I watched the drama unfold with the standoff between the Nevada rancher and the BLM online. There’s obviously a mixture of reactions and emotions, (remotions?) to the whole thing. As long as people authoritatively declaring they have the definitive answer of what’s going on. I’ve read some myth debunking that spreads its own bunk. There’s a lot of questions involved.
I want to delve into, if I can, because the whole prospect of the federal government addressing the issue with a show of that level of lethal force is something citizens rightly should have a legitimate concern with.
The first notion at the heart of the matter is the “ownership” of the land by the government. I don’t agree that the same soveriegnty the original 13 colonies have claim to doesn’t extend to the rest of the states, that’s just contrary to honest reasoning. I also believe that the intent of our Constitutional Republic was that the government is only granted power of the people by the consent of the governed. In this case, the people closest to the land should be represented by those likewise closest to the land in question. To suggest that the federal government can arbitrarily run people out of business without any input from their local representatives is again suggesting a much broader power than I believe is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.