12 Apr 2014

Fox Jumps In On the Outrage in Nevada

Bundy Ranch 53 Comments

This clip is making the rounds now:

As I noted on Facebook when someone shared this: “I get it, believe me, but it’s kind of ironic that when people on Fox get their dander up, their zinger amounts to: ‘It’s like Obama’s thugs think Mexicans are more important than cattle!!'”

In case that’s too opaque for some of you, let me spell it out: It’s ironic to simultaneously get mad at the feds for “not enforcing the border” and also be outraged at this “tyrannical harassment of a rancher.” The standard crew at Fox isn’t opposed to feds with guns ripping apart families and ruining people’s businesses in general. (By the same token, as the people at ThinkProgress have so aptly demonstrated, the left-liberals don’t care about the little guy and fighting the power either, as general principles.)

53 Responses to “Fox Jumps In On the Outrage in Nevada”

  1. Josiah says:

    According to this, Bundy’s arguments are premised on the idea that the federal government doesn’t exist.

    • Ken B says:

      An excellent article, with a lot of detail missing from other accounts.

    • andrew' says:

      Now or in the future?

      And no it’s not.

      And no it doesn’t.

  2. Ken B says:

    Her comments are toolish, but it’s only ironic if you take an us vs them approach to, well, everything. There is nothing inconsistent in demanding the government enforce and follow its own laws, nor for demanding it do so sensibly and effectively. It’s perfectly sensible to criticize the execution of policies you support. So there are lots of ways you can be pleased or displeased with the government on various issues, including these.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Ken B. wrote:

      Her comments are toolish, but it’s only ironic if you take an us vs them approach to, well, everything. There is nothing inconsistent in demanding the government enforce and follow its own laws, nor for demanding it do so sensibly and effectively.

      Right Ken B., which is why Fox is being inconsistent. If you didn’t feel the need to constantly contradict me, this would be obvious.

      As you, Josiah, ThinkProgress, et al. have made clear, the federal government thinks it is in the right here. Presumably the federal government has as much legitimacy in sending armed guys to take this guy’s cattle, as it does to build a fence to keep out Mexican day laborers.

      But Fox isn’t clamoring for the feds to enforce the laws. They don’t *want* them to enforce these laws against the rancher.

      But when it comes to immigration laws, they DO want the feds to enforce the laws.

      (OK that last part is part of my broader part; strictly speaking you wouldn’t know that from the clip I posted. But that’s why the clip is supposed to be funny–it resonates with people who are mad that Obama isn’t getting rid of those damn illegals.)

      • andrew' says:

        It is a little different, Bob.

        This is not really a law. And enforcement is the law and thus one is having a little trouble in that department. If everyone resisted the law couldn’t continue.

        Plus there is no law that explicitly states what they are doing with their ad hoc policy. They a bureau of land management not bureau of the bureau of do dumb stuff. I’m not conflating that bad law with the bad policy. I’m pointing out that the law is not intended for arbitrary enforcement. The blm doesn’t own the land, we do. That is just one thing.

        After 20 years, I presume the turtles are still there. So much for heffers effing with them- but we already knew environmentalists were doing it wrong. That just highlights one reason how upon ad hoc enforcement bad laws get recognized and adjusted.

        A law that gives blm power to arbitrarily mismanage the land and the only check is individuals against the federal bureaucracy is due for change and now we know.

      • Ken B says:

        Guess you didn’t see the plus 1 I gave you on the other thread. I’ll learn some HTML and make it glowing red 36 point next time.

        Someone can think the BLM f-ed up badly in their approach but still support enforcing immigration law. It’s not any kind of contradiction. I support federal enforcement of kidnapping laws, but don’t like them bailing out GM. Oh the irony.

        • Dan says:

          I just watched Pacquiao whoop some a**, so I’m in a good mood and I’ll break my rule of not responding to you unless you respond to me first.

          Are you under the impression that the Fox crew is perfectly fine with the Feds coming in and taking his cattle in order to enforce the law, but they just have a problem with how the law is being enforced? If not, then Bob’s point flew way over your head.

          Or there is it possible you are simply a troll and have no intention of trying to understand the point people are making?

      • Josiah says:

        Fox isn’t clamoring for the feds to enforce the laws. They don’t *want* them to enforce these laws against the rancher.
        But when it comes to immigration laws, they DO want the feds to enforce the laws.

        It’s a good point, and I agree completely.

  3. Gamble says:

    Cliven Bundy: “Yeah, it gets back to the ownership of this. Who owns this land? Does the sovereign State of Nevada own this land within their borders? Or does the United States own this land with their borders? If United States owns this land then I guess I’m wrong. But what if this is a sovereign State of Nevada and Clark County, Nevada owns this land? The People of Clark County, Nevada owns this land.”

    Assuming Nevada owns the land, Nevada would most likely tax/fee this guy to pieces anyways. Nevada may go further and rezone or even capture it under the guise of imminent domain.

    Until he owns deed, I don’t know how he has solved any of his problems…

    • Ken B says:

      1. Bundy explicitly repudiates the arguments made here by guest and others.
      2. The federal government owns the land and has since 1848. That’s pretty clear legally. Maybe you don’t like the law. That’s not the same as saying it isn’t the law.
      3. Bundy does not seem to have argued that he had a common law easement. Only about which owner he would have the easement from. Not sure why not.
      4. The federal government exists.

      • Gamble says:

        Okay but let us pretend he has a state easement, would this not come with its own terms and conditions…

        • Ken B says:

          Oh I am sure but there can be negotiation etc. i am just curious why it was not tried at all, it seems, when it looks a promising argument.

          • Gamble says:

            But since the State claims no ownership, they will not set terms/cost.

            So by denying Fed ownership yet knowing State makes no claim, then you have magically defaulted to zero accountability/zero cost. Maybe the Feds should sublease land to State, then State should send rancher bill. I bet he still refuse to pay.

            I think the real issue is what is the true motivation of BLM to limit grazing usage. Are they trying to run this guy out claiming it is for turtles only to immediately sale the land or mineral rights for big bucks and in the process kill all the “turtles”?

            • Ken B says:

              Sorry, I meant an easement and negotiation with the owner which is the feds. The easement would be a right enforceable against the owner. It doesn’t apply against the state or Bob Murphy.

              • Gamble says:

                Well even a tax protestor who claims income tax is illegal, would still have to pay somebody for services consumed.

                Some people just want a free ride…

          • andrew' says:

            Oh, did the federal courts decide what the law was?

            Yeah, I can’t figure out why a rancher wouldn’t want to take on unlimited federal lawyers in federal court.

            It is a total mystery because this way isn’t getting him any support.

            I’m smarter than people I claim are things they are not! Whee!

      • guest says:

        5. The federal government doesn’t exist.[?]

        6. I get to lawfully shoot you if you don’t do what I say because I claim that whatever I do is lawful.[?]

      • Major_Freedom says:

        The government does not own the land, unless you believe might makes right. Oh that’s right, you do, you are just too cowardly to admit it, and practise it when confronted by it.

        • Gamble says:

          MF,

          You bring up the key question, who does own the land?

          Do we know the history?

          Additionally, if rancher does own the land from homesteading or outright purchase, would you say he owes any taxes?

          • Major_Freedom says:

            >who does own the land?

            Certainly not the men with badges. Certainly not those who asked the men with badges to threaten Bundy’s life with guns, and threaten his supporters with violence using tasers and dogs. Certainly not Obama. Certainly not anyone in Congress. Nor the IRS. Nor the FBI. Nor those who voted for Obama. Nor anyone else merely by virtue of being coerced into paying taxes.

            Why not any of these people? Well, if we know initiating violence is wrong, then the rightful owner is the homesteader, or he who traded with the homesteader.

            Since the land is clearly scarce, as there is not only potential rivalry, but observable rivalry taking place, we have to make a choice on who the owner is. Sociopaths like to believe that all that is required is for one party to out muscle everyone else with naked aggression, e.g. the government. Might makes right to these people.

            For me, I think there is a rational solution, that is, a solution based on rationalist philosophy. Yes, yes, I know philosophers mostly reject rationalism since they have been deceived into thinking that rationalism leads to socialism and since socialism is a failure it means rationalism is a failure too. But they haven’t actually refuted it. In fact, rationalism has already been shown to be the only non-contradictory philosophy.

            So I argue that the homesteader owns the land. If no homesteader, then it’s not owned by anyone is available for homesteading.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            And the rancher does not owe taxes. Nobody does. Taxes are theft. Theft is unjust.

  4. john says:

    I have to say, maybe I’m getting too involved with this site, but I don’t understand why this is even an issue. The federal government unquestionably owns the land at issue — i haven’t seen even a mildly coherent argument to the contrary. Unless one’s view is either that there IS no federal government or it cannot own land, which is simply another way of saying that unless one simply doesn’t believe in reality, Bundy has been trespassing on federal land for years. He has refused to pay fees that everyone else pays on the theory that he doesn’t have to. He has violated numerous court orders. When his cattle started to be seized, heavily arned militiamen arrived to support him, and unmistakably threatened violence against federal officers. To avoid someone getting hurt, the feds backed down and are trying to solve the problem a different way. It’s not that I have no sympathy for Bundy. I get the issue, because basically every western ever made is based on the same conflict. But, I mean, I just can’t understand supporting armed militias threatening duly appointed law enforcement officers unless one simply doesn’t believe they are law enforcement officers at all, but rather agents of a tyranny to be resisted, if necessary, by violence. This to me is starting to border on tin foil hat stuff. Is this really what Austrian economic views lead to?

    • Gamble says:

      BLM is probably waiting for more firepower/reinforcements…

      Even if Fed is not capable of owning land, somebody has to own it. Rancher claims State own it. Has he been paying state any grazing fees?

      • andrew' says:

        This is how laws get changed sometimes you guys who think you are smarter than us guys.

    • Ken B says:

      As to your question, yes.

      In general people are conflating policy and law. The BLM is right legally, but their policy re tortoises etc may be wrong. People who sympathize with Bundy on a policy basis are acting as if he were in the right on the legal questions.

      This conflation of what law is and what you think it should be is endemic to Rothbardians, as you have seen. That is one of the reasons why the answer is yes.

      • guest says:


        … are acting as if he were in the right on the legal questions.

        Not true. The issue is whether or not those laws are legitimate, not whether they can be called “laws”:

        The Federalist No. 83
        http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm


        The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived.

        So, the laws aren’t laws merely because our representatives claim they are laws.

    • guest says:


      But, I mean, I just can’t understand supporting armed militias threatening duly appointed law enforcement officers unless one simply doesn’t believe they are law enforcement officers at all …

      This to me is starting to border on tin foil hat stuff.

      Declaration of Independence


      That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      The Federalist No. 28
      [www]http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm


      If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government …

      The Federalist No. 46
      [www]http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm


      But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.

      Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

      Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

      The Federalist No. 78
      [www]http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm


      There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

      The Law
      by Frederic Bastiat
      [www]http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html


      Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

      If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.

      Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

      If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do

    • Major_Freedom says:

      john:

      “The federal government unquestionably owns the land at issue — i haven’t seen even a mildly coherent argument to the contrary.”

      The government unquestionably does not own the land at issue – I haven’t seen even a mildly coherent argument to the contrary.

      Unless you believe that threatening people not to homestead or trade for the land means that person making the threats owns the land, which is simply another way of saying might makes right.

      Bundy cannot be trespassing against the government because the government doesn’t own the land. It is simply initiating violence and threats thereof. That doesn’t make one a legitimate owner.

    • Josiah says:

      Is this really what Austrian economic views lead to?

      Technically no. Austrian economics is supposed to be descriptive rather than normative.

      In practice, most of the main proponents of Austrian economics also subscribe to a set of moral/political views, which you might call Rothbardianism. You don’t have to be a Rothbardian to accept Austrian economics, but there does seem to be a strong affinity between the two. And Rothbardianism does entail the sorts of wacky beliefs that you mention.

  5. guest says:


    It’s ironic to simultaneously get mad at the feds for “not enforcing the border” and also be outraged at this “tyrannical harassment of a rancher.”

    I used to be like that, and did not consider it to be a contradiction at all. AND I believed in private property rights at the same time.

    Just so you know where I was coming from: These two positions are based on a strong belief in private property rights (or at least that’s our motivation).

    The problem is that I believed as long as people agreed with each other, land could be owned collectively, and, being the owners, we had the right to allow or disallow anyone we saw fit – for any reason, bigotted or otherwise, ALTHOUGH WE WERE NOT BIGOTS.

    You don’t have to be a bigot to believe that people should have the right to keep anyone off their property for any reason. We can be consistent in our defense of bigots’ property rights while at the same time hating bigotry, ourselves.

    We don’t hate foreigners; We love foreigners as people. But they have to abide by the owners’ rules, was my position.

    Our mistake was believing something could be owned collectively.

    So, please try to understand that Conservative types believe STRONGLY in private property rights – we are just not aware that we are not applying our beliefs consistently.

    When we’re made aware of our inconsistency, we side with property rights. The defense of property rights was the whole reason why America was founded (an ultimately futile attempt to try to use states to accomplish this, but that was the goal, nevertheless).

    So appeal to our belief in property rights; and avoid the race card, because we’ll just think you are incapable of distinguishing between property rights and bigotry.

    • Gamble says:

      So long as you don’t have man-to-man sex or consume drugs on said private property.. Oh and few other things also…

      • guest says:

        Yeah, don’t be gay.
        😀

    • Gamble says:

      And pay rent in the form of property taxes that have no correlation to actual usage of services, etc. Face lien and confiscation with failure to comply, etc.

      Go team conservative, champions of private property rights, hooraw….

      • guest says:

        Well, once you concede that property can be collectively owned, private property rights logically go out the window.

        This is just an inconsistency, though. Honestly, we believe primarily in private property rights. The general government was always merely a means to that end.

        • Tel says:

          But why?

          One man may be married and he and his wife have decided between themselves that all property is joint property and they refuse to distinguish in any way.

          The man next door may be single and consider all his property to be personal. Nothing illogical about it.

          • Ken B says:

            The inconsistencies come when you start rothbarding. Claims like the contract dies with the person. Try that along with joint ownership,and inheritance, as in a few examples on this thread. There is of course nothing wrong with joint ownership. There are absurdities in Rothbard’s theories that joint ownership shows up quickly. So they banish it by fiat.

            • Tel says:

              The contract (as an agreement) must be made BEFORE the person dies, because dead people don’t make agreements.

              If the husband and wife agree with each other that the surviving party takes the lot, then that agreement stands right up to the moment which whichever one dies. At that point the ownership changes instantly at the moment of death, and simultaneously the agreement also terminates.

              It may take some weeks to get the paperwork done, and resolve any legalities, but from a contractual point of view it all fits together.

              • guest says:

                I can’t agree to give you authority, or enter a contract with you, over something I don’t own.

                And if I own it, I either have to specifically give it to someone (before I die), or someone has to be the first to homestead what I abandoned.

              • Tel says:

                You make the agreement before you die, so at the time you made the agreement you were the legal owner.

                The moment of death when the transfer happens, exactly as per the agreement. You are only deliberately making it complicated for amusement. Everyone else just accepts this as normal.

              • guest says:


                The moment of death when the transfer happens, exactly as per the agreement.

                And if someone refuses to take ownership, as per the agreement, to whom is the contract breacher accountable?

              • Ken B says:

                Tel, you and I jointly own a frog. I die and my son inherits. According to you and me, you and my son own the frog jointly. According to Rothbard the contract of ownership ended when I died. This is an antimony. The problem is caused by certain bizarre demands of the rothbardians. This is why the long debates with Philippe about owning companies.

                For most people ownership is a social convention, defined and enforced by rules we call law or custom. Not for rothbardians. Their notion is different.

            • guest says:


              There are absurdities in Rothbard’s theories that joint ownership shows up quickly. So they banish it by fiat.

              If by “fiat” you mean “logic”.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              As is typical, Ken B claims a work of certain people is false, *without actually showing how it is false.*

              Sigh…

    • Tel says:

      It’s ironic to simultaneously get mad at the feds for “not enforcing the border” and also be outraged at this “tyrannical harassment of a rancher.”

      Both cases support the continuation of the existing status quo. The rancher has been there for hundreds of years, thus a tradition is established. The Mexicans started on their side of the border so they should stay on their side of the border. That’s a standard conservative position, and perfectly self consistent.

      Even for people who think the rancher is in the wrong, it is quite consistent to consider the theft of some federal grass to be relatively minor in the scheme of things. People paying their tax to the Federal Government have some expectation that they are paying for protection, and if some Chinese or Russian troops started marching across that border they would fairly reasonably be wanting the Federal Government to put a stop to that. Exactly how big the threat of open border immigration is to the USA as a nation is a matter of personal opinion, but very difficult to see a few hundred cows as being a serious threat to anything.

      People prioritize their concerns all the time, it’s a perfectly normal and useful thing to do.

    • Tel says:

      Our mistake was believing something could be owned collectively.

      This basically rules out every jointly owned business, including everything from partnerships right up to bit pty/ltd multinationals.

      • guest says:

        Perhaps it’s more precise to think of “business” not as a thing but as a form of relationship to patrons.

        For example, a building can be owned and yet not have business being done out of it.

        So, maybe it’s wrong to think of the business being owned, or the partnership being owned.

        I’ll have to think about this some more, but I may be on to something.

      • Gamble says:

        Things can be owned collectively but let us not confuse collective ownership with status quo government public property. Most of their property is purchased with guns and many of the owners are not consenting.

        Big difference here, big difference…

Leave a Reply to Gamble

Cancel Reply