Look at all the employees for the federal government–they could be making a living in civil life bringing things to market that the individuals that make up the public can enjoy under their own discretion of allocating their resources that they acquired through commerce and austerity. Why is it better that environmentalists and recreationists use the land for their ends than someone bringing something to market? Let us not forget that the land was essentially taken by the government by fiat–by power–not by any notion of civil livelihood–am I correct? Originally, perhaps, the government cooperated with the individual civilians on the land but, what changed in this case?–what the ranchers wanted to do with the land or what the government wanted to do with the land? Is the federal government just rent-seeking? That alone would be dubious because we cannot know the price of government services–they’re dictated rather than revealed by the market. Also, people are hung up on the notion that making a profit is what makes use of public land so horrible. The problem I see is that the public thinks the federal government works for the common good and defaults to shunning any defiance.
I have to believe any organized push-back against the federal government is a good one, just as long as it is through civil disobedience and not combat.
