The nation's attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff
in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who
believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing "fees" against
ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government's
use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys' cattle led many Americans
to travel to Nevada to engage in non-violent civil disobedience in support
of the family.
The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears
to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials
have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters "domestic
terrorists," thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That
means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on
the Bundys or a similar group in the future.
In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal
government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of
land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned
by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it
for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats.
Oftentimes, the so-called "public" land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful
special interests.
Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing
the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the
government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be
able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had
an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing.
When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect
the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away. By contrast,
if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether
to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved
without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys' cattle from the
land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself
of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce
the federal deficit. It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government's
land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government
power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.
A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract
can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats
take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids
Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from
buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare's standards, from trading
with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in DC support the NSA
spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many
in government have for our rights.
History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or
Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada
show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare
state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that
those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how
statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.
