So Cliven Bundy should have meekly given in to the BLM?
“..... that lawful authority (authority that does not abuse its position)”
You might want to take another run at that as it was clearly stated.
Bundy was in the wrong and should have abided by the law before there ever was a standoff. His supporters seem to be allergic to the facts of his case, preferring to focus on the BLM’s incompetence, rather than his malfeasance.
I think it’s questionable as to whether the BLM acted lawfully when they arguably violated the Bundy’s et al civil and land use rights.
Persons should obey the constitution, including political leaders, law enforcemement, judges, and bureaucrats. The problem we have today is that few in government even give a thought to what is supposed to be the highest law in the land. Many of our laws/regulations are essentailly unconstitutional; only twisted legal rationalization by immoral magistrates gives these rules their authority.
We really can’t obey or morally respect a “lawful” authority that gives illegal & unconstitutional orders.
[[1. Persons should individually obey lawful authority.
So Cliven Bundy should have meekly given in to the BLM?]]
NO He said LAWFUL authority- what they were trying to do to him was UNLAWFUL
> 1. Persons should individually obey lawful authority.
>
> So Cliven Bundy should have meekly given in to the BLM?
The key here is “LAWFUL authority”.
The BLM is NOT a lawful authority, neither were the mercenaries they hired to do their killing for them.
On the other hand, the police in Ferguson telling the bloody thug Brown to get out of the street ARE lawful authorities. They weren’t asking Brown to surrender anything. They weren’t destroying his personal property under color of “law”.
They made a simple, legitimate demand that he get out of the bloody street. His response was to punch the cop and try to steal his gun to kill him with it.
VERY, VERY different circumstances, doncha think?