But if you have to, remind them that all their friends were destroying property, destroying businesses, killing people (spiked timber) destroying families and long established settlements (all acts of breaking the law) to get their prize entitlement . . . The endangered species act.
So you know what. Even i say Mr. Bundy is clearly wrong by the letter of the law. The law be damned, these people set out to destroy him 30 plus years ago and he stood up to them. He is the last man standing in his area.
First lesson I learned in my Political Science class in 1970. If you want to change a law you must break the law. I have watched the communist break all the laws and get away with it with impunity.
I just posted the following on another thread where the entire 1939 essay on the New Deal is (see my tagline!).
I figured there would be a parallel from the essay on the Bundy Ranch affair. And there is:
“Business is in itself a power. In a free economic system it is an autonomous power, and generally hostile to any extension of government power. That is why a revolutionary party has to do something with it....Always in business there will be a number, indeed, an astonishing number, who would sooner conform than resist [49 out of 50 ranchers in Bundy’s county?], and besides these there will be always a few more who may be called the Quislings of capitalism. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini ever attempted to liquidate business. They only deprived it of its power and made it serve.
“How seriously the New Deal may have considered the possibility of liquidating business we do not know. Its decision, at any rate, was to embrace the alternative; and the alternative was to shackle it.
In his second annual message to Congress the President said: “In the past few months, as a result of our action, we have demanded of many citizens that they surrender certain licenses to do as they please in their business relationships; but we have asked this in exchange for the protection which the State can give against exploitation by their fellow men or by combinations of their fellow men.”
“....There, unconsciously perhaps, is a complete statement of the revolutionary thesis. It is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power. The President speaks not of laws; he speaks of new instruments of power, such as would provide shackles for the liberties of the people if they should ever fall in other hands. What then has the government done? Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power.”