I'm a gun owner and don't plan on giving up that right without resistance. I don't have any problem getting guns because I don't have dangerous psychological pathologies which threaten others and am not a criminal. Every time I buy a gun I have to pass a background check. It's an annoyance, but I don't want armed criminals and militia wanabe nutjobs creeping around my place. Not that some reasonable background check solution is completely effective in solving this problem, and not that the system cannot be abused by centralized power structures, but on balance I accept it as a reasonable approach.
Boiling frogs think it is reasonable, until they come for you too. Top-down power corrupts absolutely (as proven over and over again throughout human history).
"
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
"
FWIW, I personally believe that it is generally better that states control most of the non privately owned land within their jurisdictions.
No it is better if local government controls it. And if you don't understand why, then you don't understand a god damn thing about fitness. Try clicking my blog on my signature and see if you can learn a little bit of math.
The Feds own to much of Utah as best I can tell. A handful of kooks camped out at Bundy's place is not the way to change it though.
You think real men that defend fitness are kooks. You are brain-dead, kooky.
My state owns most of the land around me and I'm happy with that.
Because you don't know shit about fitness. You are ignorant of some basic mathematical concepts.
Not sure what that means (if anything) but most of the militia goobers I've seen are anything but 'fit'. Physically or mentally.
I was referring to degrees-of-freedom, potential energy, simulated annealing, and resilience. You are way out of your league here. As I said, click my blog on my signature and spend time learning about some math.
Unfortunately we have kooks on the other side of the equation who have had recent success in halting even reasonable use of the forests
You fucking insane environmentalists go fuck a tree. I haven't forgotten your asinine post upthread about respecting the need to obtain a timber cutting permit.
Local communities should compete on how to manage resources, then clearly the best management will win and then optimum fitness will spread like a wave.
Generally I agree with the principle of political localization and autonomy. There is a realistic limit to how much things can be localized since the resources available to a local government are limited. There are also situations where problems and issues are geographically broad so localized political structures are inefficient (at best) to deal with them. Certain ecological issues fit into this catagory for instance.
If for example, local communities can't form a pact on the shared use of a resource that binds them, e.g. a river, then they destroy each other and the more powerful one comes in and takes control over all.
Thus rational men will form pacts, while retaining autonomy on orthogonal issues, i.e. not marrying into one Federal fascist power corruption structure.
and there is a real possibility that the state will give up and sell the forest to private industry (or worse, give it to the Feds.)
Oh the horrors of private property.
Chances are you live in some asphalt jungle somewhere and are not really familiar with the kind of damage that wanton exploitation can do to an environment.
Chances are you have no clue. I currently live next to a jungle. I've owned land and lived in West Texas.
I own more than a mile of riverfront on an unusually clean river. It is this way because the entire watershed is managed fairly carefully, and that is because the proceeds of extraction go to schools rather than into some investors pocket.
Oh the benefits of government indoctrination institutions, where they instill lies such as man-made global warming and incorrect interpretation of the US Constitution, etc..
Lately now they
even teach Pepsi, McDonalds, etc.. Fascism in full thrust mode...
I was around in the 70's when industry (with the blessing of all levels of government) were spraying the same chemical constituents contained in agent orange all over the place. The chemical companies were geared up for it's manufacture and when the order came down to quit spraying it on Vietnamese villagers, they needed another outlet for the stuff.
That is what happens when the landowners are not the residents and the local county (voted on by residents) is not the regulator.
And thus Bundy's position is correct.
