According to you, the government doesn't own it because we own it. Ergo, the wife has a stake. So then you must be saying that you can't steal community property. Is that your argument?
Originally Posted by Doove
The Government holds property "in trust" for the general public. That's not an "argument" .... that's a fact. As a "caretaker" and "overseer" of the public's property certain powers are legislated by the "People's Representatives" to the "caretakers" and "overseers" of the public property. My use of the community property analogy has to do with the requisite concept of "exclusive" rights, meaning the exclusion or superior right of one over the other.
It may be "fashionable" or "trendy" to demonize Bundy, particularly when one believes that the Government ought to tell citizens what to do rather than Government do what the citizens tell it to do. The trend of issuing proclamations and orders may seem expedient and efficient, but that is not the foundation and basis of our governmental and political system.
People on this thread and every media pundit who wants to be invited back are bashing what Bundy said by focusing on the "slavery" aspect of his statement. That seems more "comfortable" with those distancing themselves from him than taking on the issue of how the Government through "entitlement" programs is creating a "class" or group of people in this country who have for generations been totally dependent on the Government for sustaining their existence while at the same time being subjected to overbearing and often hostile intrusions into their personal lives and decision making in order to "qualify" for the handouts (or "entitlements"), and often subjected to criminal prosecution for "defrauding" the Government in an attempt to gain additional funding to improve their respective lifestyles. In artfully, inappropriately, and crudely Bundy compared the "nanny state" of affairs to slavery, with the new "Masta" being the Government.
Bundy apparently is challenging the "ownership" of the grass his cattle are consuming, along with the land on which his cattle must traverse to feed, and not his obligation to pay for the grass or the right to let his cattle feed there. he has openly stated he will pay the State, but not the Feds. That's not being a "freeloader" and that's not "stealing," unless one wants to "assume" that another lacks standing to challenge "ownership" of property when a claim (civil or criminal) is made for the appropriation of that property.
Please note that I have previously stated on here I disagree with the tactics of both sides, beyond and outside of the legal process.