Land is different from other forms of capital. It is not the result of human labor, its value is intrinsic, not the result of human action and effort. And although the utility and productivity of land can be enhanced by careful husbandry and management, its intitial or potential value is essentially a gift of the gods, not a reward for human work and care.

The ownership of land is also a violent act. It must always be taken by force from someone who already uses or occupies it. Oh sure, it is possible to conceive of settlers moving into uninhabited territory and homesteading it, like Pacific islanders sailing into the Hawaian archipelago. But after millions of years of human occupation, very few lands are actually virgin and unknown to human settlement. Even the trackless wastes of the ocean, if they can be exploited, are controlled by those who have the maritime technology to travel on them, fish in them, fence them in with ports and navies, and drive off those who would rather take it for their own purposes. Granted, with civilization and law, we have evolved more peaceful and equitable procedures for the transfer of land through regulated and negotiated commerce and sale. But this comes later, after things settle down. The first owner, and often the first few, always takes it, usually at the point of a sword.

The lands of the American West are no different. We took them by force from the aboriginal inhabitants; or we took it by force from the Mexicans who took it from the original inhabitants. No doubt the Indians themselves fought over those tracts they perceived had value, as hunting grounds or as easily defensible parcels defining water and other natural resources. The Indians may have had different ideas about property and real estate than the Europeans, but land ownership was negotiated with steel and gunpowder. Law and commerce came later. Even after the coming of the white man, it wasn't until the Law and the State arrived much later, with more bayonets, that the genteel form of land transfer we have today became possible. And by that time, all the good stuff had already been carved up and parceled out.

But our country is vast, and most of it is still empty. The vast bulk of the land was too dry, or too desolate, or too remote to be commercially developable. Nobody wanted it. So vast tracts of it wound up owned by the government. Occasionally, changing patterns of settlement or new technologies made some of these lands attractive to private ownership. The State had the authority and responsibility to manage these lands for the public interest, and although there were contradictions and problems, this worked out fairly well. Land use was determined by government, and whether the land was open to logging, grazing, mining, agriculture or recreation came to be determined through a complex set of leases and and legislation, open to political and commercial influence, not to mention outrageous lobbying and corruption. Even with its problems, and shortcomings, this system served a useful purpose. Most of the land in the west is fragile, easily damaged by overdevelopment and over utilization. By the time the frontier had started to vanish, over a century ago, a vast system of government land management and land use practices had been established.

But as the population increased, demands on these wild lands mounted. There was pressure to overdevelop and overutilize the resource, move in, mine the wealth, and get out. When you don't own the land, it doesn't pay much to take care of it, and if the land is fragile, you are pressured economically to rape it and leave, not invest and protect it. Who wants to own and pay taxes on real estate that is only profitable when its overgrazed, or overlogged, or overmined, or has all its water resources diverted to be used somewhere else? Yeah, rape is the right word. Wham bang thank you ma'm.

Combine this economic pressure to take and take and never put anything back with a cultural cowboy ethos and history of land grab and range war and you get the welfare cowboys like the Bundys. And of course, they'll cloak their greed and rapacity with all sorts of free enterprise rhetoric and patriotic doubletalk, and back it up with the permission provided by a history of firearms and tough guy violence. Bull. They just want to get rich by spoiling MY land, after which they will leave it desolate, denuded, eroded and sterile while they cavalierly march off to despoil some other place that doesn't belong to them either.

Does the Federal land use and management system in the west need reform and updating? I don't doubt it does. Is too much land under State control? I don't doubt that either. Land should be used for the public good, and wherever possible that use should be undertaken by the private sector, who can provide value for the nation as well as jobs and profits for the operators. If that means selling it to the highest bidder, then so be it. But we must count on the State to manage this process in an orderly manner, one which maximizes the value received and protects and conserves the land as a perpetual resource for the whole nation, not just a get-rich-quick business opportunity for a handful of greasy pirates.

Yeah, those greedy redneck creeps were on MY land, not theirs. If I were the government, I would have dislodged them with air strikes the moment they started brandishing firearms. They have a right to demonstrate, not to threaten violence.

"Get off my estate."
"What for?"
"Because its mine."
"Where did you get it?"
"From my father."
"Where did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it."

from The People, Yes
Carl Sandburg