Is the IRS after Bundy for not paying federal taxes? If not, then Bundy must be paying his federal taxes. That suggests that Bundy does recognize that the federal government exists. If I were you, and I’m not, I would question whether your quote was, possibly, taken out of context, or, possibly, a heat of the moment statement.
I agree with you that you don’t know what is. 
Yes, in the form of grazing fees for use of federal land (*your *property as well as the rest of ours).
IOW, theft. From you.
For now. I hope that he will be picked up someday and the land will be returned to the feds where it belongs, to be used by anyone freely instead of having to tip toe past Bundy’s Klan protectors
Paranoia is when you think that the same government that runs the courts will stack the deck in their favor. Bundy can get a fair trial in court which is much more than his band of armed racists are offering
If Bundy didn’t want to pay fees to the federal government, there was a really simple solution: put his money where his mouth is and have his cattle graze on private land instead of relying on a socialist gubmint program. You, know, free market and rugged self-reliance?
Someone else uses a government service? The government is stealing from me. I use a government service and it’s not 100% free? The government is stealing from me.
(post shortened)
I thought the BLM land could not be used freely. The BLM charges a fee for it’s use. Isn’t that what this brouhaha is all about?
Really? I had no idea that you beleived that the IRS was after Bundy for not paying his federal income taxes. Or do you believe the IRS is after Bundy for not paying his BLM grazing fees? The BLM collects it’s own fees.
AFAIK, the IRS is not after Bundy.
*Current Grazing Fee Formula and Distribution of Receipts
The Fee Formula.
The fee charged by the FS and BLM is based on the grazing on federal rangelands of a specified number of animals for one month. PRIA establishes a policy of charging a grazing fee that is “equitable” and prevents economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry. The law requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to set a fee annually that is the estimated economic value of grazing to the livestock owner. The fee is to represent the fair market value of grazing, beginning with a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM. This value is adjusted for three factors based on costs in western states of (1) the rental charge for pasturing cattle on private rangelands, (2) the sales price of beef cattle, and (3) the cost of livestock production. Congress also established that the annual fee adjustment could not exceed 25% of the previous year’s fee.
Distribution of Receipts.
Fifty percent of all fees collected, or $10 million — whichever is greater — go to a range betterment fund in the Treasury. The fund is used for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvement including grass seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to be used as directed by the Secretary of the Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is authorized to be spent in the district, region, or forest that generated the fees, as the Secretary determines after consultation with user representatives. Agency regulations contain additional detail. For example, BLM regulations provide that half of the fund is to be allocated by the Secretary on a priority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district where derived. Forest Service regulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the national forest where derived, and the rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general, the FS returns all range betterment funds to the forest that generated them.
The agencies allocate the remaining 50% of the collections differently. For the FS, 25% of the funds are deposited in the Treasury and 25% are given to the states (16 U.S.C. §500; see Figure 1). For the BLM, states receive 12.5% of monies collected from lands defined in §3 of the Taylor Grazing Act7 and 37.5% is deposited in the Treasury. Section 3 lands are those within grazing districts for which the BLM issues grazing permits. (See Figure 2.) By contrast, states receive 50% of fees collected from BLM lands defined in §15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Section 15 lands are those outside grazing districts for which the BLM leases grazing allotments. (See Figure 3.) For both agencies, any state share is to be used to benefit the counties that generated the receipts.*
Warning - pdf file ahead -
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf
So you’re OK with being stolen from if it’s via one agency, but not another.
Wow.
I know the difference between the IRS and BLM. Do I get extra credit for understanding government agency acronyms?
Only if you can show how it matters.
BLM is part of Interior, which runs the park service. As far as I can tell, they allow some degree of unfettered reasonable use of the areas they control but draw the line when it comes to damage or for-profit use. They should have arrested Bundy’s entourage for going up the canyons in their ATVs to deliberately trash some heritage sites (of archaeological interest), but the situation was out of control (and it was Nevada, where one city has a monument honoring some people for doing just that).
Note that the Forest Service has rather similar free use access rules, but they are USDA, not Interior.
Doesn’t the government do the exact same thing?
Sure. We generally authorize the government to use violence to accomplish certain objectives. What’s your point?
That’s a very Pollyannaish view. There’s entire institutions set up to right the wrongs of the court system. There is major angst in the country right now due to the perception that all too often LEOs will never have to face a judge and jury if they kill a black man.
You can cast aspersions, but the facts are clear. The government runs the courts. Expecting the government to work against its own interests in a court of law 100% of the time takes a leap of faith many are not willing to make.
Double standard, which is it’s okay for the government to do it, but not private individuals. But that’s the crux of the whole thing. You’ve faith in the government and find their use of violence morally permissible. Others don’t.
I don’t see how that’s a double standard. I also don’t see how you’re arguing with it. Are you saying you’re not OK with police using violence or the threat of violence to arrest meth dealers? Or that you’re OK with meth dealers using violence to avoid being arrested? If it really is your stance that police and criminals have the same moral right to use violence, then just know that you’re taking an extreme stance on this issue.
The government governs at the consent of the governed. We authorize them, by putting them into office, to have the power and discretion to do things private citizens cannot.
Well, that totally justifies armed resistance.
There are lots of things that the government is permitted (and often expected/required) to do that private citizens are not allowed to do. And it’s a damn good thing, as otherwise we’d have chaos and anarchy.
First, you’re presenting a jaundiced analogy. Bundy = nasty meth addicts. How about Bundy = American revolutionaries circa 1775? Both analogies are bullshit.
Secondly, yes everybody is subject to the same moral standards. Why would it be okay for a person with a badge and uniform to commit an unwarranted, but not a person without the accoutrements?