US military bases are owned by the federal government. The federal government is comprised of "the people."
You've missed the satire of my point to MEM: If the argument is that it's out of touch, then the ultimate claim is that it's no longer comprised of the people. It dictates to them. As such, the only real representatives of the people you have become the ones' who actually turn out to leverage the authorities of the centralized power.
Obviously, I don't think that every instance of sit-it protests are logically justified. Frankly, I hardly see sit-ins on military bases as relevant in this instance since the military isn't being used to coerce these ranchers.
If you are going to justify individual citizens entering upon federal property without permission simply because they are "the people," then how do you not allow such people-including hippies or anyone else-to enter upon any federal property, including military bases?
You're missing my point entirely. The people, in this instance, mobilized as a reactive force against coercive management of state lands by the federal government. The argument against the government, thus far, is that their fines and regulations are not proportionate, or even just, relative to the crime.
I'm a Laissez-Faire proponent through and through. But ever since I got a job in the public sector, I've had to acknowledge that the rules change when you're fucking around with other people's money and assets (e.g. lands). If the land were owned by a private citizen, I wouldn't have said anything (and neither would that armed militia). But the land is public property, and the public is demonstrating verbal and physical disagreement with how it's being managed. In my opinion, their case is sound. And I haven't even mentioned the fucking cows the BLM stole, and then subsequently slaughtered, for no good fucking reason.
