| | | Why doesn't the Federal government own 84.5% of Iowa... and charge fees to farmers who raise corn ?
Why doesn't the Federal government own 84.5% of North Dakota... and charge farmers who grow wheat ?
Why doesn't the Federal government own 84.5% of Manhattan... and charge fees to those who are trespassing on government land ?
Why doesn't the Federal government own 84.5% of Texas, or Hawaii ?
The issue is bigger than a couple of cows, including that the issue of "how it came to be" and whether or not "how it came to be" and "how it is" are right, which isn't being made a part of the story at this point.
It's easy for an eastern establishment academic to claim that ownership is ownership... so the Feds are right. But, what STATE should or could REASONABLY be subjected to being 84.5% owned by anyone ? The BLM in particular grates on westerners... because it has been operated as a bait and switch...
The BLM at first was "only there to help manage the open range"... but, over time, with change in politics, the object changed from "help" in managing to "closing"... without considering the pre-emptive rights of the residents. The Feds actions... are those of a corporate owner seeking to nullify any opposition by "tenants"... which westerns recognize, not incorrectly, as the government converting THEM into property. It is the change in the extent of the claims of control being asserted by the "land lord" that are the problem. And, along with the change occurring in claims... change in their purpose... and change in "management style" along with change in the belief that government is "above the people" and not "accountable to them"... both in the general, and in the specific behavior resulting from change in the terms of and the interpretation of a social contract with western ranchers.
The conflict is about far more than a narrow legal issue, still, and it reveals a REAL seam that exists between "the government" and "the people"... that is as much and more about fundamental legitimacy (or the lack of it) as it is about the specifics in the instance. The "news" will focus on the outrageous tactics employed... while seeking to avoid delving deeper into the origins of the conflict in a way that might explain more than 100 years of western sagebrush rebellion ? Even if you ignore the history pre-1950's, the relevant questions include:
Should management of the land in the west... be directed by those who live on it... or by those who might come to visit once in a while ? It's easy to explain the shifting government interest... as that obviously mirrors change in the rest we can see... but, is it correct that the government is the only one with any "right" in the land they increasingly claim to hold under a DIFFERENT conception of their ownership than the original ? The government is "changing the deal" as they go... redefining it incrementally... while trying to smother any opposition or dissent.
We should recognize that same feature... as they're doing the same thing with the First Amendment ?
Why should ranchers care about the government asserting "licencing rights" to range access on public lands that has always been free... less than others should care about the government asserting "licensing rights" to access our First Amendment rights ? Journalists recognize what "licensing" of reporters means... and intends to mean... in relation to government seeking to impose and exercise control over their livelihood... and that is NOT different than what has been done, and is being done, out west. Ranchers access to public land is not defined as a right in the Constitution... but, seeing what is happening with rights that are defined, it wouldn't matter if it were ? Someone else earlier had posted a brief bit on the relationship of Federal ownership to the history of law in the evolution in the legitimization of government sovereignty in the western tradition... from Magna Carta on... ?
THAT's the issue... a government that is de-legitimizing itself... is being revealed by ranchers opposition.
A government that was a positive force in 1870... has become an agent of oppression in 2014...
How you perceive that shift... will depend on whether you perceive you are that government's neighbor, perceive you are a tenant on property they claim to own and control under terms they are changing... or perceive that you are being converted into their property ?
Socialism... requires that the state OWNS you... which is why it is in fundamental conflict with the founding documents... which require that the state is owned by the people... not the other way around.
The range wars aren't new... but, change has occurred that makes the issues apparent MORE relevant, not less...
The HUGEST mistake the BLM made... which you have to recognize as Freudian... was to eliminate the non-existent boundary which they want people to recognize... between what is happening out west, and what is happening in the rest. So, posting the "First Amendment Area"... made it clear, even to people who can't quite explain why... that it "doesn't feel right"... and that something is amiss ?
They don't want anyone making that connection through from a contained incident that is a "range war" about a couple of cows... back to the legitimacy issues in an encroaching government usurping rights that we have fought to develop in opposition to government power... over the last two thousand years... beginning with Jesus Christ telling the absolute power of the government that he WOULD NOT comply with their demands, even on pain of death. Our western traditions... depend on Christianity in their origins in that way ? |
|
