You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Log It, Graze It, Or Watch It Burn: Who To Blame For Wild Fires
Back when we had loggers they were all volunteer fire fighters during fire season. Trained, local and to the scene PRONTO. And we still had forest fires, bad ones, but nothing like this crap would ever have happened. When lightning starts them in the middle of nowhere, it is a problem. This started RIGHT BY the highway, and there are probably 100s of ranchers around here with water tank trucks.
sounds like its time to get serious about logging all that government land out there. The federal government owns entirely too much land out west.
Indeed... Although we are experiencing this rather odd little phenomenon in Idaho right now. A BUNCH of land that is marked "National Forest" on my maps is now being signed up as private property and put up for sale. I mean, places where you drive past the sign "Now entering Payette National Forest" and before you get to the sign that says "Leaving National Forest" and is marked as National Forest on maps from 30 years ago... somehow it is suddenly private land after all. The "explanation" offered is that is was really private all along and they just shared nicely, and the signs and maps were just wrong... Very, very odd.
that's weird, who is doing the selling?
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/jul/31/video-confirms-sportsmens-angst-over-texas-billionaires-land-grab-idaho/
Be sure to watch the video...
yup, that's a great example of why replacing cops with private security does not really fix anything. That is something to consider, when the government owns all the land your county or whatever gets screwed on tax revenue and development but when they sell it to private concerns then you lose access and things get developed. How do you balance the two concerns?
Well, it has to start with everyone being given the facts... When an entire community has believed land was "public" for generations and then they suddenly are told "No, it was private all along" people get a little funny about it...
The hypothetical advantage of private security over police is that if a private security officer initiates violence I can defend myself without him having "above the law" status granting him the right to murder without consequences. Truly, these Texas guys appear to be TRYING to get something started up here. I cannot confirm it, but the local "word on the street" is they hired the guys who killed Jack Yantis as security... I cannot imagine a bigger "F-YOU" to this community!
weird, anarchists keep telling me that a private security agency that did something violent or broke the non aggression principle would go out of business but I keep telling them that some people would seek to hire those that are the most violent and least ethical.
Hypothetically, and there are a few cases, you can defend yourself with force from a police officer, probably best to avoid that situation though.
Here is an excellent article about it
There is SOME truth to a violent agency going broke, but only if there is still a mechanism to sue the agency. If you truly have tossed the governments, there is not going to be a court to sue in though.
I know about the RIGHT to defend yourself with deadly force from cops, can't cite the SCOTUS ruling but have read the case. Not a course of action that is likely to pay off in this world. Dead people don't win shit in court...
I think anarchy is the ULTIMATE destiny of humanity, but we have to grow into it. We need to ratchet down the size and scope of government to the MOST local level possible for now.
What cracks me up is how everyone whines that anarchy = chaos... So.... what would they call what is going on in fully-governed Chicago? Out of control government = chaos, it is how tyrants roll.