Nevada Rancher Solves (My) Housing Problem

Rancher Cliven Bundy grazes his cattle, a herd estimated at 500 head, on federal land in the Gold Butte area of Nevada. Mr. Bundy's family has operated a ranch on the same land since the late 1800s.  

There is nothing wrong with this; the Bureau of Land Management administers 18,000 grazing permits covering 157 million acres of federal land across the country.  These legal grazing rights come with a price that is determined by and paid to the federal government by ranchers on a yearly basis.

In 1993, the BLM changed the grazing rules in the Gold Butte area to protect an endangered desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy objected to the change and has refused to pay for the use of that land since the new rules were enacted. He has ignored several court rulings ordering him to pay up or move out.  He now owes the U.S. government a past due amount of approximately $1.1 million for grazing rights. 

This past week, the BLM decided they'd had enough and arrived in Nevada and began to confiscate Mr. Bundy's cattle.  Well-armed, anti-government conservatives from all over the country descended on Nevada and Mr. Bundy's ranch to stop the BLM's actions.

what eye thynk:  This is not a private property issue as Mr. Bundy's supporters seem to be arguing.   Cliven Bundy has been using federal land to generate personal profit for 21 years without paying one penny.  And he has been doing it on land that technically belongs to you and me.  

Along with their firearms, Mr. Bundy's supporters brought signs with slogans like "We the People", "This Land is Our Land" and "Big Government Take-over."   The irony is that these signs are absolutely right...but for reasons that Mr. Bundy's supporters don't seem to grasp.  The land that Mr. Bundy's family uses has technically been confiscated from the public wealth--wealth that belongs to "We the People".  Mr. Bundy's family is grazing cattle on "This Land (which is) Our Land."  In attempting to force Mr. Bundy to pay for the use of our land, the "Big Government Take-over" is protecting my rights as a landowner and "taking over" the job of collecting past-due rent that is owed to me.

In an interview, Mr. Bundy claimed that he abides by all local and state laws; but he believes that the federal government has no sovereignty over individual states and so he will not abide by federal regulations.  I note that, in a textbook example of self-serving reasoning, he is willing to claim authority to use federal land by right of his U.S. citizenship, while at the same time saying he doesn't need to abide by the laws that govern the rights of that citizenship.  

Charles C.W. Cooke, columnist for the conservative National Review pointed out the problem with Mr. Bundy's cherry-picking attitude toward authority "...This is a republic, dammit--and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply."

Mr. Cooke seems to be talking into a conservative vacuum.  The lack of any type of response from right-wing lawmakers in Washington is notable. Where are the voices raised in outrage over non-payment of money that belongs in federal coffers?

On the other side of the political spectrum, Kevin Drum, blogger for the liberal Mother Jones website, wrote: "Mainstream conservatives have pandered to this stuff for years because it was convenient, and that's brought them to where they are today:  too scared to stand up to the vigilantes they created and speak the simple truth.  They complain endlessly about President Obama's 'lawlessness,' but this is lawlessness."

In response to Glenn Beck's and Fox News' support of the Bundy side of the argument, Jamelle Bouie, writer for The Nation, asked a poignant question:  "Finally, I can't help but wonder how conservatives would react if these were black farmers...defending 'their' land against federal officials.  Would Fox News applaud black militiamen aiming their guns on white bureaucrats?"

Yes, imagine if, instead of Mr. Bundy, a liberal organization or individual (of any color) was claiming their right to use public land without paying.  Imagine if that organization or individual withheld $1.1 million over 21 years that was owed to the federal government because they objected to certain government regulations.  Republican outrage would be loud, long and strident.  Congressional committees to investigate this outrage would be the stuff of legend. And those gun-toting, sign carrying supporters would be standing on the other side of the street.

Of course, we non-conservatives can turn this whole thing to our advantage with a little outside-the-box thinking.  If Republicans won't raise any objection over free-use of public lands, this might be be a good time to build that nice retirement home I've always wanted.  After all, the land is apparently free as long as I can find some regulations I don't like.  I hear Mr. Bundy's north pasture has a nice view.