Australians have a right to protest

Every human has that right. They just have to claim and defend it.

The lock-downs and draconian measures taking place in New South Wales in particular and Australia in general are beyond absurd. I honestly don't know how the people tolerate it, nor how the tyrants have enough temerity to attempt it. Covid isn't going away any time soon and ridding the populace of their pesky freedoms indefinitely will not only amount to a significant loss of mental & economic well-being, but it is a recipe for potentially more death and destruction than the disease itself--especially if the government keeps overreacting. 

Dear Australians, if you want to support the protests, but are not able to attend, take a few hints from the BLM protesters (remember when protesting, arson, & rioting was more acceptable?):

Jail/court support: Getting arrested can be scary and exhausting; many groups often organize moral and material support for those who’ve been arrested. See if people are gathering outside the jails or courthouses to show support for protesters while they’re in, or after they come out...

Food: Can you get food to the protest area? (Don’t automatically send pizzas, though— try to find out what’s needed first.) Sometimes religious organizations who support social justice and/or who are nearby where the protest is happening will house food operations, for example.

Childcare: Do you know people who would like to go to or work on a protest, but need help taking care of their kids? Or does one of the organizing groups have a volunteer opportunity with kids?...

Get organized and support each other. Just don't let instigators make you look bad, or trespass in the nation's capitol. 

It's nice to see they're not all tyrants down under:

The Bundy saga is different things to different people.

That's about as clear and definitive a statement on pro and anti-Bundy sentiments as can be.

To some, it's about government overreach. To others, it's a clear-cut case of a rancher not following the rules. And then there's a bunch of related (often alleged and rumored) nefarious stuff going on around it.

By now, most of you have heard of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's troubles with the BLM.

I'm not too worked up over it, and won't be writing much about it. I'm ambivalent, with misgivings should I support any one side. I'll just briefly summarize my feelings:

• Bundy stopped paying the fees for his cattle to graze on federal land.
• Bundy disputes that it's legitimately federal land, and/or that the feds do not have authority in the matter.

I'm sympathetic. But those two points--which are at the heart of the matter--to me, paint a picture of a pretty clear path from protester to martyr. With our legal system, continued disobedience pretty much ensures prison time. For some reason I don't see Bundy as wanting to be such a martyr.

I mean, we have a pretty well-established system in this country regarding state and federal land, who owns it, and how the people use it. But what if you feel the system is wrong? Do you go along to get along? Or do you go further and refuse/disobey everything you disagree with? Expecting to change the laws and coming away at least somewhat victorious seems overly optimistic. Getting lots of other people to think about it and and then try to change things seems a bit more realistic.

I guess I'm still mulling it over.

That said, I mostly agree with Warren Meyer at Coyoteblog--in a logical, very concrete, matter-of-fact way. For Bundy is not petitioning his government through the accepted and official means (or maybe he did and got nowhere), and resorted to breaking the rules. Why support a cause that has no legal leg to stand on?

I don't buy this Obama-age, Harry Reid involvement crap. I wouldn't put too much stock into that. As this remarkably refreshing article illustrates: there's not much there, there.

But just in general, the rebel in me wants Bundy to win. At least symbolically. To expose all the bullshit the BLM forces upon ranchers, to expose how tactless the federal government is, to expose how little of shit the government gives, to make us question why does the federal government have to own so much Western land? It doesn't have to. It can and should give it to the states, at least most of it.

Edited to add: Should this turn into a civil disobedience issue (which it probably is already... and less about fees, but more about the scope and purpose of government agencies): Bryan Caplan thinks martyrs should avoid martyrdom.

If the law is unjust, doesn't consenting to punishment simply compound the injustice?  The subtler challenge: "Evading" or "defying" just laws could easily lead to "anarchy" in a pejorative sense.  But why on earth is King so pessimistic about the social effects of "evasion" or "defiance" of unjust laws?  Indeed, if the laws are really so awful, you'd expect every violation to make the world a little bit better. . . .

Utah challenging Federal Gov't on land grab

While not technically a land grab by the Bureau of Land Management, it might as well be.

Utah says the Federal Bureau of Land Management is violating the law when it makes land decisions in Utah.

More at KUTV including video.

Via LauraW at Ace's, who isn't very happy:

Consistent with this administration's general theme of arrogant unaccountability, the enviro-potentates at the BLM have been refusing to disclose their reasoning on land use decisions to the locals.

But now a judge has ruled that the federal government must release the documents that show what rationale they are using to consistently deny lawful requests for land use.

Please go to the link to see the news video, which is short but good. The reporter takes the time to point out that Red Rock was sponsored by a NEW YORK CONGRESSMAN. You can imagine Utahns all spitting in unison when they heard that part of the broadcast, heh.

Yeah, we were.