Joined: 11-22-2007 Posts: 19,733 |
victor809 wrote:I appreciate the answer cacman. Sorry I couldn't get to responding till now.
I understand that it's the state's responsibility to maintain the safety of the road, but that obviously has some limits of reason. My question is simply, if there are no large animals which are supposed to be nearby and could, within reason, be expected to wander over the road, why would the state need to maintain fencing? (Now, don't get me wrong, I have no idea whether there are other cattle ranchers nearby or other herds... if there are, then the entire question is moot, as the state should be keeping the fence to protect from those).
My question about ranges etc is more to find boundaries. It clearly isn't acceptable for a rancher to allow his herd to meander 200mi and walk into the city of Denver, my point is that there is some limit somewhere to what these free range cattle can do. I mean, if they wander into some suburb and start grazing on lawns there has to be some restriction.
Anyway, BLM land is free for the people to use? That's kind of cool. But you do understand there is a signficant difference between for-profit use and recreational use, right? I mean, that's part of the point of taxation, to reduce the chance of over-use. Look into the classic economics concept of "The tragedy of the commons", it's almost the same issue. This rancher is using the land to raise cattle, which he then sells at a profit. From a factory perspective, it's as if he didn't have to purchase his own manufacturing equipment, just used some equipment the state owned. This reduces his capital expenses. Great. But if he can do it, shouldn't every other rancher be allowed to do it? Hell, shouldn't I be allowed to buy a cow and stick it on that land? I could be a rancher without actually having to buy or rent any land. Now, I know it's more complicated than that. but my point is that a tax on for-profit use of public property is completely rational, as it ensures that the land isn't over-used by hundreds of other ranchers all looking to reduce their necessary capital investment and use public space to supplement their private industry.
Now, I don't know the details. I do think Bundy shouldn't be taxed any more or any less than any other for-profit ranchers using public land. But I don't know if we've found any difference there Now THAT right there IS hilarious.....besides look @ it like everything else you guys view, if he had to pay all those burdensome taxes a steak would cost $100 ( You being a rancher....that was good, I don't usually find myself LOL this early in the morning )
|
