No Foraging in the Kings Forest Because It Hurts The PeasantsLets Talk About Public Land Conveniently hidden in the noise of the Bundy Ranch standoff is the heart of the issue: property rights and use of government-owned land. With the federal government going on a land-grab spree of late, its time we have a frank discussion about public land. What is it? Who owns it? Whats it used for? What rights do citizens have to use it? Back in feudal times peasants werent allowed to forage in the kings forest. Those caught poaching to feed their families were put to death. It was considered stealing private property from the king himself, not the kingdom as a whole, no matter how big his forest grew. No one claimed it hurt other peasants to take from the king. Yet, today, we are to believe that foraging on government land somehow hurts the kingdom. Some citizens call rancher Bundy a tax cheat, saying hes stealing from taxpayers because he hasnt paid grazing fees on public land. Does this group view public property as profit centers? Do they know theyre advocating for the same thing as big oil companies, frackers, Harry Reids Chinese solar power plant and a host of other cronies who dont give a damn about land preservation? Because these entities dutifully pay their fees for their right to use public lands. Im not here to stick up for Cliven Bundy. His family claims theyve had foraging rights to government land in Utah since 1877. Ironically, thats right around the time that the government violently stole the land from native Americans. So, ancestor Bundy used the government cavalry to do to them exactly what the BLM is doing to him at the behest of Harry Reids corporate endeavors. Im just keeping it real. Historically, property rights were recognized when someone put their labor to the land by building a house from the trees or managing a herd on the fields. The right to use the land became ownership and could only be claimed by an individual or a family who worked the land. In the example of feudal times the king displayed ownership of the forest because he protected it with force. Significantly, the kingdom did not own the forest because no one could even begin to understand that concept. Today property ownership comes with very few rights without permission from, or paying fees to, the government. For example, I used to pay around $7000 a year in property taxes for a modest home and three average cars that I supposedly owned. I also had to buy permits to paint my house, to finish a room in my basement, to cut down trees or burn brush in my yard. I paid this money to the kingdom because they claimed a right to my property. Increasingly people are being prevented from foraging (keeping a garden or chickens) on their own land as if it belonged to the king. Its apparent that when property rights become privileges, the grantor of those privileges becomes the real owner of the land. But what happens when the grantor is a vague collective called the public? A king can be removed, while the public cannot. Is all government land public? Of course not. Try hiking around the NSA data center in Utah and see what happens. Try entering Yellowstone National Park without paying the $25 entry fee and see what happens. As a taxpayer (peasant), you have absolutely no rights to that land, therefore you and other citizens are not the owner of that property but you did pay for it. The simple truth is if you dont have a right to use the land, you dont own it. Claiming that not paying our fair share for using the kings land (including our own homes) is akin to treason against the kingdom is a colossal mind-control victory for our rulers. People who believe this truly cannot see the chains that bind them. Well, on a positive note, at least we have all this public land to sell real cheap to our creditors when the US economy goes the way of Greece, right? 