In the first quoted bit, he was responding directly to the possible joke post of cleansheetbsc. In the second quoted bit, which was an entirely different post, he was relating an anecdote in the context of "his liberal friends". At most he is "wondering aloud" if, among some, there might be a similarity that can be drawn. At most.
Cool. Peaceful un-armed protestors deserve the same treatment as aggressive armed protestors. Good to know.
Sure he alledges that some of his liberal friends have made comments of droning the ranch guys just like cleansheet commented, then he projects that to team blue and claims they are the same as team red in the usual false equivalence (Equivalcy?) @American Brummie spell check needed in aisle 9.
True, harder to pepper spray guys with guns, maybe do it from a plane or something, safety first. Dude Bundy is just lucky he is not black, the police response would have been much different.
He said the "sounds like Team Red" thing in direct response to cleansheetbsc and THEN shared the anecdote. He went in exactly the opposite direction of what you characterized.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/rand-paul-jimmy-carter-was-better-budget-ronald-reagan David Corn has obtained a bunch of video of Rand Paul from the recent past. To me, that means he has no chance at the Republican nomination. I had always thought his chances were slim and none, but to me, this means slim just left town. But this isn't a libertain fail, IMO. He just was being a more or less honest, fair minded outsider. Paul was acting and speaking as a fairly pure libertarian. But a fairly pure libertarian has no chance at getting the nomination from one of the two major parties at this point. None. So on that level, it's a fail.
Hey Mr. Bundy: You're a liar and a racist and a moocher... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...-cliven-bundys-remarks-disparaging-the-negro/ “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy was quoted as saying to a group of supporters last Saturday. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.” /quote
Not an acceptable answer. If it is the public's land then it should be free to the public unless there are necessary costs such as maintenance. The barrier to entry thing is interesting provided that the barrier is necessary. Is there any proof that such a barrier was needed in this case?
There have been limits on grazing since the Boston Commons started limiting grazing to 70 cows in 1646. If you don't charge fees and have permits, then everybody grazes their cows on the local range, all the stuff that can be eaten is eaten, and then you have a dust bowl desert without a tasty plant in sight. In short, the government grazing fees and management of these areas make it possible for this guy to graze on them. If there were no grazing fees or management, chances are there wouldn't be any plants left. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/A...-145132/unrestricted/IQPTCC07RyanNickKyle.pdf The desertification, or decline in arable land in the American Southwest, is of great concern to the American public and the government. Since desertification is a collective action problem, we put our faith in the federal government to increase the barrier to entry for damaging, land-intensive economic enterprises that are scientifically shown to increase desertification. Grazing fees are one step in ensuring that arable land for farmers and ranchers today is arable land for farmers and ranchers in fifty years. EDIT: Dammit, MattR.
I know why this exists. What I want to know is how does that apply to Bundy's location. Because the way I read it, the excuses for charging these fees have shifted over time. It's really not hard to see this an unwarranted funding system for the state, similar to how cities in the northeast have to continue to pay tolls on roads and bridges constructed and paid for generations ago.
It's not like these lands have stopped being a collective action problem. It's all about incentives. If the grazing fees were removed, the same problems would creep back in only on a greater scale due to more intensive farming practices, and desertification would increase.
Zoom in to North America and look at the red. Which locality or state would you prefer address the issue of desertification?
The states that it effects should work together, similar to how the northeastern states create interstate commissions. This is of little consequence to people in Maine or in Hawaii
Why? My taxes support the local park system in my county, but if I actually want to use one of the two county-supported water parks, I still pay for a ticket. My outdoor over-30 men's soccer league uses fields on a county park; part of our fees go towards a park usage fee. In that case, I guess we are paying to keep the lights on a little later than they would normally, but I'd wager they Parks Dept. collects more than it spends on electricity. And public land isn't public land just because the big bad federal government wants to run a scam. The American West is a pretty fragile environment, and we've known at least since John Weseley Powell that the lack of adequate rainfall and the generally arid-to-semi-arid climate means that Eastern patterns of land use are simply not viable, long-term. Free-market ideologies and traditional smallholder agricultural values which sound great in theory tend to run up on the shoals of western climate realities.