Recent content by austin944

If a business operation cannot survive without government hand-outs, then those businesses should be allowed to fail. It's not the proper role of government to prop up businesses that can't go it alone. That principle goes for ranchers, banks, automakers, manufacturers, individuals, or anyone...

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."...

Because Bundy's attorneys have cited prior court cases to show that he has some legal claim to the land. If he's going to bring those claims, it's proper to show the error in his reasoning, even if you may not agree with the underlying premise that the courts are the proper venue to settle this...

If Bundy were to graze his cattle on private lands, the cost would likely be a lot higher. This GAO report says: "The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004 [it's now even lower], is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees...

To my knowledge, the State of Nevada has not designated the land in dispute as Open range. Therefore, your point is moot. Your argument was used by another welfare rancher preceding Bundy, and rejected by the Federal court in that case, in the link that I provided: "Absent consent or cession...

The Equal Footing doctrine was considered and rejected by the Federal court in Bundy's case. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/Bundy_I_Notice7-26-13.pdf (I'm sorry for the source; it's only one a few sites that has carried one of the two rulings against...

All that does is turn the problem over to the State of Nevada. If the State wanted full fair value of the land in order to sell it, they'd first have to eject this squatter from off it.

I do not subscribe to the principle that a property rights battle is won by making it more expensive for your opponent to win. Property rights are not justly obtained by "might makes right" on either side.

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more...

I already posted that information -- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It gives Congress unlimited powers to dispose of the land that it is owned by the Federal government. Of course! However, it is not persuasive to claim a redress of grievances when you do not...

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense? He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he...

A welfare deadbeat complaining about welfare.

There are two different questions here, and you can answer each question differently and still have a consistent and liberty-minded view on this matter: 1) Who has legal claim to the disputed land? 2) Who should own the land? I only brought up the US Constitution to show that the Federal...

For almost 20 years now, Cliven Bundy has lived off government welfare that he is not properly entitled to claim under the laws of the US government. He has not properly paid the grazing fees required of him and used government land without permission. If the US government had been dealing...

US v. Gardner, 107 F. 3d 1314 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997 ``The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong...