Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[Seth]

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

Okay. Um. You first.

I haven't reproduced, I support Planned Parenthood and I've never voted for an anti-choice candidate.

Not good enough. I suggest you might provide a better example for us by fulfilling your ideal right away...say on your front lawn, with a butcher knife, in the Japanese fashion.

Now THAT would be a respectable act in support of limiting the human population. Anything short of that is bald hypocrisy.

Nothing personal, but I get heartily sick of the anti-humanists and eco-zealots who talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. Even more so when they talk the talk using modern computer technology. If they want to set a good example, they should be wearing hair-shirts and wandering in the woods eating nuts and berries and turning into bear shit.

But they don't.

Oh, you misunderstood. It's nothing to do with my environmentalism, it's my anti-authoritarianism! A smaller number of people can get along with less bureaucracy and fewer rules. The planet could probably sustain a lot more people, just not as easily and freely as some might like.

Well, in that case, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Start with China.

[mistermack]

I doubt if you would have stood the slightest chance in court. I don't know the wording of the constitution, but it seems pretty clear that it refers to the compulsory taking OWNERSHIP of land by the state, not to placing restrictions on it's use for a few months a year.
You would have to persuade the court that the people who wrote the constitution MEANT to cover that situation in the constitution, even though they didn't spell it out. Otherwise, if the court found in your favour, it would be writing it's own extension to the constitution.

I think you would have got great odds against, in Las Vegas, if you had tried to bring a case.

[Seth]

I doubt if you would have stood the slightest chance in court. I don't know the wording of the constitution, but it seems pretty clear that it refers to the compulsory taking OWNERSHIP of land by the state, not to placing restrictions on it's use for a few months a year.
You would have to persuade the court that the people who wrote the constitution MEANT to cover that situation in the constitution, even though they didn't spell it out. Otherwise, if the court found in your favour, it would be writing it's own extension to the constitution.

I think you would have got great odds against, in Las Vegas, if you had tried to bring a case.

As I said, it's a complex issue. And you're quite right, the government maintains that such regulations are not a "taking" because they don't want to have to pay for it.

But the core question is whether or not the owner of the land is being forced to turn over his property for the use of the public, to satisfy the needs or desires of the public that it places on his property, that the owner has not caused by some action of his own.

It's not just about the physical occupation or seizure of property, and it's not about just land. The Constitution says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This applies to ALL private property, from land right down to my shoes. Any time the government takes an individual's property, of any description, the constitutional proscriptions must be considered.

The Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to real estate, the government must have either physically occupied the land (or seek to do so) or it must have regulated the use of the land so as to remove "all reasonable economic use" of the land. In other words, land use regulation is allowable, but not if it completely deprives the owner of any opportunity to benefit economically from his land. Thus, zoning regulations that might, for example in my case, prohibit me from building a subdivision, but which still allow me to engage in agricultural operations like cattle ranching on the property, would be allowable, because some reasonable economic use is still permitted, although not the "highest and best" possible use, like subdividing and building houses.

The problem with both the Eagle Protection Act and the ESA is the way the law is written. Both technically allow the "take" of a protected species, but only if the individual applies for a permit to take the action that would cause the "take" or "disturbance." So in the technical sense, the law does not prohibit me from using my property as I wish, it just says "if you do, and you disturb an eagle, we're going to fuck you up the ass if you didn't get a permit first."

Now, you're certain to argue that I should just get a permit, but it's not that easy. First, merely going through the process to get a permit can take years and tens of thousands of dollars, and would apply to a specific act or project for a specific period of time in a specific place, even if approved, which it most likely would not be, because the government always favors the eagles over any commercial interests of the property owner.

Nowhere is there any provision for a "management plan" like there is in the ESA, whereby a landowner can work with the government to create a plan of operation for a property that will adequately protect a species while allowing ordinary and necessary commercial operations. The Eagle Act has no such provisions, so any activity that might "disturb" an eagle can subject one to prosecution. And to get a permit, as I said, can take years and is entirely discretionary. If the F&WS says no to the permit, there is no recourse. Nor is there any exemption for emergency situations. They told me that if I was burning ditches (something I have to do every year to clear them for irrigation) and the fire "disturbed" the eagles, much less got out of control and damaged the tree, I'd be liable, and they would not even consider issuing a "take" permit for such ordinary agricultural operations.

Thus, under the ESA, I can go to the government and work out an operating plan and agreement that will both protect the species in question while still allowing some "reasonable economic use" of the property. This occurs frequently where, for example, a state highway project might destroy habitat for a species, but in order to allow the activity, the state must purchase and preserve alternative habitat as a mitigation measure. Or, in the case of my ranch, for example, which is also potential habitat for the endangered Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. The mouse does not currently exist there, but some of the ranch is, or could be suitable habitat as a mitigation site for someone needing to purchase mitigation credits/land so that they can destroy habitat elsewhere. They can submit a plan for a permit and can be granted a permit conditioned upon providing such mitigation habitat.

But there is no such provision in the Eagle Protection Act. There is no way to submit a plan and get an operating permit, even for routine operations, much less offer some sort of mitigation plan. Once an eagle nests, roosts or forages on your land, it effectively belongs to the government, which excludes the owner from ALL USE, even from entry to his own property, on pain of federal prosecution if he "disturbs" an eagle in doing so.

The difference is substantial between the ESA and the Eagle Protection Act, and that is what makes the latter a constitutional violation. While the act does not actually say "you cannot enter that 33 acre circle around the nest tree" or "you cannot cut down that tree," the practical effect is the same. That weaseling around the Constitution is precisely why the information posted here from the F&WS is a "guideline" and not a "regulation."

By issuing a "guideline" the F&WS is putting landowners on notice, but it's not really ordering them to do, or not do anything. I can still enter that exclusion zone, but woe betide me if I "disturb" an eagle while doing so.

That is just a cheesy legal evasion of the plain language of the Fifth Amendment's proscriptions on government taking private property for public use.

That's why I cited the Involuntary Good Samaritan test. This test is a synthesis of literally every takings case the Supreme Court has considered in our history, and the law professor who created it has written a book on the subject that he's trying to get published precisely because he saw that there was no really objective test out there. The SCOTUS has been making "ad hoc inquiries" about takings issues, and the professor wanted to create a more bright-line test that can be applied much more objectively than the "too far" subjective nature of many of the SCOTUS' rulings.

The Eagle Protection Act is a prime candidate for testing this legal theory for the reasons I mention above. The government, in order to satisfy the needs of the public to protect eagles, has created a regulation, the evident purpose of which is to require me, the landowner to make my private property available for the tangible and intangible use and enjoyment of the public so that the public can satisfy its values of environmental protection and pleasure where I have neither consented to the use, nor have I created a need for such a taking in order to prevent my interfering with someone else's use of their property or resources by doing some affirmative act (such as polluting water or building houses).

Under this test, the Eagle Protection Act is clearly a taking.

But, unless someone has a quarter to half a million dollars to spend challenging the constitutionality of the law, it's going to be enforced, and almost no one who owns the kind of property where eagles like to nest can afford that, so it's not been challenged yet.

It's a legal toss-up as to what the Supreme Court might say about it, but there is substantial support for the legal theory that it's a clear unconstitutional taking as applied in my situation.

Not that I care any more...except in an abstract way.

[Gallstones]

Government cannot impose that duty upon me, however, without my consent. I cannot be held responsible for the fate of feral range cattle because I do not own them.

That's where you are out of touch with reality. Government can do exactly that. How do you propose to stop them? And who's going to help you?
The power rests with the government, and the courts.
All you've got is a vote.
That's the reality. Take on the state if you like. You'll lose, and of course you know it, in the part of your mind that's still in touch with reality.

My family's farm has two rivers on it's border. There are trout, otters, cormorants ect. It's illegal to pollute those rivers, even though we have title to the land. It's illegal to poison the fish, or kill the otters. And so it should be. And nobody has ever expected compensation. Because that is ludicrous. It's part of the many duties you have, as a land-owner.

The property rights you are dreaming about have never existed.
Years ago, you held your land by permission from the local lord, he the same to a Baron, and the Barons to the King.
You are not a king, and never will be. Face it. It's called reality.

Unlike the UK, the US has no monarchy and we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
In the UK you are accustomed to being managed more closely by your government than we are in the US. And you seem more willing to accept that than we would be.
Your reality is not our reality. That concept is so basic it should be obvious. You can not extrapolate your reality onto ours.

[Geoff]

That's where you are out of touch with reality. Government can do exactly that. How do you propose to stop them? And who's going to help you?
The power rests with the government, and the courts.
All you've got is a vote.
That's the reality. Take on the state if you like. You'll lose, and of course you know it, in the part of your mind that's still in touch with reality.

My family's farm has two rivers on it's border. There are trout, otters, cormorants ect. It's illegal to pollute those rivers, even though we have title to the land. It's illegal to poison the fish, or kill the otters. And so it should be. And nobody has ever expected compensation. Because that is ludicrous. It's part of the many duties you have, as a land-owner.

The property rights you are dreaming about have never existed.
Years ago, you held your land by permission from the local lord, he the same to a Baron, and the Barons to the King.
You are not a king, and never will be. Face it. It's called reality.

Unlike the UK, the US has no monarchy and we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
In the UK you are accustomed to being managed more closely by your government than we are in the US. And you seem more willing to accept that than we would be.
Your reality is not our reality. That concept is so basic it should be obvious. You can not extrapolate your reality onto ours.

Our monarch is just a figurehead, with no real power - really little more than a tourist attraction.

I don't know enough about your government to know which country is more "closely managed", but I'd be surprised if there was all that much difference...can you point to examples?

[Seth]

That's where you are out of touch with reality. Government can do exactly that. How do you propose to stop them? And who's going to help you?
The power rests with the government, and the courts.
All you've got is a vote.
That's the reality. Take on the state if you like. You'll lose, and of course you know it, in the part of your mind that's still in touch with reality.

My family's farm has two rivers on it's border. There are trout, otters, cormorants ect. It's illegal to pollute those rivers, even though we have title to the land. It's illegal to poison the fish, or kill the otters. And so it should be. And nobody has ever expected compensation. Because that is ludicrous. It's part of the many duties you have, as a land-owner.

The property rights you are dreaming about have never existed.
Years ago, you held your land by permission from the local lord, he the same to a Baron, and the Barons to the King.
You are not a king, and never will be. Face it. It's called reality.

Unlike the UK, the US has no monarchy and we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
In the UK you are accustomed to being managed more closely by your government than we are in the US. And you seem more willing to accept that than we would be.
Your reality is not our reality. That concept is so basic it should be obvious. You can not extrapolate your reality onto ours.

Our monarch is just a figurehead, with no real power - really little more than a tourist attraction.

I don't know enough about your government to know which country is more "closely managed", but I'd be surprised if there was all that much difference...can you point to examples?

Go research the difference between the parliamentary system of government and the constitutional republic of the United States. That'll give you a start.

Basically, in our system all power and authority the government wields flows from the consent of the governed, who can revoke any power or authority at any time, using the appointed processes of representative government (Congress) or through Amendment of the Constitution.

The Constitution is our founding document and any law or action the government takes that violates the Constitution is "no law at all" and can be overturned or thrown out by the courts.

Our laws are made using the two-house system where each house has specific duties and powers, and all laws must be approved by a majority of BOTH houses before going to the President, who may either sign the bill into law or veto it, in which case it returns to the Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote overrides the President's veto and the bill becomes law over his objection. No law may be created or passed by the President unilaterally, and his only role in lawmaking is the presidential veto.

In short, our government can only do what we, the People allow it to do. It is our servant, and we are not the subjects of the government.

[Geoff]

Go research the difference between the parliamentary system of government and the constitutional republic of the United States. That'll give you a start.

Basically, in our system all power and authority the government wields flows from the consent of the governed, who can revoke any power or authority at any time, using the appointed processes of representative government (Congress) or through Amendment of the Constitution.

The Constitution is our founding document and any law or action the government takes that violates the Constitution is "no law at all" and can be overturned or thrown out by the courts.

Our laws are made using the two-house system where each house has specific duties and powers, and all laws must be approved by a majority of BOTH houses before going to the President, who may either sign the bill into law or veto it, in which case it returns to the Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote overrides the President's veto and the bill becomes law over his objection. No law may be created or passed by the President unilaterally, and his only role in lawmaking is the presidential veto.

In short, our government can only do what we, the People allow it to do. It is our servant, and we are not the subjects of the government.

So far, very little difference, other than the lack of a written Constitution. our "two houses" are the Commons & Lords.

[Gallstones]

That's where you are out of touch with reality. Government can do exactly that. How do you propose to stop them? And who's going to help you?
The power rests with the government, and the courts.
All you've got is a vote.
That's the reality. Take on the state if you like. You'll lose, and of course you know it, in the part of your mind that's still in touch with reality.

My family's farm has two rivers on it's border. There are trout, otters, cormorants ect. It's illegal to pollute those rivers, even though we have title to the land. It's illegal to poison the fish, or kill the otters. And so it should be. And nobody has ever expected compensation. Because that is ludicrous. It's part of the many duties you have, as a land-owner.

The property rights you are dreaming about have never existed.
Years ago, you held your land by permission from the local lord, he the same to a Baron, and the Barons to the King.
You are not a king, and never will be. Face it. It's called reality.

Unlike the UK, the US has no monarchy and we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
In the UK you are accustomed to being managed more closely by your government than we are in the US. And you seem more willing to accept that than we would be.
Your reality is not our reality. That concept is so basic it should be obvious. You can not extrapolate your reality onto ours.

Our monarch is just a figurehead, with no real power - really little more than a tourist attraction.

I don't know enough about your government to know which country is more "closely managed", but I'd be surprised if there was all that much difference...can you point to examples?

We can have guns.
You can't--except for the ones your government thinks it is acceptable for you to have.
We have states rights.
We have medical marijuana and decriminalized possession and use.
We have no state sanctioned or tax payer supported church.

Don't the tax payers support the monarchy?
Does revenue from tourism pay for all the monarchy?
Do the people of England own Buckingham Palace?

[Geoff]

We can have guns.
You can't--except for the ones your government thinks it is acceptable for you to have.

We (the vast majority of Brits) don't want them. We like living in a society where they're unnecessary.

We have states rights.

We're not a big or diverse enough country to need them, but we do have separate governments/rights for the constituent countries of the UK, which is broadly similar in scope.

We have medical marijuana and decriminalized possession and use.

If enough people wanted it, that would be changed.

We have no state sanctioned or tax payer supported church.

Sanctioned yes, but not taxpayer supported. It survises on individual donations, like most other churches.

Don't the tax payers support the monarchy?

A tiny amount yes, I believe the Civil List is around £50 million per annum. The monarch actually pays tax on income and capital gains.

Does revenue from tourism pay for all the monarchy?

Easily, yes, though it's difficult to quantify. Monarchy related attractions are high on most foreign tourists' lists.

Do the people of England own Buckingham Palace?

That's complicated. Technically, they're "held in trust" (so can't be sold, for example). I don't see the relevance, though. The question was about being "more closely managed". Sure, we have some different laws, of course, but they're still all passed by a democratic process, just as yours are.
You don't vote on individual pieces of legislation, and neither do we (except for the occasional issue where a referendum is thought to be necessary)..both countries vote for parties that are closest to their own policies (and if anything, we have more choice of parties to vote for, though admittedly only three have much chance of being influential).

[MrJonno]

The ultimate legal authority in the UK is parliament (specifically the House of Commons which is elected) hence all authority comes from the people through some authority has been delegated to Europe (which we could pull out of if the people wanted).

Unlike in the US where the ultimate authority is unelected judges (not the constitution as authority is something that can only ever come from people not laws) the people specifically living ones an instigate any law they want and invoke any law they want

[Seth]

The ultimate legal authority in the UK is parliament (specifically the House of Commons which is elected) hence all authority comes from the people through some authority has been delegated to Europe (which we could pull out of if the people wanted).

Unlike in the US where the ultimate authority is unelected judges (not the constitution as authority is something that can only ever come from people not laws) the people specifically living ones an instigate any law they want and invoke any law they want

The ultimate legal authority is not the Supreme Court, it is the People. We can amend any law and the Constitution itself to overrule any Act of Congress, regulation promulgated by the Executive Branch, or ruling of the Supreme Court.

The process is slow and complex, but that's intentional. However, the Constitution has been amended 27 times in our history, proving that it can be done. Two of the most important Amendments in this context are the 18th and 21st Amendments, which respectively prohibited the sale, possession or consumption of alcohol, and which repealed that prohibition. These Amendments are important because unlike most other Amendments which were about the political process and in some way constrained or limited the power of the government, they directly addressed social issues, specifically the social effects of alcohol. The importance is that it shows that when government interferes in our lives too deeply, we have the capacity and the will to tell government to butt out of our lives, and it must do so.

I don't believe you have that right in the UK. You are vassals and subjects of your government, not its masters. You have no ultimate recourse, other than revolution, if your government decides to do something to you that you don't like. And your ability to rebel and retake your freedom doesn't exist because you do not have the right to keep and bear arms, which makes you slaves of your government masters.

And, nothing in your laws or history prevents the Monarchy from reasserting its ancestral rights if the House of Commons and the House of Lords should decide to cooperate with the King.

We don't have a king, and never have, and we have the capacity to put down a tyrant should he or she pretend to become one.

[Seth]

We can have guns.
You can't--except for the ones your government thinks it is acceptable for you to have.

We (the vast majority of Brits) don't want them. We like living in a society where they're unnecessary.

But you didn't vote to ban guns, it was forced upon you by your government, and against the will of a good many UK citizens. You can say you're comfortable in your chains, but they are still fetters on your liberty.

We have states rights.

We're not a big or diverse enough country to need them, but we do have separate governments/rights for the constituent countries of the UK, which is broadly similar in scope.

Not if the King decides to reassert his rights and the Parliament goes along with him.

We have medical marijuana and decriminalized possession and use.

If enough people wanted it, that would be changed.

Not if the House of Lords and the Prime Minister don't want to allow it.

We have no state sanctioned or tax payer supported church.

Sanctioned yes, but not taxpayer supported. It survises on individual donations, like most other churches.

Which means that with a simple change of policy, it can become both state supported and mandatory, as it has been in the past. Nothing in your law prevents that from happening.

Don't the tax payers support the monarchy?

A tiny amount yes, I believe the Civil List is around £50 million per annum. The monarch actually pays tax on income and capital gains.

I thought it was much more than that. Didn't you spend something like a billion dollars on the Royal Wedding?

Does revenue from tourism pay for all the monarchy?

Easily, yes, though it's difficult to quantify. Monarchy related attractions are high on most foreign tourists' lists.

Do the people of England own Buckingham Palace?

That's complicated. Technically, they're "held in trust" (so can't be sold, for example). I don't see the relevance, though. The question was about being "more closely managed". Sure, we have some different laws, of course, but they're still all passed by a democratic process, just as yours are.
You don't vote on individual pieces of legislation, and neither do we (except for the occasional issue where a referendum is thought to be necessary)..both countries vote for parties that are closest to their own policies (and if anything, we have more choice of parties to vote for, though admittedly only three have much chance of being influential).

But the People of the UK cannot amend their fundamental founding documents themselves because there is no Constitution for them to amend, and therefore their rights are entirely dependent upon the grace and cooperation of their elected (and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament and the forebearance of the Queen...or King...who may decide to reassert their royal authority at any time they believe they can get Parliament to go along with them, and the people, who are subjects of the King and vassals of the government will have no recourse and no capacity to put down a tyrant because they are disarmed.

[MrJonno]

In the same way the US have a civil war to determine that federal laws were supreme to state ones we have a little one of our own to determine the supremancy of parliament over the monarchy which resulted in a bit of undesirable neck/head seperation (at least for the king).

Our elected representatives are granted temporary authority to run the country (the Queen and even the Prime Minister have no real power without the say so of parliament). The House of Lords is in many ways like the US Supreme Court except it can only delay the will of the elected representatives not veto them (like US judges can). No unelected official whether monarch, judge or any member of the public should ever have a veto over the will of the people.

The UK like any other country evolved, not nation can be founded they grow (revolutions can never create anything only destroy).

As for bringing down governments something that tends to have happen quite reguarly in Europe is a lot easier to do by doing nothing (ie going on strike) than it is by the peasants taking on tanks.

[Pensioner]

Government cannot impose that duty upon me, however, without my consent. I cannot be held responsible for the fate of feral range cattle because I do not own them.

That's where you are out of touch with reality. Government can do exactly that. How do you propose to stop them? And who's going to help you?
The power rests with the government, and the courts.
All you've got is a vote.
That's the reality. Take on the state if you like. You'll lose, and of course you know it, in the part of your mind that's still in touch with reality.

My family's farm has two rivers on it's border. There are trout, otters, cormorants ect. It's illegal to pollute those rivers, even though we have title to the land. It's illegal to poison the fish, or kill the otters. And so it should be. And nobody has ever expected compensation. Because that is ludicrous. It's part of the many duties you have, as a land-owner.

The property rights you are dreaming about have never existed.
Years ago, you held your land by permission from the local lord, he the same to a Baron, and the Barons to the King.
You are not a king, and never will be. Face it. It's called reality.

Unlike the UK, the US has no monarchy and we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
In the UK you are accustomed to being managed more closely by your government than we are in the US. And you seem more willing to accept that than we would be.
Your reality is not our reality. That concept is so basic it should be obvious. You can not extrapolate your reality onto ours.

You think so, more like you have a government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.

[Seth]

You think so, more like you have a government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.

Socialist anti-corporatist twaddle.