FBI investigating death threats, intimidation, and weapons violations at Bundy ranch (via Raw Story )
Law enforcement officials in Nevada say that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the April standoff between rancher Cliven Bundy, the Bureau of Land Management and the armed militia who gathered at Bundy’s ranch. KLAS-TV Channel 8…
11 comments:
The Demo-Repub regime's security goons vs armed, ignorant thugs.
Which is more violent, dangerous and a bigger nuisance to the public? Hard to say. Cliven Gump sterilized a few bulls in the last couple decades, while the Demo-Repubs sterilized native americans in the 1980s without their knowledge or consent. Cliven tax evaded while Demo_Repubs hold people without charges indefinitely, fly unmanned drones weekly to blow people up around the world, overthrow democratic governments, and use para-military forces to quash peaceful dissent. Cliven doesn't speak eloquently compared to the Demo-Repub leader but then again he doesn't take hundreds of millions from investment bankers in exchange for immunity and protection. Hard to figure what is up and down, we have minor misdemeanors versus capital crimes, treason and corruption. But Cliven is the threat to "our" government. Right is what demo-repub supporters find appealing and wrong is what they find threatening.
Sounds like a real libertarian paradise out there...
A fundamental issue in social and political thought is the relationship of the individual and society, which leads to the relationship of freedom to law & order, which leads to the possibility on one hand of vigilantism, feuding, or the rule of powerful individuals and on the other to political repression and corruption. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with emphasizing individualism and also with emphasizing society.
The art and science of politics is striking a happy medium between the two poles, generally agreed upon as good governance with maximum freedom consistent with good order. The debate is how best to achieve this. In liberal democracies this is handled though the political process and the success of that depends on the citizens and the institutions that they create or allow to be created.
A fundamental principle is that there cannot be actual freedom in a society in the absence of order and order requires either an exceptionally high level of cohesiveness or else some process of governance. Pluralistic societies do not have high levels of cohesiveness and require governance to maintain order among competing or conflicting interests.
The Bundyites are going to be on the losing side of this one, the question is just how badly they will lose. The Feds seem to want to avoid another Waco, but they cannot let disorder rule either. The contrast is already stark between the way dissent from the left is handled in comparison with the right. This, too, adds fuel to the fire of inequality and privilege, further weakening order in a pluralistic society.
Tom, if Cliven Bundy had been pulling this in the middle of Manhattan, instead of in the middle of nowhere, the response from the powers that be would have been very different. Similarly if occupy had done their demonstrations in the middle of the Utah desert, there would have been no response from the PTB
Of course, that is true, Clonal, however that is not the whole story, which is now a global narrative through instant communications.
This is a test of freedom v. law & order, and if government doesn't not respond in terms of current law, it loses some authority and invites greater confrontation and potential disorder.
Actually, something similar did happen in Manhattan., which in part led to Occupy Wall Street. The bankers apparently broke the law in a number ways a number of times, and the Attorney General of the United States declared them above the law. That was a tremendous weakening of state authority.
Tom,
My point was that it is not a "left/right" issue, but rather the perceived degree of threat to the system or to the public law and order.
Occupy rapidly became a high degree of threat to the existing system, while Cliven Bundy is far less so. In the middle of Manhattan, Bundy would be seen as a threat to public law and order, and not as a threat to the system as a whole.
If that is the thinking, I think it is huge mistake. One of the chief threats that the US faces today is that it is in the midst of a re-do of the civil war. It's a resurgence of the same conflict that bedeviled the US from its inception and portends to break out in violence again.
There's a rumor they're all moving to a ranch in Guyana, where they'll be free to choose their own poison - on public land, of course.
Ryan Harris is a shill for deranged racist Cliven Bundy and the band of thugs that support him.
Criticizing the powerful in addition to the weak takes guts. There have been excellent articles on NEP lately, Six. Points out the criminals and those who refuse to prosecute them. Good stuff.
Pretending that criminals aren't criminals doesn't take guts, Ryan. That seems to be your role.
I have no problem criticizing the powerful and it doesn't really take a lot of guts. I do it all the time. MMT proponents have little to no power and all we can do is point out the foibles of the neo-liberals who hold virtually all of the power.
Post a Comment