Loving County takeover

Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

(10-10-2025 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

Agree, I cannot discern anything illegal, yet.

But it may provide a blueprint for other groups. What if, say, a militia in Idaho employs these tactics to "take over" some remote, sparely populated county, and then pass laws forbidding county law enforcement from helping the ATF or FBI, who are notorius for persecuting peaceful family loving taxpayers. We could even have "mostly peaceful" protests against those agencies that could, as planned, get out of hand, and the county LEOs could not respond, which would make the lefties here happy, I guess.

I know this place fairly well. It's the wild, wild west and has been for decades.
It has vast amounts of oil and gas that's been mined over the years and LOTS more where that came from. Because of that there's a big oilfield drilling and maintenance presence that constantly turns over because of its very isolated location. And that produces a steady stream of oilfield injuries. Think Land Man...but with no medical care for over a hundred miles.
Some of the worst oilfield injuries I ever had in my practice were shipped out of Loving County.

(10-10-2025 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

Agree, I cannot discern anything illegal, yet.

But it may provide a blueprint for other groups. What if, say, a militia in Idaho employs these tactics to "take over" some remote, sparely populated county, and then pass laws forbidding county law enforcement from helping the ATF or FBI, who are notorius for persecuting peaceful family loving taxpayers. We could even have "mostly peaceful" protests against those agencies that could, as planned, get out of hand, and the county LEOs could not respond, which would make the lefties here happy, I guess.

Would the Supremacy Clause not apply?

(10-10-2025 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

Agree, I cannot discern anything illegal, yet.

But it may provide a blueprint for other groups. What if, say, a militia in Idaho employs these tactics to "take over" some remote, sparely populated county, and then pass laws forbidding county law enforcement from helping the ATF or FBI, who are notorius for persecuting peaceful family loving taxpayers. We could even have "mostly peaceful" protests against those agencies that could, as planned, get out of hand, and the county LEOs could not respond, which would make the lefties here happy, I guess.

Id read up on the Moonies cult and their explicit takeover of a county in (Montana, Idaho) in the 80s and 90s.

The answer to your question, is that nothing prohibits the Feds from enforcing their own laws, in their own system. Mic drop.

If the protests 'get out of hand', nothing prevents the state and governor, or even the State Guard through the governor, from intervening. Mic drop.

Ill take a pass on your once-again attempt to make shade at the end which seems to be an omnipresent component of your posting persona for awhile.

(10-10-2025 03:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

Agree, I cannot discern anything illegal, yet.

But it may provide a blueprint for other groups. What if, say, a militia in Idaho employs these tactics to "take over" some remote, sparely populated county, and then pass laws forbidding county law enforcement from helping the ATF or FBI, who are notorius for persecuting peaceful family loving taxpayers. We could even have "mostly peaceful" protests against those agencies that could, as planned, get out of hand, and the county LEOs could not respond, which would make the lefties here happy, I guess.

Id read up on the Moonies cult and their explicit takeover of a county in (Montana, Idaho) in the 80s and 90s.

The answer to your question, is that nothing prohibits the Feds from enforcing their own laws, in their own system. Mic drop.

If the protests 'get out of hand', nothing prevents the state and governor, or even the State Guard through the governor, from intervening. Mic drop.

Ill take a pass on your once-again attempt to make shade at the end which seems to be an omnipresent component of your posting persona for awhile.

Wave a red flag at a bull, and the predictable happens.

(10-10-2025 03:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 03:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it’s perfectly legal…. But obviously the potential for corruption is massive. The fact that so few people live there isn’t really on point to whom owns the land… and if the people who live there vote say massive taxes on land ownership to generate ‘free’ stuff for the locals, that’s not illegal either, on the surface…. I don’t think.

Agree, I cannot discern anything illegal, yet.

But it may provide a blueprint for other groups. What if, say, a militia in Idaho employs these tactics to "take over" some remote, sparely populated county, and then pass laws forbidding county law enforcement from helping the ATF or FBI, who are notorius for persecuting peaceful family loving taxpayers. We could even have "mostly peaceful" protests against those agencies that could, as planned, get out of hand, and the county LEOs could not respond, which would make the lefties here happy, I guess.

Id read up on the Moonies cult and their explicit takeover of a county in (Montana, Idaho) in the 80s and 90s.

The answer to your question, is that nothing prohibits the Feds from enforcing their own laws, in their own system. Mic drop.

If the protests 'get out of hand', nothing prevents the state and governor, or even the State Guard through the governor, from intervening. Mic drop.

Ill take a pass on your once-again attempt to make shade at the end which seems to be an omnipresent component of your posting persona for awhile.

Wave a red flag at a bull, and the predictable happens.

Wave anything at OO, and watch him turn it into some chip on the shoulder victimhood shitstorm about 'lefties here'. Yeah, the previous sentence is also very predictable, good sir.

This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

George, have you read the book "Blood and Thunder" (Hampton Sides) that looks at this era and the American takeover of the West? It's based mainly in New Mexico rather than Kansas but it is a great read.

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

Can you expand on this?

It may not be the concerns of others, but MY concern (using an extreme for clarity) would be that if you move enough people into the area, you can impose say a 100% tax on oil production or a massive property tax on land owners with the intent to use that money to provide free housing, food, healthcare etc etc etc to the small number of inhabitants who own next to no land... or who are exempt from the assessments because they live there or some other means to 'tax the rich'.

It sounds a lot to me like 'what I would do' if I were someone like Mamdani and I wanted to tax the rich' in even NYC in order to give free stuff to everyone else. The scope and scale are different, but the idea is not.

(10-14-2025 02:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

Can you expand on this?
.

Sure! The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (one of the many pre-Civil War compromises) decreed that slavery in new states formed from those territories would be decided by popular votes -- the notion of "popular sovereignty". One result what that both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed into Kansas to try to tip the scales. Before long they had two competing state legislatures with two competing constitutions. The two factions clashed violently, with raids and sackings, and scores of people were killed. (John Brown, later of Harper's Ferry fame, was one of the leaders of the anti-slavery faction). The period is known as "Bleeding Kansas".

(10-13-2025 04:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

George, have you read the book "Blood and Thunder" (Hampton Sides) that looks at this era and the American takeover of the West? It's based mainly in New Mexico rather than Kansas but it is a great read.

Thanks for the recommendation -- I'll check it out!

From poking around on Amazon, it looks like Hampton Sides has written a number of episodic histories on interesting topics, from the voyages of Captain Cook to the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. Good stuff!

(10-15-2025 08:05 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-14-2025 02:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

Can you expand on this?
.

Sure! The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (one of the many pre-Civil War compromises) decreed that slavery in new states formed from those territories would be decided by popular votes -- the notion of "popular sovereignty". One result what that both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed into Kansas to try to tip the scales. Before long they had two competing state legislatures with two competing constitutions. The two factions clashed violently, with raids and sackings, and scores of people were killed. (John Brown, later of Harper's Ferry fame, was one of the leaders of the anti-slavery faction). The period is known as "Bleeding Kansas".

Transporting me back to my AP US History class!

(10-15-2025 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

George, have you read the book "Blood and Thunder" (Hampton Sides) that looks at this era and the American takeover of the West? It's based mainly in New Mexico rather than Kansas but it is a great read.

Thanks for the recommendation -- I'll check it out!

From poking around on Amazon, it looks like Hampton Sides has written a number of episodic histories on interesting topics, from the voyages of Captain Cook to the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. Good stuff!

Yeah... I need to read his Captain Cook book.

(10-15-2025 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2025 08:05 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-14-2025 02:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2025 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This happened on a much larger scale in Kansas in the 1850s.

Can you expand on this?
.

Sure! The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (one of the many pre-Civil War compromises) decreed that slavery in new states formed from those territories would be decided by popular votes -- the notion of "popular sovereignty". One result what that both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed into Kansas to try to tip the scales. Before long they had two competing state legislatures with two competing constitutions. The two factions clashed violently, with raids and sackings, and scores of people were killed. (John Brown, later of Harper's Ferry fame, was one of the leaders of the anti-slavery faction). The period is known as "Bleeding Kansas".

Transporting me back to my AP US History class!

Folks often trot out (often rather breathlessly) the trope that a certain historical fact is one that they "were never taught in school". I find that in most cases, they actually were taught it in school; they just don't remember it -- most likely because they didn't care in the first place.

Thanks for the info George... and I meet your definition... I knew more than I thought I did... but didn't remember any of the details because I didn't care enough about it back in the dark ages.