Not a great fan of Ayn Rand, beyond The Fountainhead, which made a great movie.  However, she could read the left well -- guess being in the Soviet Union helped.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

Something that’s legal is not always right, and something that’s right is not always legal. This is the quandary and quagmire faced in the southwest.  There are competing implied property rights. On one hand, the rights, over a century old, originates with a promise to that land’s settlers that their family could tend and use that land so long as they did so responsibly.  At, the other hand, are rights which break that promise to further an environmental theocracy.  Guess the left doesn’t always believe in separation of church and state, in the case of Gaia.

FYI, the original proponent of the Gaia theory no longer supports it.

"Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them".

===========================================

Man’s soda refill costs him $525 and gets him slapped with a federal charge

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/od...MQR2dGlkA0RGRDZfMQ--

A desperate Direstraits demands, "Please provide proof of such billings!" The billings are those that one can reasonably infer were tendered to the obnoxious welfare cowboy, Cliven Bundy, seeking payment for grazing fees he owed during about two decades of freeloading on the public lands.  No one involved in this controversy is contending that the BLM failed to make demand for payment of those grazing fees.  The fact of their demand is at the very heart of the dispute between Deadbeat Clive and the agency.  Your feeble attempt to cloud the issue with your silly-ass demand that I should produce the actual billing literature simply shows how  weak a position you and others hold in regard to Bundy's failure to meet his legal obligations.

The matter of "competing implied property rights", in the case of Cliven Bundy, was settled in the courts.  Bundy went to court;  Bundy lost.  Bundy might not like that outcome and YOU might not like it, but courts of competent jurisdiction hold with the government.

If you wish to meditate on some what is right and what is lawful, there are better sources than the blitherings of some fictional malcontent in an Ayn Rand  ("selfishness is good") novel.  Consider the wisdom of Sir Thomas More, as creatively characterized in Robert Bolt's fine play, A Man For All Seasons:

Sir Thomas More:  The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. . . . I'm <cite>not</cite> God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester."

William Roper: "So, now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!" 

Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

William Roper: "Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" 

Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

______________________________
Nothing but deflection on the billings -- typical,, if you have no evidence.  Sir Thomas More -- really!  Its the Dems who insist the constitution is a living thing, subject to change with the times -- not a set in stone, unless amended charter. 

While representatives of the nine western states were already planning a campaign to require the federal government to secede most BLM land to the states and private ownership, Bundy really provided a rallying cry. 

Dems must realize a real threat to their power, if they attack one small rancher with such vitriol.  Of course, hiking up petticoats and screaming is Condie's trademark.