In the United States, ranchers generally use land that they do not own for the grazing of their cattle. For the privilege of using this public land they pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or to private landowners. There is more than one opinion on whether fees are too high or too low, but the bottom line is that ranchers who don't own enough land for their cattle must lease grazing land from somebody, and many choose to lease from the federal government; i.e. the Bureau of Land Management.
Over twenty-five years ago Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees while continuing to graze his cattle on public land. Bundy is one of those people who not only don't recognize the authority of the federal government to set grazing fees, but don't recognize that the federal government legally exists. He says that he recognizes the authority of the State of Nevada (an independent sovereign state according to Bundy) and Clark County, but I suppose he'd stop recognizing them too if push came to shove.
When the BLM tired of working with Bundy (one-sided certainly) toward a negotiated settlement they started confiscating his cattle. Bundy naturally objected and called in supporters, not only from Nevada but surrounding states who staged a standoff with federal authorities. There are numerous images of Bundy supporters pointing weapons at federal law enforcement officers and several of them on the record claiming that they would fire on the BLM officers if necessary. The government backed off, but later arrested Bundy and several of his supporters. They were all released due to a mistrial. A new trial is unlikely to be convened.
So, what's the lesson to be learned here? You can refuse to pay your fees if you refuse long enough? If you're white? If you have armed supporters? If we're going to send military-equipped police into city neighborhoods to keep protesters in line, why aren't we taking similar action against armed insurrectionists?
Bundy's central argument is that if a state doesn't have 100% control over its territory and resources, then it's not really a state, but a subdivision, a district or a province. He argues that being a "state" implies 100% sovereignty. He claims that if we just "read the Constitution", his position will be vindicated. Like the Bible, one can read a lot into the Constitution. Let's look at practical matters.
Sovereign citizens, like anarchists, believe that government is inherently a bad thing, something that restricts our freedoms. Oftentimes this seems to be the case, the government takes our money, makes rules that we don't agree with, makes decisions that negatively affect us. But what these people don't realize is that the maxim "nature abhors a vacuum" applies here. If for some reason every government disappeared or ceased to function tomorrow morning, what would happen? Would we all exist in some post-governmental utopia, every man and woman free to pursue their dreams? The producers thriving and the takers, like the people on welfare, dying off? I would argue that this is a delusion.
Wherever there has been a breakdown in a government, like in Somalia, Zaire, Syria and Sudan, someone steps in to take control. Those with weapons and enough followers for an army will step in, sometimes supplying the services that the absent government used to supply, sometimes to simply loot, rape and terrorize. Usually we refer to to those who, generally with violence, take over the rule of a region, as warlords. This implies a certain illegitimacy. But follow the history of any nation back far enough and you'll find some kind of warlord, although in retrospect we call the kings. After enough time as passed, the brutal warlike nature is glossed over. Even in our own country, as the frontiers of white settlement were pushed farther west, organized "legitimate" government often didn't exist, and the gap was filled with those who could impose their will. In some areas gangs have more power than the government, south of the border narcocriminals are the effective government. In Syria for a time ISIS stepped in to administer the territory that they captured.
The point is that these sovereign citizens, who believe that they have the right to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the federal government, are living a fantasy. A fantasy that our current administration appears to be fostering and encouraging.
No comments:
Post a Comment