I don't trust most of what I read about the standoff taking place in Oregon, but I did find
this map useful:
 |
| Control |
The role of the federal government differs substantially in the western part of the country, because much of the land itself is under federal control. If anything, the amount of land under federal control has increased since 2004. And how the feds manage the land can have huge impacts on those who own land in those states. It's not coincidental that most of the major wildfires we have in the United States take place in areas where the feds control much of the land.
You can read more about the case
here. I am skeptical about mandatory minimum sentences, which are at issue in this case. What I would suggest is this: most of the people who are either sneering at the principals involved, or who are shouting "terrorism" about the actions of the always annoying Bundy family, need to think a bit more about the larger context. We are always admonished to be more nuanced in our thinking. Wouldn't hurt in this case, either.
7 comments:
the amount of federally held lands in the west has been a bone of contention for thoughtful, constitutional minded libertarians for quite some time.
the lands should be given to the states, where land use decisions are closer to the democratic process.
of course, the feds will never give these lands up. they are way too lucrative for senators in positions of power, who dole out mining/logging/drilling rights according to the highest bidder. the Harry Reid family became wealthy in part though this way, among several others.
(i'm wondering what mining operation paul ryan will soon own a part of in exchange for the budget blow job)
as for the Bundy's: they've latched on to half the argument that serves their interests. they are not libertarians, and their idea of freedom means that they get to range cattle for free on land that is not theirs. trust that if you moved your cattle onto 'public' land that Bundy claimed for his own free use, you would be shot as a trespasser... and he would see no issue with that.
Good comment, Gino. I suspect you are right about the Bundys. Real libertarians aren't rent seekers.
What I see here is another in a long line of mini-events that is moving us towards real conflict. When is the last time things seemed to be DE-escalating? I'd put that moment right around 1990, when a major right-left flashpoint (Soviet relations) was taken off the table. That moment felt cathartic.
Since then? I know people on the left who feel like people like the Bundys are the enemy. I feel like the government itself is the enemy. The government is the one with the power to harm. The government is the one most often at odds with my values. The government is the one unrestrained by law (or less restrained than anyone else at any rate.)
Interestingly (to me) is the fact that for the left, the calculus isn't radically different. Who is it who pulls over young black men and arrests, beats, or kills them disproportionately? The government (in blue uniforms.)
I'm curious to know when both sides will so lose trust that we'll overthrow the whole rotten system.
Bundy is Che Guavera in english. If he was a long haired athiest brandishing guns for land reform, he would be hero.
Bundy is Che Guavera in english. If he was a long haired athiest brandishing guns for land reform, he would be hero.
I take your point, but to my knowledge Bundy hasn't murdered anyone.
and that, too.
Are we saying that if Mr. Bundy killed a bunch of people, the left would warm up to him?
Agreed with Gino that at some point, we are going to have to unravel the mess left by the government as they refused to sell public lands to the public, and as they imposed a byzantine system of water rights there. Get these lands and water rights in private hands and transferable (why should we grow rice in the desert when people will pay for the ability to flush their toilets and put out fires?), and the fights will largely stop.
Post a Comment