were pro-squatter's rights. How collectivist of you.
Huh? How is supporting an individual or group's rights to sit on land "collectivist"? Do you even know what that word means? Here is the dictionary definition for you:…
@5 Same reason I can't trot out there and log it. Or build a house on it. The rent he's supposed to be paying is like a $1 per month per cow - paying for feed would easily be 5-10x that, not to mention supplying water, per day per animal, and there is significant environmental damage from grazing domestic cattle in what essentially is a desert. They're not adapted to the environment, they decimate foliage around water holes because they can't travel that far from it, they ruin water supplies and they super compact soil. Buffalo were migratory or else they'd have done the same thing. Sheep are worse.

He is quoted as saying his family "worked" the land. So fucking what?

I wonder if there's any other interest groups in the US who can claim their ancestors "worked" land now owned by the federal government. I wonder if these groups might have a claim on the disputed land that predates Bundy's family's claim?
The guy's a parasite on society. Just like the rich. Just like Collectivism_sucks will be when he goes to be with his comrades in Houston.

M family benefited mightily from getting free land from the government in the homesteading days. They farmed it for generations, but at least they had the decency to pay the taxes on it.
@collectivism sucks: I agree, a lot of your statements are sounding pretty collectivist considering your name.

@Paul: "Sounds to me like they were helping a welfare queen continue to suckle at the Big Government Teat."
I think your forgetting to consider the important fact that he's not black.

We come in peace they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the lands in common
And to make the waste ground grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it will be
A common treasury for all

The sin of property
We do disdain
No man has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Mow everywhere the walls
Spring up at their command

He's not asserting his ownership of the property. Bundy is asserting his right to work the commons, and "to make the waste lands grow". He's Gerald Winstanley for the Know-Nothings.
Wow. All the conservatives on SLOG are going full retard tonight.
This guy is also inconsistent in his beliefs. He says he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the federal gov't but clearly he's paying his federal taxes. If he weren't, they'd have taken his cows and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
@35, Oops, it would actually cost $5-10 per DAY to feed each cow, but the feds only want him to pay $1.35 per unit (cow + calf) per MONTH. He's mad at having to pay that 99.99 percent off discount rate. If he had to pay for actual feed, it would cost him minimum $150/month per cow, which would pay for 111 cows w/ calves included free at the federal rate. The federal rate is an unbelievably cheap discount, a pittance. Esp. considering the environmental damage the cows do costs a heck of a lot more than that to repair.
Collectivism_sucks, are you starting to catch on yet? Your political philosophy is naive and stupid.

@13 Where I live the town owns the first ten feet of your yard, so that's public land too. You'd have nearly infinite pasture.
@Collectivism sucks. The land did in fact used to be open and free. Then the Spaniards conquered it. Then Mexico declared their independence, and we conquered Mexico. This was done not by individuals, but by the collective actions of the United States government. You people want armies and federal highways and federal water projects and everything that makes wasteland like this inhabitable and which can be accomplished only through collective action, and then pretend that rugged individualists don't need the federal government. Well, if the land is open, then who gets the water? The grass? The trees? Do you seriously think this land wouldn't be overrun if it weren't managed? I hope you're not passing down your genes to the next generation. You have an individual responsibility not to enstupid the human race.
Clive Bundy’s Daughter issued the following statement:

By Shiree Bundy Cox:

“I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

The rights to the land use are called preemptive rights. [which Cliven Bundy has cited.]

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the Bureau of Land Management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Instead they began using these monies against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM and tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise.

Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.

Everything they're doing at this point is illegal and totally against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle belong to him, regardless of where they are they are my father’s property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.

Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two borders, which is illegal, ask any trucker.

Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All this with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
@46 that's a long nutshell. alleging federal bribery of others, violation of the constitution.

and it's "THEIR own grazing fees".

Oh, see, it seems long to you because it's detailed enough for a reader to research and assess the merits of Bundys claims.

Unlike Constant the kid 'journalist' who just makes up stuff, ignores inconvenient facts, lies and so on to support his infantile worldview.

You're welcome.
@40. Awesome. With the arrival of @48, we now have all the right-wing slog trolls on one the boards at once. It's like the Solvay Physics Conference, except instead of Einstein and Schrodinger and Heisenberg and Curie and Planck, we have SB and Collectivism Sucks and SRoTU. The very best (conservative) minds of an entire generation are represented here on Slog.

Care to refute any of the narrative points @46? Comment on them? Express your sincere (if profoundly stupid) belief in infinite government with infinite control over citizens and the Constitution be damned?

No? Well! You're illiterate. You're ignorant. You're a whackjob blinkered lefty idealist. You should write for the Stranger!
Well, those narrative points are based on a claim of 'preemptive rights' to the land. So they say they own the land? Well, then I imagine they owe 100+ years of back property taxes. No? Then they will also say in the same breath that, okay--we don't own it, the sovereign state of Nevada does! Except that the sovereign state of Nevada states in its own constitution: "But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States." One of the Federal Government's Constitutional powers? Eminent Domain.

So what is it?
If Bundy owns the land, let's see some proof. And pay up.
If he doesn't own the land, get the fuck off of it. Or pay your fair share.
@48: Yo, that is pretty long for "in a nutshell". Her claim ACTUALLY "in a nutshell" would be along the lines of:
"My family has grazed cattle on this land for over a century, the BLM has enacted rules designed to crowd out ranchers, and now they're unfairly persecuting my dad even though he's acted in good faith."
It's not remotely true, but that's how it would be written "in a nutshell".

@50: She claims that the federal government has no claim to the cattle because her dad owns the cattle. However, what he does NOT own is the land that he is illegally allowing them to graze. It would be as if I billeted my dog in someone else's yard and then complained when they called Animal Control.
Also, you never refute points made by others. You merely slink away and pretend that you were never out-argued. Well guess what; THESE colors don't run.

@34: Previously I decried your opposition of division of labor (which is, as everybody knows, the foundation of all civilization), since you believe that "collectivism_sucks". You then claimed that you're not going by the DICTIONARY definition of "collectivism" but rather the (made-up?) definition of "political collectivism" as a form of governance in which the society is valued over the individual. Now you want to go back to the dictionary definition because you're caught in a tight rhetorical bind. Make up your mind, you flip-flopper! (inb4 "ad hominem", you use that phrase whenever someone says something you don't like but don't have a specific rebuttal of)
Also, squatters' rights are DEEPLY collectivist in the sense of "political collectivism". The need of society to house the needy trumps the right of the property owner to choose who is allowed on his property, under squatters' rights. If you don't get it, read it a few more times until you do, and then go piss up a flagpole.
@46 @50: We all understand her POV. The west is full of these kind of dumbfucks. They believe it is unconstitutional for the federal gov. to own (and really to manage) land. There are many misconceptions at play in her explanation (e.g. grazing right are not something you own, they are granted by the feds and can be revoked by the feds). The most important thing she does not seem to understand is the role that the law plays in our society and government. A huge amount of legislation (passed by the federal congress directly representing, in part, her and her relatives) is on the books governing the ins and outs of grazing on federal land. Good, law-abiding citizens such as myself expect the Bundys to follow the law. If there is a dispute in the interpretation of the law (e.g. over what privileges are included with a grazing allotment, how the permissible herd size is determined, what remedy the government has to enforce regulations, etc.) there is a court system that addresses these things. The Bundys know this quite well b/c they keep losing in court. This is a predictable state of affairs since the Bundy's legal position is a little homespun. If congress thinks the courts are not interpreting the law in the correct way, congress can pass new legislation amending the old stuff. They have so far declined to do so, even though the poor Bundys have been harassed by the evil feds for decades. The BLM had a court order to seize the cattle. The Bundys had their day in court. Time to start playing by the rules, just like everybody else.
@23 "Last time I checked, cattle didn't cause as much damage as toxic waste"

And this is why you work in food service instead of a STEM job.
Republicans and Tea Baggers don't care of they are hypocrites or not. People should realize this.
Can I get an honest answer to this question: why is it my, with Lysander Spooner on my profile pic, gets called a CONSERVATIVE, when I have a profile pic depicting a famous ANARCHIST? If someone had a picture of Stalin on their profile, would it make sense to call them an anarchist?

But yeah, I'm the stupid one...
Sorry, I have to say this: this is the mother fucker I have on my fucking profile pic:…
How the fuck does having a famous anarchist on my profile pic and advocating ending all government (eventually) make me a "conservative"?
You remind me of the Tea Partiers who call Obama a "fascist communist Muslim Atheist."

You can use an ad hominem and be a dumb fuck, but if you continue using an ad hominem that makes no sense (calling an obvious anarchist a conservative) you are officially a beyond help dumb idiot who probably wipes his ass sideways.
Oh yes, cattle causes just as much damage as radioactive waste...
And I sincerely doubt you work any job at all.
Yes, the US government has been an advocate of violent white supremacy and has massacred countless native Americans. One of the many reasons I am against patriotism and against the existence of the US government as it exists today, and support flag burning and have burned the flag of the imperialists US government myself. Your point?

As for the old, tired "roads" fallacy, being anti-collectivist does not mean one is against people getting together for communitarian action. No anarchist or libertarian I know thinks for one second that individuals can exist without help. We just want that help to be provided through voluntary community (communitarianism) and not government coercion (collectivism) I apologize for using such big words that are most likely over your head.

And yes, land needs to be managed. Which is why the only legitimate function of government should be protecting the environment, which is everyone's private property. But here is the kicker: This same government "protecting" this land from cattle grazing on federal land is the same government that tested nuclear bombs on federal land. I'm no expert, but I think detonating a nuclear bomb may be just a tiny bit more damaging than having a few heads of cattle eat grass and poop...…

As for the childish "yourr dumb and you shouldn't breed", here are some other anti-government people...are they also "so stupid they shouldn't pass their genes on to the next generation?"

Have you had enough, or would you like me to continue embarrassing you?
Now THAT is a good point: he had is day in court, he has to play by the rules.

That is what this boils down to: illegalism vs politics. A political method would be to follow the rules and try to change them while illegalism involves breaking the rules in favor of following some other ethical code, in this case he is engaging in a form of agorism. He's on federal land illegally. Big deal. He may then sell his cattle under the counter and avoid taxes. Again, from an anarchist prospective, this is great.

So, this is a question of anarchism vs statism. The Statists, like Paul Constance and most of the people commenting on this story, say the government has absolute authority to send men with jackboots and guns in to seize his cattle (but we the people have no right to stop the government from performing nuclear tests on the same land by force)

We anti-collectivists, libertarians and anarchists (and some conservatives in this case) disagree. That is the main argument being had here: anarchism vs statism. The Stranger is, once again, on the side of The State.
Seattle liberals are just as pro-government running our lives as Mississippi conservatives. The only difference is which part of our lives government should have absolute control over.

This is why I have to get out of here: Seattle is just as bad as Alabama when it comes to advocates for government control and statism. How can any anarchist stand to live around these people is beyond me.
You really have no idea of the extent that the waste of cattle damages our environment.

Please don't talk science and go get me my salad. You're not cut out for much else.
@61- If you need to get out of Seattle so badly, just start walking. I'm sure a rugged individualist like yourself will have no problem making it in this world.
@60 Bundy is not advocating for agorism. What he wants is a return to the terrible policies of the 19th century in which the very same government he is now bitching about incentivized his ancestors' settlement and exploitation of Nevada in an attempt the displace the indians. He makes a big deal about offering to pay the county to graze -- demonstrating that it is not a principled stand against the limitation of individual liberty that you seem to be trying to paint it as. It is not government intervention he dislikes--what galls him is that the US government has grown to include voices with which he does not agree (voices that challenge the narrative that he is the coolest motherfucker and that it is God's will that uneducated white jackasses be allowed to trash the entirety of North America). He is happy to be under government control as long as that government only represent "Real Americans" -- not the brown ones or pinko fags like me.
Okay, I have to ask: Why the fuck do you need to explain or justify your political philosophy to these imbeciles? Even if they're remotely capable of discerning the difference between individualist anarchism and and statist Republicanism - and they're not - they don't fucking care!!
You're in direct opposition to them, their Sun God and his armies of orcs and that's enough for them! You don't want to be in their authority-fellating posse and that's all it takes for them to hate you. I've no doubt it's also because you won't play your expected walk on role as a black man. They HATE that.
Take comfort in the fact that they live in the mother of all echo chambers, that their characterization of their opposition is absolutely woefully, comically, hilariously off the mark, and that authoritarianism ALWAY over-reaches and ALWAYS fails. ALWAYS.
collectivism_sucks just gets dumber and dumber as he posts. It's kind of awe inspiring, in a way. Posts @56 and @57 alone are a swirling mobius strip of stupid, with not a hint of self-awareness.

(And way to call the "ad hominem!" whining, venomlash!)
You are right. A casual glance at all these idiots making comments like "ur a dumby ass right wing er hah hah!" would make the casual observer wince. How the hell am I, a free-market anarchist, a "right winger"? If you're going to call me a name, at least call me a name that makes sense. It's like calling Obama a white supremacist. I mean, calling him a communist is idiotic, but at least it makes some sense.
But yes, you are right. These people lack any critical thinking skills, resort to childish name calling and mock me when I site a source backing up my comments and type something along the lines of "hah! he tinks a them facts mean something da dumb right wing fucktard ha!"
I am here because this is somewhat amusing. Debating with a Seattle Statist is like playing with a puppy with Downsyndrome.
In all fairness he MAY be like that, but who knows. I've met rural anarchist (such a thing does exist, which I too was shocked to find out) who ride in pickup trucks, carry shotguns and yet can quote Gustave Molinari and live by the philosophies of Henry Thoreau.

And even if he is one of the "JEEEEZUSSS!" boys, making a big mess over him grazing cattle in Nevada is absurd consider the Federal Government tested nuclear weapons in Nevada.

Nuclear detonation...cow grazing on grass. Which is worse for the environment?

And it would be unfair to jump to conclusions about rural people. As a libertarian, I can't do that. In the words of Depech Mode, "people are people." I've met plenty of red state rural people who are fine with a pot smoking brown skinned bisexual Zen Buddhist anarchist like myself, and I've also met Seattlites who are just as far-right as Pat Robertson (met a Mars Hill church member recently?)
Honestly, reread #60. I am NOT someone who believes anyone can survive without other people. People need each other and need community. What I object to is this notion that "community" is somehow synonymous with "government". Libertarians/free market anarchists don't believe anyone is an island, we simply want voluntary community to fill the roll now filled by government.

And I intend to leave Seattle. Houston is a politically diverse city with a strong libertarian feeling...and as a bonus it is not NEARLY as white as Seattle is, has great Mexican food, and has plenty of hot rugged cowboys, as opposed to Seattle's wimpy tech geeks.

By this time next year I'll be finding out how the West was Hung...ah, I mean WON.

Jesus, you're stupid. How about moving to Somalia, and finding out what anarchy really looks like? No, it's much nicer here, where the government keeps things tidy.
@69: Good luck managing a municipal sewer system - to pick just one of literally hundreds of the fundamental bits and pieces that make up modern civilized life - on the basis of a "voluntary community".
@56: My apologies. What with all the conservative opinions you've been putting forth, I accidentally thought you were a conservative. Also, there is very little practical difference between the conservative libertarians of the Tea Party and...whatever you are.
@57: I like how you accused someone of argumentum ad hominem (a term you seem to be congenitally unable to use correctly) and then called them a "dumb fuck".

@58: Cattle overgraze delicate plant life, trample soil and in so doing destroy microbial biofilms crucial to the ecology of many arid locales, produce huge amounts of bacteria-laden waste, and often contaminate the watershed with feminizing hormones (in the case of dairies). Radioactive waste emits ionizing radiation, which leads to increased rates of mutation and cancer and, in extremely high doses, causes burns and radiation poisoning.
Radioactive waste isn't actually that dangerous in and of itself; the reason we sequester spent nuclear fuel is because it remains radioactive for so long that, left unchecked, dangerous levels could gradually build up in the ecosystem.
You clearly have no understanding of ecology or biology.

@59, 60: The USA hasn't conducted above-ground nuclear tests since the '60s, when it became apparent that they were a danger to public health. And, in fact, citizens DO have recourse against government nuclear tests; after the dangers of fallout emerged, enough civil suits were filed that Uncle Sam went ahead and provided reparations to uranium miners and people living in areas affected by fallout from the tests. Your reference to nuclear tests doesn't hold water.

@61: Exactly what part of our lives do we think "government should have absolute control over"? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "absolute".
@69- I didn't say you thought you didn't need other people. I said I'm sure you could make it on your own. Now start walking. Keep the sunset on your right side, you'll be in Houston in no time!

(When you start thinking through all your non-collective collective arrangements through, you'll notice you just replicated government.)
I'm trying to imagine a bunch of Black men holed up with guns in that situation, and it doesn't end any way but in a massive blood bath. Doesn't matter that they put their wimmenz up in front to get gunned down first.

As to the bigger issue, see: Tragedy of the Commons.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.