19
Apr
2014
Judge Napolitano on Bundy Ranch Standoff
For those who think Andrew Napolitano is some lightweight celebrity pundit, you are totally wrong. I listened to him lecture on Constitutional law when he was down at Mises University last summer, just because I figured, “Well I really ought to say that I saw him teach.” I went in the back, thinking I would read some other stuff so that I wasn’t “wasting” an hour.
HOLY COW. He is literally one of the best lecturers I have ever seen in person. I was absolutely spellbound.
Anyway, you can see that he gives a very nuanced explanation of the legal environment on the Bundy situation:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
I think his general take, which is anathema to Bob and the claque, is right. Bundy lost, the feds own the land, Bundy must pay up, but the BLM’s enforcement actions are unjustified, dangerous, and stupid. Docket and wait is right. I think he’s wrong about state court, but S Roddis’s comment shows, Bundy would lose in any case. It is federal land.
I have heard no explanation why there was no argument for an easement.
“Bundy lost, the feds own the land”
So ownership to you is might makes right.
The Feds declared via federal court that the Feds are the owners, and their ownership claim is not backed by reason, by homesteading or trade, but by brute force, nothing more.
I am summarizing Napolitano’s argument. Ask him.
You said his take was “right”. That means you put your dog into the race.
Did he say might makes right? Where? You got a timing mark?
Napolitano said what I and we said.
The federal court is not the right place to decide if feds are right.
So, now ken thinks judge us competent, or is ken just an opportunist?
MF, just re-read what Ken B. did with your arguments here. Why on earth do you keep arguing with him? What’s the point?
I am not going to ban trolls but if you keep feeding him, he will keep doing this. You will never ever ever get him to say, “Holy crap, great point MF, I have been wrong all this time.”
Bob, just look at what MF did. Napolitano talked about what is LAW, not what is RIGHT. even if he were arguing might makes law, which he is not, that would not be arguing might is right.
Law and morality are not the same. Nothing the judge said or I said suggests we think tey are. Yet that is precisely Major Freedom’s charge.
You are a buffoon sometimes. This is one of those times
Then … slavery should have been tolerated because it was law?
Didn’t say that either. But I agree what I said implies slavery WAS the law. As I believe many learned to their cost.
Saying the law is X does imply support for X, approval of X, might is right, better dead than read, finder’s keepers, waste not want not, or the early bird catches the worm. No matter how often fools say otherwise. Frederick Douglass agreed slavery was the law. Call him a supporter of slavery do you?
Typo. Not imply.
I think his general take, which is anathema to Bob and the claque, is right. Bundy lost, the feds own the land, Bundy must pay up
…
Law and morality are not the same. Nothing the judge said or I said suggests we think tey are.
The point you are arguing, here is that “Bundy must pay” *because* “it’s the law.”
You’re saying that the law is obligatory.
Therefore, consistency demands that you hold that slaves are obligated to their masters, if the law says they are obligated.
Twaddle.
Let me ask you guest. If you have just laws, and a dispute, and one side loses the dispute, what happens?
You guys are just amazing really.
Philippe, Josiah, John, let me ask you. If I think John Wayne Gacy had to go to prison for murdering boys, do I endorse slavery? Because that is guest’s argument.
guest’s argument is that the law is not just.
The question is whether you have an obligation to abide by laws you personally think are unjust or not.
No. His argument is that since I say Bundy must pay, having lost this particular issue involving one law and particular facts, I must, to be consistent, think slaves are morally obliged to follow slavery laws.
(Of course they were legally obliged. That’s kinda Block’s point isn’t it? Being legally obliged and morally obliged are different. Huck Finn was legally obliged to turn Jim in.)
so you think the law is just in this case?
Napolitano says at one point that he wishes Bundy had won, which suggests he thinks the court’s decision was not just. Yet he still appears to think that Bundy should obey the law.
Yes I do. The feds own that land. What’s unjust about that? What’s unjust about grazing fees on federal land? I even said I think Bundy is just try to steal fees.
But even if I ithought it unjust I wouldn’t be endorsing slavery. I think following the law has value. So it depnds on the extent and nature of the injustice whether one has to follow it. So even if I thought Bundy had to follow one unjust law it wouldn’t follow I think anyone has to follow every unjust law.
ok.
No. His argument is that since I say Bundy must pay, having lost this particular issue involving one law and particular facts, I must, to be consistent, think slaves are morally obliged to follow slavery laws.
So, in your view, there are some laws that people should NOT follow? Such as slavery laws?
If so, on what basis other than “it’s the law”, since you disregard the law in this instance?
So even if I thought Bundy had to follow one unjust law it wouldn’t follow I think anyone has to follow every unjust law.
Do you see that when you say “unjust law” that you are appealing to something OTHER THAN the law?
What is this standard that you believe supercedes the law?
Guest, how many times have I said law is not morality?
I don,t have a general theory on which laws can be disobeyed. If leftists think property laws are unjust are they alloewd to take your stuff?
I don,t have a general theory on which laws can be disobeyed.
Fair enough.
But then you are hardly in a position to criticize Rothbardistan homesteading theory.
If leftists think property laws are unjust are they alloewd to take your stuff?
This isn’t a problem for Rothbardism because it *does* have a general theory on which laws can be disobeyed.
But I think you would allow me to get away with this:
We both agree that slavery is wrong. It is my position that for someone else to have a say over what I have transformed would be for that person to effectively have power over my labor, which is slavery.
I don’t need a general theory of law to criticise Rothbard,s. Look at the logic. Did Rothbard have his theory before he worked it out? Of course not. But could he criticize the mainstream view nonetheless? Of course.
When you first read Rothbard, were you a Rothbardian? I bet not. But I bet that either before or as you read it you decided there were problems in mainstream ideas.
Look at the logic.
We agree that this is the standard – or at least a necessary part of it.
What this means, as well, is that we both believe in a standard that supercedes the law, such that it is not enough to appeal to the law.
Ken B, you’re the one acting like the buffoon.
You said below, in response to Philippe asking you if you believe the law is just in this case, you said:
“Yes, I do.”
I rest my case. You’re talking out of your ass.
The feds are enforcing a might makes right law in this case. It is not a case of private property protection based on homesteading and free trade. It is naked aggression. Brute force.
And you said the law is just in this case.
That means you believe that might makes right….when you agree with it, as you do in this case.
I was right. I didn’t misunderstand you. Once again, I exposed your premises to be based on a pretty questionable foundation, to say the least.
Ken B wrote:
“I don,t have a general theory on which laws can be disobeyed.”
Everyone, I think this is an opportune moment to explain the meaning of this statement. It provides a great lesson on the pitfalls one can go into when one purposefully evades self-reflective reasoning, i.e. rationalism, like our friend Ken B here.
Ken B is with the mindset of believing he has no general theory of which laws should be disobeyed, and which laws should be obeyed.
Contrary to his impression, that is itself a general theory. For an actor to claim he doesn’t have a general theory, is for that actor to leave himself with his opinions, however right or wrong they are for whatever arbitrary reason or another serves the day.
Feel good about this law? Should be obeyed. Feel bad about that law? Should be disobeyed. Oh, and my mind can change tomorrow if I feel differently.
Paging Rousseau!
A person who claims he has no general theory of which laws are just and which are unjust, is actually covering up the general theory he does have and for whatever reason won’t or can’t admit, which is “Whatever I feel like is just and unjust today.”
Today, Ken B believes the naked aggression of the Feds in the Bundy case is just. Might makes right in this case because Ken B agrees with it today. But don’t you dare accuse him of actually believing might makes right, for then his true self will be exposed, and I know he’s terrified of it.
He’s so terrified of it in fact, that he can’t even tell me, a random person on the internet, whether he would support me being shot if I wanted to opt out, peacefully, of the government protection racket and hire my own protection instead. He won’t even give a yes or no answer to this because he is afraid of contradicting his entire past comment history and declare that he is an anarcho-capitalist. He’s too far into his own self-made nonsense to turn back now.
So he’s stuck in limbo. If he says he supports me and everyone else who wants to opt out from government protection to be shot, then he’ll admit that he supports might makes right. If he says he doesn’t support it, then he’ll contradict his whole history of comments on this blog, and Ken B is a proud person who wants people to think he’s logical and rational and all the rest.
————–
This is another watershed moment for you Ken B. You have a choice. I won’t poke fun and I won’t call you names if you contradict your past comments and start thinking more deeply about life and what it is to be human, and be as clear as clear can be.
It’s not as big a deal as you might believe. You’re just without a rationalist foundation, that’s all. You believe that to adopt such a foundation, you’ll be made fun of and lumped in with the names that you have dragged through the mud for so long. I can tell you that I take ideas seriously. I don’t give a shit about names, really. I mean I’m anonymous.
You wouldn’t want to shoot an anonymous person because he simply disagreed with you on who he wants to pay and protect him, would you?
MF,
I honestly would love Ken B, or Gene or any other person thinking the state is absolutely necessary to counter that argument in a serious manner.
The only way I see would be:” Yes there is a moral double standard, and of course might makes right or a barrel of a gun is ultimately behind this, though I think this is always the case. That is the reason I think you need to put this power into an organization which obviously has to look like I want it to look like (that’s were the moral double standard lies) which is ruled by a democratic, republic process. I therefore think I am allowed to force people through the barrel of a gun to subject to that state.
Of course I theoretically grant other people to form their own states. However there is no single logic that would determine under which circumstances they are allowed to escape my power of subjecting them to my state. It is purely arbitrary. I may allow them to form their own state or I may not. When I say „I“ it of course it is not me alone, but of course the majority in a certain area, since I am a democrat. Of course this begs the question of determining the area. Every area has different majorities. That just shows the same moral double standard as mentioned above. But I stand by this, because granting everyone the ultimate right of sovereignty/secession/force as I claim for me/my state would end in chaos.“
Hence Ken B’s answer to your question can only be:“ Well it depends on my (=the majority in an arbitrary defined area) mood, if I am not in the mood, I define secession as illegal, period, and if necessary I will shoot you“.
Ken,
You ask:
Philippe, Josiah, John, let me ask you. If I think John Wayne Gacy had to go to prison for murdering boys, do I endorse slavery?
I answer: No, of course not.
I add: If you haven’t noticed, Mr. Guest is a crazy person. One shouldn’t expect sense from a crazy person.
Josiah
Thank you. Nice to see some sense around here.
Dr. Murphy,
I’ve learned a lot precisely because MF engages trolls.
If MF consistently engaged Ken B in a private chat, then I would agree: what’s the point?
When I studied Aikido, my Sensei used to always urge the black belts to engage the white belts as often as they could. Yes, they could get a more Aikido-like practice from engaging other black belts; however, white belts didn’t move to any particular pattern. And in this sense, they challenged the black belts to reexamine their practice of the art.
Now, to be fair, white belts weren’t there to troll; they actually wanted to learn.
Perhaps there is a middle path.
Now, to be fair, white belts weren’t there to troll; they actually wanted to learn.
Did they try to kick the black belts in the groin?
Dr. Murphy,
I’ve learned a lot precisely because MF engages trolls.
OK then carry on, gentlemen.
+ (however many numbers it takes)
Th above was in response to Murphy’s comment, BTW.
Murphy:
“MF, just re-read what Ken B. did with your arguments here. Why on earth do you keep arguing with him? What’s the point?”
Because I enjoy it.
Why do I enjoy it? Because I like to exercise.
I have confidence in my abilities to make the world a better place through ideas. However modest an effort it is.
“I am not going to ban trolls but if you keep feeding him, he will keep doing this. You will never ever ever get him to say, “Holy crap, great point MF, I have been wrong all this time.”
If I can do it, so can he.
Just look at LK’s comments for example. You’ll notice that while he’s still somewhat vitriolic, he doesn’t view us an his arch enemies any more. He wants to believe we’re just wrong now. He only occasionally insults, and it is now always Roddis.
One of the most difficult things for anyone to do, is to accept that most of what they believed about economics and philosophy, is erroneous. These ideas touch their very sense of self. It’s much easier for a physicist to accept that his estimate on a constant is wrong, than it is for a person to admit that their understanding of human life, that is, their understanding of their own self, is wrong. It’s Earth shaking, cosmic, all those big words.
Just look at LK’s comments for example. You’ll notice that while he’s still somewhat vitriolic, he doesn’t view us an his arch enemies any more.
Rubbish.
To his defeat from the jaws of victory point
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp
Napolitano makes factual errors and contradictory arguments in this video.
1) “Bundy claimed the land was either his own or belonged to the state of Utah”
Incorrect. Bundy did not claim the land belonged to him, or to the State of Utah. He claimed that the land belonged to either the State of Nevada or to Clark County.
2) “That is a decision that should never have been made by a federal court… The federal government should never be in a position in which it is deciding on the extent of its own power… Secondly, real estate disputes are resolved by state courts”
This isn’t a private real estate dispute. The claim made by Bundy is that the land belongs to Nevada, not the federal government.
If a State of Nevada court were to decide the matter, as Napolitano claims they should (as a real estate dispute), then that would contradict his argument that federal courts should not decide on the extent of federal government power – as a state court would be deciding on the extent of state government power.
3) “Instead of docketing the judgement, instead of taking that piece of paper and filing it in the courthouse and waiting for Mr Bundy to pass the property on to someone else, either by inheritance or by sale, it decided to use brute force to enforce its judgement, and that’s when the entire dynamic turned around.”
That is complete nonsense. The court judgement was originally made in 1998 – sixteen years ago:
“A 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy in southeastern Nevada over unpaid grazing fees eventually developed into an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement. The dispute began in 1993 when Bundy refused to pay bills to the US government for his cattle grazing on federal lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy was eventually prohibited from grazing his cattle on the land by an order issued in 1998 by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy. After years of repeated violations of multiple court orders, in early April 2014 the BLM began rounding up Bundy’s cattle that were trespassing on the land, confronted by protesters and armed supporters of Bundy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Also, the land in question doesn’t legally belong to Mr Bundy, so he can’t sell it or pass it on by inheritance.
All true. But why BLM shock troops and not marshals or sheriffs? Surely one can demand common sense, prudence, and competence?
what I find amazing is that this supposed legal expert gets practically everything, even the most basic things, wrong in this case.
Perhaps he hasn’t had the time to do basic research. But in that case he shouldn’t go on national TV as a supposed legal expert and talk a load of nonsense.
“Also, the land in question doesn’t legally belong to Mr Bundy, so he can’t sell it or pass it on by inheritance.”
I suppose Napolitano was referring to Bundy’s cattle. Bundy had sixteen years to remove or sell his cattle. Instead he chose to increase the size of his herd and let them wander around an even larger area, including areas not permitted for grazing, local community land and private land.
“But why BLM shock troops and not marshals or sheriffs?”
I don’t know. However, I can guess:
“In late March,[22] Bundy sent letters[23] entitled “Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection” to county, state, and federal officials.[22][23] In media interviews, Bundy used the language of the sovereign citizen movement as a rallying call, beckoning support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard.[24] In early April, armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[3][25] BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what was seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a “range war”.[26] There was no armed battle and no shots were fired in the incident.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#United_States_v._Bundy
Well Utah was misspeaking. He said Nevada seconds later. The wait till he di es thing did sound like the grazing land from the way he said it but that reading makes no sense as he also said get their money, and earlier said the feds own the land. I eschew Bobbery: the act of misconstruing ambiguities in an illogical and adversarial fashion to make opponent’s arguments seem weak.
But yeah, why have him comment if he hasn’t read the stuff? Because he is not there to address the issue, he is there to advance the “feds are inside dealing” crock John discusses and I commented on.
“Utah was misspeaking”
Watch it again. He knows that it’s going on in Nevada, but for some reason he says twice that Bundy claimed the land belongs either to him or to the State of Utah.
Not misspeaking, just wrong.
Oh crap, you are right. Twice. He does think it was Utah. Wow.
I can totally see how this guy would impress Murphy.
Loesch corrects him neither time. Ignorance or a willingness to deceive her audience? The latter I think.
Anyway, right you are.
So some of your comments confuse me Philippe. Let’s assume Bundy is sincere. He thinks Utavada owns the land and the federal government has no right to impose laws on him.
Do you really believe he doesn’t have to follow the law and pay the fees?
It may seem an odd question but in the subthread with guest you seem to buy the notion that it is OK to exempt yourself from any law you think unjust. And that if you do so you need not domwhat civil rights protesters did and compel enforcement, but that you can evade instead. Doesn’t seem like you but that’s how it comes across on this page, to me at least.
“Do you really believe he doesn’t have to follow the law and pay the fees?”
Either he chooses to follow the law, or the law will (usually, eventually) be enforced. A law which is never enforced, and is simply ignored, isn’t much of a law in reality.
Being allowed to not follow the law usually isn’t an option.
Some people do manage to get away with it, however. Like criminals who are never caught, for example.
Also, countries that do not recognize the laws of the US often don’t abide by those laws, and they get away with it. Or they might refuse to recognize “international laws” which they disagree with, for example.
In this case Bundy has managed to get away with not following the law for at least sixteen years.
“you seem to buy the notion that it is OK to exempt yourself from any law you think unjust”
The person who thinks the law is unjust may well think it’s morally OK to not obey it. However, people who think the law is just are likely to think that’s not OK.
No Philip you are wrong.
Napolitano just misspoke Bout Utah.
And he said TRY to bequeath the land.
And with docketing he is referring to the fed’s pyrrhuc victory in their failex misguided boneheaded disastrous enforcement attempt.
Why are you so determined to be wrong here?
“Napolitano just misspoke Bout Utah”
He said it twice. In between the two statements he made it clear that he knew the situation was happening in Nevada.
At 1:26 he says “Bundy claimed the right to graze cattle on land which he claimed was either his own or belonged to the state of Utah”.
This is completely incorrect. Bundy did not claim that the land belongs to him, nor did he claim the land belongs to Utah.
At 1:54 he says “when you have a dispute over real estate, it’s a universal principle of law everywhere in the United States of America, even in Nevada, Dana (Ha ha), that real estate disputes are resolved by state courts”
Napolitano makes it clear here that he knows the Bundy situation is occurring in Nevada.
At 2:12 he says: “nevertheless, the federal government did win this real estate dispute, and a trials court and an appeals court upheld the decision that the land belongs to the feds, not to mr Bundy and not to the State of Utah”
So he repeats the completely incorrect assertion that Bundy claimed the land belongs to him or to Utah.
Basically Napolitano has no idea what he is talking about. He is completely ignorant about the whole situation. His other comments make this abundantly clear.
“And he said TRY to bequeath the land”
I think Napolitano was actually referring to Bundy’s cattle, not the land. Bundy couldn’t bequeath the land as the land doesn’t legally belong to him. He could have bequeathed the cattle or sold them however.
As I explained above, Bundy has had sixteen years in which to comply with the original court order, and subsequent court orders, by removing or selling his cattle. He simply chose to ignore the court orders for sixteen years. He had already been refusing to pay his grazing fees for four years before the first court order. Altogether Bundy has been ignoring the law for twenty years. But Napolitano makes it sound as if all of this just happened recently and the government over reacted, when it should have waited patiently. That is complete bullshit. The government has been waiting for sixteen years.
As an attorney, I found the Napolitano’s comments baffling in a number of respects:
1) He says that this case shouldn’t have been heard in federal court because a federal court shouldn’t be ruling on the extent of federal power. That sentiment is not only contrary both to the Constitution and the consistent legal traditions of this country, but it’s hard to see under that theory how you could have federal courts at all. Suppose, for example, that someone is being prosecuted in federal court for violating federal law. He claims that evidence the prosecution is using against him was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. Is it really the judge’s position that the federal court shouldn’t be able to rule on whether the evidence was in fact obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment? And if so, how the heck does he think the issue should be decided?
2) He also claims that the issue shouldn’t have been in federal court because the federal courts don’t handle real estate disputes. If he had bothered to read the complaint, he would have seen that the case was brought under a provision of federal law that explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction over improper use of federal lands. Napolitano makes it sound like the only reason the case was in federal court was the Bundy didn’t raise the issue, whereas in reality it was 100% clear that the federal government and only the federal government was the proper court to hear the case.
3) Napolitano’s argument is that having won twice in court, the BLM should’ve just let Bundy continue to graze his cattle where he wanted until he died or tried to sell his property. Now suppose for a moment that Bundy had been grazing his cattle on his neighbor’s privately owned land. The neighbor takes him to court and gets an injunction against Bundy, which Bundy proceeds to ignore. Are we really supposed to believe that in this situation, Napolitano’s advice to the neighbor would be to let Bundy continue to graze his cattle on your land, and just wait 20+ years for him to die? I doubt it. But leave that aside. Suppose the BLM takes the judge’s advice and waits for Bundy to die. How does that solve the problem? What’s to stop Bundy’s son (or whoever inherits his property) from continuing to graze his cattle on federal property just as his father did?
As to 1 and 2 you need to understand the audience. The bunch here are typical. The federal government, when it suits their argument, is a monolith working in perfect unison. So the federal court ruling on federal power is like me deciding if I am right.
In other circumstances they argue the govt doesn,t exist. But you need to understand the mindset to understand the sales pitch. Napolitano cannot blow his credibility entirely with the real world by saying Bundy was right, but he has to throw a bone to his public. The bone is this.
Ken,
Okay, but Napolitano claims to be a Constitutionalist, right? Article
III explicitly says that when the United States is a party in an action, the federal courts have jurisdiction. Ditto where the case arises out of a federal claim. This isn’t arguable.
The judge’s comments here are the equivalent of an Econ professor who goes on TV and says “it’s basic economics that when the supply of a product decreases, so does the price.” The issue isn’t whether he’s wrong. It’s how a former judge can be unaware of what first year law students know.
In my comment first comment I said I was not sure about the state court. Now I am.
🙂
So I agree. He wasn’t really there for his knowledge or expertise but to spin the self-dealing nonsense.
Or maybe I am wrong, and the courts have never ruled against the federal government.
#1 us obvious if you understand Napolitano correctly.
#3 you are clearly not understanding what Napolitano is saying.
#2 is the crux which I think you are also misunderstanding. Sure the federal complaint is filed by the feds in a fed court.
Sure that might all be the “legal” way, and the law is often wrong. And I’m not even convinced you are correct in your subsequent opinons.
And no your profession nor kens opportunistic support give me pause in that regard.
andrew,
Napolitano was making a legal argument for why the case should have been heard in a state court and not a federal court, based on his “understanding” of the law. Josiah demonstrates that Napolitano’s legal argument is incorrect and doesn’t make sense.
Napolitano was NOT saying “the law is wrong”. He was saying that the law says the case should have been heard in a state court. Napolitano is incorrect.
Furthermore, Napolitano’s argument does not make sense logically. He says a federal court should not decide on the extent of federal government power, and then argues that a state court should decide on the extent of state power. His argument contradicts itself.
Even Roddis gets this is black letter, to judge from the bits of the NV constitution he posted. But not andrew’.
Outside the official legalities, I think many would agree that this type of event is good in the sense that it raises awareness of federal domination of land in the West. Even if the Feds would end up just selling some of their misbegotten loot, it would be a victory of sorts for development and lowering future debt burdens.
I certainly agree with Josiah on the legal issues. Judge Napolitano’s arguments made little sense to me and I think would not prevail or even be well understood in either a state or federal court. That being said, after reading the comments on the Bundy situation, the real issue on this site seems to be whether the federal government SHOULD be able to own land, and enforce its ownership rights against an individual. I think most people here feel the answer to that question is no. For me, that argument almost has to fairly quickly extend to, “while we’re at it, there shouldn’t be a federal government.” I don’t know exactly what that world would look like, but so far I’m not persuaded it wouldn’t be a lot scarier than a bunch of Feds with guns trying to figure out how not to create a terrible incident with an eccentric cattle rancher. But I’m not sure whether the law, as currently constituted, matters for our discussion; isn’t guest’s (and others) question really, how should the law be constituted, if at all?
Many here think there should be no government, and private enforcement of what can only be private law. The war of all against all. Most of those also believe in a particular theory of law: that all rights without exception are property rights, and that ownership may be established by trade, creation, or “homesteading”. Most of those also believe that this theory is demonstrably true a priori, and they also believe in economic theories they maintain cannot be empirically disproven.
Those who disagree with any part of this are usually referred to as statists.
There is also a simmering hatred of Krugman, rampant creationism, conspiracy theories in abundance, and karaoke videos.
… and they also believe in economic theories they maintain cannot be empirically disproven.
The Scientific Method is an example of something that cannot be proven / disproven to be accurate, empirically.
To attempt to do so would be to assume it to be accurate, beforehand, which would be circular reasoning.
“The Scientific Method is an example of something that cannot be proven / disproven to be accurate, empirically.”
The scientific method consists of testing hypotheses empirically.
It’s meaningless to say that the scientific method “cannot be proven to be accurate, empirically”, as the scientific method is the very process of proving things to be accurate, empirically.
Strawmanning.
For me, that argument almost has to fairly quickly extend to, “while we’re at it, there shouldn’t be a federal government.”
I resisted this conclusion, initially, because there are some really nasty race-based groups (like La Raza) who think that simply because they’re related to ancestors who used to live here that it’s their land.
And they’re anti-free-market, too, so they obviously have no respect for property rights.
But once you understand that property can’t be owned, collectively – and that if it could, it would justify everything Hitler did (the law enabled him to ignore the Weimar Constitution) because the representatives of “the collective” have legal authority over you – then a rejection of the legitimacy of a State follows logically.
Also, discovering that cheap imports don’t destroy the economy, implies, by way of extension – that the only reason it would be difficult to find work, were immigrants to “take our jobs” is because the government puts up barriers to entry (Minimum Wage and licencing requirements, for example).
Besides, the federal government was proposed as a means to secure individual liberty, and as the Declaration of Independence notes, when a government no longer has the consent of the governed, it’s time to get rid of it.
“But once you understand that property can’t be owned, collectively”
According to really existing capitalism, property can be owned collectively, as lots and lots and lots of property in the real world is owned collectively.
“once you understand that property can’t be owned, collectively – and that if it could, it would justify everything Hitler did”
That is an extraordinarily insane non sequitur.
“Property can be owned collectively, therefore it is ok to murder millions of people”.
You really have a problem with basic logic.
The real problem is the notion that all rights are property rights. I think certain rights trump ownership claims, that there is a hierarchy of claims and rightts. Rothbardians do not. So they see nothing wrong with shooting trespassers. Shooting a person is in principle neither more nor less serious a violation than walking across a field. Since the stroller is the first to infringe a property right he is to them an “aggressor” and may be dispatched. I asked guess about this sort of thing explicitly.
It is only possible to get out of this absurdity by disavowing or ignoring some other sacred tenet of rothbardism, such as restoring a hierarchy of rights implicitly, or making inter personal utility comparisons, or abandoning the subjectiveness of all valuations, etc.
even if you accept the weird argument that “all rights are property rights”, it doesn’t follow that if property could be owned collectively that would justify mass murder.
“discovering that cheap imports don’t destroy the economy, implies, by way of extension – that the only reason it would be difficult to find work, were immigrants to “take our jobs” is because the government puts up barriers to entry”
Another meaningless non sequitur.
The argument that the only reason it can be difficult to find work is if the government puts up barriers to entry, is based on the assumption that the real economy works exactly like a completely artificial perfect competition model. In other words it is absurd.
They are mismanaging the land that Bundy is properly using.
They only SHOULD get to “own” the land if they manage it properly. They aren’t.
They used mispriced GRAZING fees to force every graze out of business.
In finally trying to force Bundy out of business through ham fisted possibly illegal enforcement measures they may lose much of their authority despite being able to use a lapdog court to be “legally right.”
For what it’s worth I disagree with Judge Napolitano on Obamacare, it isn’t “the law” it is merely a tax. That’s what the SCOTUS said, and buying an Obamacare package to avoid higher taxes is no different to Mitt Romney finding some investment strategy that shaves a percent off his tax bill for that year. Either way it’s a tax optimisation strategy.
There’s no law that says every individual must do their utmost to pay the lowest tax they possibly can. There’s some incentive to do so, but it certainly is not “the law” that you must do so.
This is of course, an unrelated issue to land management in Nevada.
The point is now there is no limit on what can be taxed/destroyed.
Gun insurance tax, speech insurance tax, religious freedom tax, education insurance tax, etc.
Back to this case, now we know the supreme court likely shouldn’t have Declined to hear the case.
The point is they are wrong all the time.
Not disagreement. Wrong.
There never was any limit.
Other things may be guaranteed by different parts of the Constitution, but tax is pretty much open ended.
The feds lost, big-time.
As in, who lost any Waco? Ruby ridge? Etc.
I bet some guys here still think the NSA is right because of the FISA court – even now that Obama is against it after he was for it.
Two rarely mentioned problems for Bob’s idea of law are subpoena power and dealing with perjury.
Rothbardians, you have people here who said they want to understand. Why not give it a shot.
How do subpoenas work in your proposal?
Wake me up when Holder testifies about his gun shipments.
Or when Hillary Clinton provides real answers under oath about Benghazi.
Assuming no caveats, such as agreements with defense agencies, HOA’s, or insurance (and that may be an important caveat to keep in mind), then subpoenas are just a form of aggression.
You really think one of the biggest problems with an AnCap society is its lack of ability to force people to attend a judicial proceeding and testify in a case against their will?
That’s a feature, not a bug.