Ammon Bundy and fellow “militia” members occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon as a protest of federal land use policies. Ammon Bundy is the son of Cliven Bundy—the rancher who was involved in another armed stand-off with the federal government. Cliven Bundy still owes the American taxpayers over $1 million for grazing his cattle on public land—the sort of sponging off the public that would normally enrage conservatives. While that itself is an interesting issue, my focus will be on discussing the ethics of protest through non-violent armed occupation.
Before getting to the main issue, I will anticipate some concerns about the discussion. First, I will not be addressing the merits of the Bundy protest. Bundy purports to be protesting against the tyranny of the federal government in regards to its land-use policies. Some critics have pointed out that Bundy has benefitted from the federal government, something that seems a bit reminiscent of the infamous cry of “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” While the merit of a specific protest is certainly relevant to the moral status of the protest, my focus is on the general subject of occupation as a means of protest.
Second, I will not be addressing the criticism that if the federal land had been non-violently seized by Muslims protesting Donald Trump or Black Lives Matter activists protesting police treatment of blacks, then the response would have been very different. While the subject of race and protest is important, it is not my focus here. I now turn to the matter of protesting via non-violent armed occupation.
The use of illegal occupation is well established as a means of protest in the United States and was used during the civil rights movement. But, of course, an appeal to tradition is a fallacy—the mere fact that something is well-established does not entail that it is justified. As such, an argument is needed to morally justify occupation as a means of protest.
One argument for occupation as a means of protest is that protestors do not give up their rights simply because they are engaged in a protest. Assuming that they wish to engage in their protest where they would normally have the right to be, then it would seem to follow that they should be allowed to protest there.
One obvious reply to this argument is that people do not automatically have the right to engage in protest in all places they have a right to visit. For example, a public library is open to the public, but it does not follow that people thus have a right to occupy a public library and interfere with its operation. This is because the act of protest would violate the rights of others in a way that would seem to warrant not allowing the protest.
People also protest in areas that are not normally open to the public—or whose use by the public is restricted. This would include privately owned areas as well as public areas that have restrictions. In the case of the Bundy protest, public facilities are being occupied rather than private facilities. However, Bundy and his fellows are certainly using the area in a way that would normally not be allowed—people cannot, in the normal course of things, just take up residence in public buildings. This can also be regarded as a conflict of rights—the right of protest versus the right of private ownership or public use.
These replies can, of course, be overcome by showing that the protest does more good than harm or by showing that the right to protest outweighs the rights of others to use the area that is occupied. After all, to forbid protests simply because they might inconvenience or annoy people would be absurd. However, to accept protests regardless of the imposition on others would also be absurd. Being a protestor does not grant a person special rights to violate the rights of others, so a protestor who engages in such behavior would be acting wrongly and the protest would thus be morally wrong. After all, if rights are accepted to justify a right to protest, then this would provide a clear foundation for accepting the rights of those who would be imposed upon by the protest. If the protestor who is protesting tyranny becomes a tyrant to others, then the protest certainly loses its moral foundation.
This provides the theoretical framework for assessing whether the Bundy protest is morally acceptable or not: it is a matter of weighing the merit of the protest against the harm done to the rights of other citizens (especially those in the surrounding community).
The above assumes a non-violent occupation of the sort that can be classified as classic civil disobedience of the sort discussed by Thoreau. That is, non-violently breaking the rules (or law) in an act of disobedience intended to bring about change. This approach was also adopted by Gandhi and Dr. King. Bundy has added a new factor—while the occupation has (as of this writing) been peaceful, the “militia” on the site is well armed. It has been claimed that the weapons are for self-defense, which indicates that the “militia” is willing to escalate from non-violent (albeit armed) to violent occupation in response to the alleged tyranny of the federal government. This leads to the matter of the ethics of armed resistance as a means of protest.
Modern political philosophy does provide a justification of such resistance. John Locke, for example, emphasized the moral responsibilities of the state in regards to the good of the people. That is, he does not simply advocate obedience to whatever the laws happen to be, but requires that the laws and the leaders prove worthy of obedience. Laws or leaders that are tyrannical are not to be obeyed, but are to be defied and justly so. He provides the following definition of “tyranny”: “Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage.” When the state is acting in a tyrannical manner, it can be justly resisted—at least on Locke’s view. As such, Bundy does have a clear theoretical justification for armed resistance. However, for this justification to be actual, it would need to be shown that federal land use policies are tyrannical to a degree that warrants the use of violence as a means of resistance.
Consistency does, of course, require that the framework be applied to all relevantly similar cases of protests—be they non-violent occupations or armed resistance.
“it would need to be shown that federal land use policies are tyrannical to a degree that warrants the use of violence as a means of resistance.”
The federal government doesn’t have a problem using violence to get what it wants. It’s original configuration didn’t have any problem shooting up the Hessians, which was an act of treason by British subjects. Before and after that the beacon of democracy enthusiastically murdered or exiled the original owners of the country. Now opposition is somehow wrong? Maybe practically but not morally.
However, what passage in the holy and sacred Constitution validates federal ownership of vast areas of the US? In fact, citizens of Massachusetts own not only their own state, but huge sections of western states. On the other hand, citizens of Nevada own no part of Massachusetts and only a portion of their own state. Ergo, the two states, and their citizens, don’t have equal rights.
It’s interesting that US residents feel that they have some ownership stake in federal lands. They do not. Nor should they. Doofus NYT writer Nicholas B. Kristof once described the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as his son’s “birthright”. It ain’t. If it belongs to anyone, it’s the neighborhood Inupiat, not the son of a dilettante that lives thousands of miles away. Of course, the federal government has the deed to the land but no citizen, or even group of them, IS the federal government. Westerners like the Bundy’s and their neighbors are aware that they have no input on decisions affecting the eastern states while easterners make policy and perform actions that have huge negative impacts on the western states. They don’t think that makes any sense and they’re right.
As you point out, beneath all the fluff, might actually *is* right. If the US war of Independence had failed then all of the founding fathers would simply have been hanged as traitors. End of. As it turned out that the British were in no position to hang them they are heroes.
Regarding the native americans, not too many tears need be shed for them as they themselves had no qualms about wars of extermination, slavery and torture. If the Solutrean hypothesis is correct they probably wiped out the original white inhabitants of North America. If it is incorrect they still were a bunch of murderous slavers who were beaten by superior force…which is what has happened all throughout history.
That’s schoolyard logic. The US was and is supposedly bringing the light of democracy to the benighted of the world. Accept it or die. Using the past internecine confrontations of the native Americans as justification for their extermination by a technologically advanced and greedy society is hypocrisy in high heels and fishnet stockings.
By school yard logic do you mean flippant, or superficial? Perhaps it seems like that to you. Not so many years ago I would have agreed with you. Since then I seem to have become more interested in checking assumptions and avoiding endless bullshit.
“The US was and is supposedly bringing the light of democracy to the benighted of the world.”
That’s just propaganda. A founding myth long since hijacked by special interests. Democracy is just one system out of many. Not suitable for all people at all times.
“Using the past internecine confrontations of the native Americans as justification for their extermination by a technologically advanced and greedy society is hypocrisy in high heels and fishnet stockings.”
Sorry, I still don’t get it. They had done it to others so they can hardly squeal when someone does it to them.
That reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a New Zealand Maori who was whining about being invaded by the British. He expected me to feel sorry for the maoris. I told him to be grateful that the British let you live a that was more than the Maoris did for the Morioris, the prior inhabitants exterminated by the technologically and military superior maoris. When he saw that I wasn’t interested in being guilted we got on OK…..
So yes, might actually is right, and makes right. Because winners get to write history and kill or marginalize the losers. Always has been and always will be. No one fights a war and says that the losers were good people fighting to protect their land and culture and way of life but they lost and let’s move on….