Is Government too Intrusive?

Originally posted by normbenign
This argument has been brewing for a couple of decades. Now under the pretext of protecting an obscure species, BLM decides to send in an army of heavily armed cattle rustlers. Why now?

Well, we probably all think we know why the government chose this moment. But I think there are two sides to this. Grazing on federal land is a form of welfare rich cattlemen have enjoyed since just after the California gold rush. However, in this case, I could see the Bundy family being able to make a convincing argument based in property law that long, unchallenged usage constitutes effective transfer of ownership.

I'm sure no1 will piss all over this, but that's his prerogative.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Well, we probably all think we know why the government chose this moment. But I think there are two sides to this. Grazing on federal land is a form of welfare rich cattlemen have enjoyed since just after the California gold rush. However, in this case, I could see the Bundy family being able to make a convincing argument based in property law that l ...[text shortened]... ve transfer of ownership.

I'm sure no1 will piss all over this, but that's his prerogative.

I find nothing in the articles that leads me to believe that his usage was ever "unchallenged"; it states that he owes $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees which presumably means the Feds have been billing him all along.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I find nothing in the articles that leads me to believe that his usage was ever "unchallenged"; it states that he owes $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees which presumably means the Feds have been billing him all along.

Even if there were an oversight in billing and other lapses that effectively ceded grazing rights without fees, it's not a constitutional issue, it's an issue of a lapse in regulatory oversight. If this lapse applies, it applies. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It doesn't seem like a reason to bring this to Debates.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I find nothing in the articles that leads me to believe that his usage was ever "unchallenged"; it states that he owes $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees which presumably means the Feds have been billing him all along.

I read a piece that talked about the Bundys using this land for generations before the government declared it a protected area because of an endangered turtle. I certainly am not the authority on the controversy; I saw the government's figure and the elder Bundy's figure of $300K.

If some news reports are to be believed, though, this could take a dangerous turn. Apparently, state militia members are starting to show up, with more on the way.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I read a piece that talked about the Bundys using this land for generations before the government declared it a protected area because of an endangered turtle. I certainly am not the authority on the controversy; I saw the government's figure and the elder Bundy's figure of $300K.

If some news reports are to be believed, though, this could take a ...[text shortened]... angerous turn. Apparently, state militia members are starting to show up, with more on the way.

Of course, those clowns aren't actually "militia"; the militia was a government created body which every man was required to serve in. Shooting off guns at empty beer bottles while bitching about the Kenyan running the ZOG government every other weekend doesn't make you a member of the "militia".

I'll read up more about the details of the case, but the fact is he seems to have gotten his day in court (several days apparently) and lost.

As long as there is injustice there will be those who promote government to fix such injustice. And since there is no end to injustice there will be no end to the growth of government. Lastly, as government increases our freedom decrease.

At some point it will dawn on everyone that they live in a police state.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, those clowns aren't actually "militia"; the militia was a government created body which every man was required to serve in. Shooting off guns at empty beer bottles while bitching about the Kenyan running the ZOG government every other weekend doesn't make you a member of the "militia".

I'll read up more about the details of the ...[text shortened]... se, but the fact is he seems to have gotten his day in court (several days apparently) and lost.

I get your point, and I agree with you more than you think. "Well-regulated" is an important phrase in the Second Amendment, and suggests - but by no means requires - government oversight. The literal reading of the independent clause in the Second Amendment, however, in my neolithic mind, leaves very little room for interpretation, especially when one considers the spirit in which it was written.

The Second Amendment was clearly intended to be the citizenry's last, ultimate, dreadful backstop against the tyranny of the state. A last resort, action to be taken only after solemn and terrible deliberation and clearly only after intolerable and outrageous acts of oppression have been undertaken by the state against the People.

In my opinion, this particular evolution falls very far short of the bar which dictates citizens must take up arms against the government and restore the Constitutition. However, the government has recently taken actions that amount to serious breaches of the public trust:

a) the IRS targeting of conservative political groups (and thus the First Amendment);

b) the NSA instituting blanket surveillance of all Americans - I want you to think about this. Before Edward Snowden became a household name, if someone on here had claimed that the government was listening to every phone call and reading every email, even you would have called that real tinfoil hat stuff;

c) the passage of the ACA by the Democrat Party, marking the first time in US history that landmark social entitlement legislation was enacted on a unipartisan basis, and its subsequent (and constitutionally dubious) reauthoring without the consent of Congress, along with the many lies Obama told to campaign for it;

d) the passage of the Patriot Act, and its draconian rollbacks of liberty;

e) the lies Bush told about yellowcake uranium and mobile chemical weapons factories to justify the second Iraq adventure, and the subsequent buddy-buddy deals with Halliburton et. al.

Taken together, these breaches of trust cross party lines, ideologies, and socioeconomic boundaries, and, to some, bear the marks of a government that can no longer be trusted. Obama is not wholly responsible for the lack of public trust in government, but to be sure, he's done his fair share. The last two Presidents each broke trust with the American people. Bush vowed to restore the dignity of the office, and did, until he didn't; Obama, another son of privilege, vowed to run the most transparent administration in history, and has created a state the Stasi could have only dreamed of.

And so we're brought forward to the developments in Nevada. The government may well be acting constitutionally, but whether it is or it isn't, one of these days, that's not going to matter. After fourteen years of political polarization, it's the silly season. Why did the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand spark World War I? Was that act such a grave step that it could throw a continent into conflict? No. One group or another was itching for a fight, and that was the excuse. If and when the next group of Americans takes up arms against the government, the inciting event won't be the direct cause. It will be an excuse.

So perhaps we have that now, in Nevada. Perhaps, but I doubt it, unless the government does something stupid, and then the stock market and the dollar crashes - it will take a lot but it's not impossible.

Obama, for his part, has performed miserably. Partisanship aside, in February, he told one half of the American people that he was going to act without their consent wherever he was able. That, I'm sad to say, was historically unwise, and with consequences to follow.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I get your point, and I agree with you more than you think. "Well-regulated" is an important phrase in the Second Amendment, and suggests - but by no means requires - government oversight. The literal reading of the independent clause in the Second Amendment, however, in my neolithic mind, leaves very little room for interpretation, especially when on ...[text shortened]... er he was able. That, I'm sad to say, was historically unwise, and with consequences to follow.

e. The Supreme Court's recent rulings regarding campaign funding is creating an oligarchy. Are we a representative democracy in name only?

Originally posted by whodey
As long as there is injustice there will be those who promote government to fix such injustice. And since there is no end to injustice there will be no end to the growth of government. Lastly, as government increases our freedom decrease.

At some point it will dawn on everyone that they live in a police state.

What do you think the proper responsibilities of government are?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you think the proper responsibilities of government are?

If it is to fix all of our problems then the proper responsibility of government is to run our lives. However, if the proper responsibility of government is limited, then we can run our own lives.

Personally, I think the role should be national security and enforcing laws needed to maintain a civil society. It is tricky because laws can always be passed on the grounds that they will make us "safer", and that is what we continually see today. However, as Ben Franklin aptly said, those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

Now if people want absolute equality and safety then lock us all away in prison. We will all have the same food, cloths, living arrangements etc., and we will all be safe from the evil world at large. You may laugh at this but the more laws we pass the closer we get to this model.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you think the proper responsibilities of government are?

The Founders outlined the six general purposes of government in the preamble of our Constitution:

As outlined in the opening preamble of the United States' constitution, it was the Founding Fathers' intent to have the federal government perform six fundamental functions. An excerpt from the U.S. Constitution that best expresses these purposes reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In the paragraphs below, I will attempt to provide a brief, simplistic synopsis of each primary point.

To Form a More Perfect Union:While initially, the (former) colonies weren't united, they soon came to realize that there is strength in solidarity and as such formed an alliance with one another. Thus, the Constitution provide for such a union.

To Establish Justice: The most vital role in a successful democratic government is to ensure justice within the nation. Though the term justice is open to interpretation, the explanation most widely accepted is that the law must be fair, unbiased, and logical. While these standards we are not always met within this nation, the American people wish to strive for such ideals.

To Provide for the Common Defense: While the Constitution didn't necessarily allow for elite military operations, it did intend for the government to provide a basic system of defense against enemies of the state. The U.S. government has, over the years, broadened the definition of defense and has also utilized this role of the government most often.

To Secure the Blessings of Liberty: The American nation was built around the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, however, the Founding Fathers also came to the realization that certain boundaries must be set forth in order to ensure that such liberties would not breach those of other citizens'. While the government certainly makes it a point to promote such personal liberties, it is up to the American people to constantly challenge the government to provide for such freedoms.

To Promote the General Welfare: A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the Americna people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection. However, in order to allow capitalism to flourish, the government leaves certain services available to private businesses (such as railroads and airline transportation), this allows market competition to thrive so that the consumer can receive the best services and prices possible.

To Insure Domestic Tranquility:This role of the federal government is relatively self-explanatory in name. The government must provide order in society and allow for domestic peace. It must also present the nation from ever ascending into anarchy.

These ideas are not my own.

Originally posted by Phranny
e. The Supreme Court's recent rulings regarding campaign funding is creating an oligarchy. Are we a representative democracy in name only?

It's getting pretty bad out there. Again, I'm sure both sides can be debated, but I'm surprised that one of the justices didn't point out votes aren't quite equal today.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The Founders outlined the six general purposes of government in the preamble of our Constitution:

As outlined in the opening preamble of the United States' constitution, it was the Founding Fathers' intent to have the federal government perform six fundamental functions. An excerpt from the U.S. Constitution that best expresses these purposes reads, ...[text shortened]... It must also present the nation from ever ascending into anarchy.

These ideas are not my own.

Can't say I disagree, but the guidelines are so broad and vague they include pretty much every non-tyrannical government.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Can't say I disagree, but the guidelines are so broad and vague they include pretty much every non-tyrannical government.

That's the Preamble. More specific duties are laid out in the respective Articles. What's more important is, the Constitution says what the government can do - not what it can't. The Constitution further guarantees individuals' and states' rights. Power limits are therefore specifically built in to the document.