美國內華達州牧區牛仔持槍抵抗聯邦警察，是否符合民主制度？

01-19

路透社14/04/14報道，美國政府清剿違規農場數百民兵持槍抵制，請問這種行為是是否符合美國精神，民主制度，還是內華達州地理位置比較特殊的原因
相關鏈接美國政府清剿違規農場遭數百民兵持槍逼退(高清組圖)
如果美國政府向最高法院提起訴訟，訴訟是否會被通過，法院是否有強制執行力了？

This is not related to democracy at all, because Cliven Bundy supported himself by state rights as well as his family inheritance. But neither stands up to close scrutiny. I would say this more resembles a state of anarchy rather than a state of democracy, because democracy assumes "equality before the law".

However, this phenomenon showed the intrinsic irony in a western democratic society. Suppose the BLM(bureau of land management) people did dispel the crowd by force and caused injuries during the process, who will be responsible for the bloodshed? Theoretically no one has the right to thump the law, and violators should be punished. But in reality, once the protesters were injured during the process and people appeared rather agitated, the cast of the blame is always on the law enforcement section of the government. Any democratic government dare to enforce violence on its people, legitimately or illegitimately, will always risk the chance of being toppled down by a greater force or swamped in civil war.

Thomas Jefferson wrote famously in the declaration of independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly the spirit still echo with us nowadays. But who has the right to judge if the government did "destructive ends"? If the government claimed itself being legitimate, while harming civilians (in this case, Bundy"s son) for violating its administrative order or court decisions, is it still legitimate anymore? I would guess most people"s gut feelings would be such a government is reaching out too far. Such popular resentment would risk the whole administration to be discredited and even revolutionized. I believe that"s precisely what BLM tried to avoid.

The federalist"s belief is in a large enough country like United States, different interest group will be in rough balance of each other, and the diversity of the interests guarantees neither side would gain the upper hand to enforce tyranny. Thus democracy will be preserved in the end. But they did not, and could not answer the question coming afterwards, that what if there is severe internal discord which could disintegrate the federal state, and it cannot be solved via "administrative or judicial means", or employment of legitimized state violence. For example, what if the two parties abide different law and could not reach an agreement? What if the court effectively dismissed the case ( like Marbury v. Madison)? What if the court decision is ethically wrong(like Dred Scott v. Sanford)? What if the court decision is right but cannot be easily enforced in real life(like Worcester v. Georgia, Brown v. Board of Education or this one)? What if the effort to enforce it caused further violence and greater injustice to a large group of people(like Whiskey Rebellion) ? I do not think there is a simple answer to these questions in any democratic society. One needs both great political wisdom and great political power to tackle them properly.

In this case, Cliven Bundy felt he was mistreated because:

Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue -- that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They"ve closed all those things down, and we"re here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We"re after liberty. That"s what we want.

and he has a point, that local affairs should be decided by local people in principle. No one will be happy if someone far above from them makes decision impacting his or her daily lives. However, it appears to me that this is merely an excuse for failing to pay the federal tax(or more appropriately, the grazing fee) and being responsible for the delicate desert environment. While I cannot deny his action has an element of valor in it, I think it reflects more on the growing dichotomy in US politics across different levels (federal vs state, individual vs the government) and different interest groups(ranchers vs environmental protectionists), and not just on the spirit of democracy as he claimed.

Note:

At here, no effort is made to distinguish democracy from plutocracy, oligarchy, or different forms of democracy, or how its implementation in real life related to various political ideology regarding the notion of justice. I use "legal equality, freedom and rule of law" as a rough definition of democracy at here. For detailed discussion on this topic, the interested reader is encouraged to read the article by GildenPage cited below.

Needless to say, a better understanding of current American politics would be beneficial to the article as it suffers from its poor generality.

As other commentators pointed out, this article could also benefit from a thorough discussion regarding regional autonomy. Unfortunately I knew little in this area. The interested reader is encouraged to read the Atlantic article cited below, which discussed "States" rights" in Cliven Bundy"s case and dismissed his claim, but did not touch the issue of local government of federal land. A few other articles in support of Cliven Bundy expressed disgust with BLM"s mismanagement of federal land in Nevada, and their opinion is partly supported by the US vs Hage case. It would be interesting to find sources corroborating Cliven Bundy"s claim that BLM usurped their power to expel ranchers for ulterior purposes. But what I found are not trustworthy (Quora articles, Bundy"s family"s interviews, conservative websites, etc) in this regard.

References:

Google map of the location:

Satellite

Court order:

Court Order Granting Motion to Enforce Injunction on Cliven Bundy

Court decision:

File:United States v Bundy Court Order July 2013.pdf

News articles:

Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government

Cliven Bundy: 「The citizens of America」 got my cattle back in Nevada

Nevada rancher threatens "range war" against federal government

Right or wrong, controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy continues

Atlantic Journal Article:

The Irony of Cliven Bundy"s Unconstitutional Stand

Wikipedia page:

Bundy standoff

Historical Documents:

Declaration of Independence

The Federalist #10

The Federalist #33

State of Nevada"s Constitution:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

Articles that support Cliven Bundy:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/question-day-bundy-ranch-range-war/

U.S. Politics: What are the issues in the dispute between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management?

U.S. Politics: Which side is right in the Cliven Bundy Nevada Cattle Seizure case?

Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

A similar case in the past:

US vs Hage:

Hage v. US - American Stewards Of Liberty

#07-672: 08-29-07 United States Sues to Stop Illegal Grazing on Federal Lands

http://www.r-calfusa.com/property_rights/130524FindingsOfFactAndConclusionsOfLaw.pdf

GildenPage"s paper on American democracy VS oligarchy:

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

第一反應這是一個法律問題，跟民主制度沒關係。

但是看了鉛筆的回答，這還真是一個民主制度方面的問題。不過仔細一想這應該說是一個民主精神、意識、文化的問題，這些東西導致了制度和法律的產生。

想想類似的事件在國內，討論的深度遠遠不及這個美國發生的事情。不得不說我們一定程度上還在蠻荒期。

感謝 @鉛筆詳盡的回答，尤其他列出的 references 對於理解整個事件有極大幫助。早上看到後就想捎帶手做個翻譯，譯畢才發現昨天已有知友@孫旭冉搞定，但旭冉童鞋是逐句翻譯，在下則盡量成文連貫，也不算做了無用功，希望對大家有幫助。如有謬誤，請法律大牛不吝賜教。以下為譯文：

這與民主關係甚微，Cliven Bundy 主要用州權和家族繼承來為自己辯護，但細察之下這兩點都很難站住腳。要我說，較之民主，他的聲明更應被看做無政府主義。

但這次事件無疑可以折射出西方民主社會的一些諷刺之處。設若 BLM（土地管理局）的人當真以強迫乃至暴力手段驅散民眾，誰應為流血事件負責？當然，理論上沒人有權踐踏法律，暴力行為必將受到相應懲罰。可是現實中如果真發生了這樣的事，如有抗議者受傷，群情激昂，輿論沸騰，政府執法部門必定飽受譴責。任何政府要是敢於對它的民眾施以暴力，無論理由正當與否，它就必然面臨被顛覆的風險，乃至陷入內戰的泥淖。

以下是托馬斯·傑斐遜在《獨立宣言》中的名句：

「任何形式的政府一旦對這些目標的實現起破壞作用時，人民便有權予以更換或廢除，以建立一個新的政府。新政府所依據的原則和組織其權利的方式，務使人民認為唯有這樣才最有可能使他們獲得安全和幸福。」

這種精神仍然閃耀於今。但誰又有權指證政府「正在破壞平等、獨立和自由」？如果政府以破壞社會秩序或執行法庭判決為由傷害民眾（此案當中是 Bundy 的兒子）並聲稱自己所行皆屬合法，它就當真合法嗎？我猜大多數人可能會直覺地認為政府的行為越過了某條界線，由此產生的忿恨會令其統治失去公信力，乃至爆發革命。我相信這正是 BLM 不願看到，亦會竭力避免的。

聯邦主義者的信條是，在一個像美國這麼大的國家當中，不同利益集團應當保持大致平衡，而利益多元能夠保證沒有任何一方能占太大優勢，以致出現專制暴政。因此，民主應當被堅持到底。但他們未曾也無法回答由此衍生的一個問題：當國家內部出現足以使聯邦分崩離析的激烈對抗，又無法以「行政或司法手段」解決時，他們該怎麼辦？同樣，他們也無法回答關於國家暴力合法化之問題。例如，當雙方分別遵守不同法律之規定而又無法達成共識？行政權與司法權衝突該當如何（如馬伯利訴麥迪遜案）？法庭判決違背道義該當如何（如斯科特訴桑福德案）？法庭判決雖正當，但在現實生活中很難執行又該當如何（如伍斯特訴喬治亞州、布朗訴托皮卡教育局案以及此案）？判決的執行過程中又產生新的暴力行為和對更多人不公平怎麼辦（如威士忌暴亂）？我不認為有任何民主社會能夠給出一個簡單清晰的答案，這需要極高的政治智慧和極強的政治力量。

此案中，Cliven Bundy 認為政府對自己很不公平：「吶，我那些牲口是小事——美國法院判定政府可以沒收我的牲口，但政府順帶沒收了內華達州的獨立地位，內華達的法律，沒收了克拉克縣的公有土地及其使用權，沒收了克拉克縣其他人民在共有土地上打獵、捕魚的一切權利。我們抗議的是這個。我們要的是自由民的地位，和我們的合法權利。」

他的觀點是克拉克縣事務原則上應由克拉克縣人民自行決定，如果有人大老遠跑過來干涉你家裡的事，替你做決定，你絕不會高興。當然了，在我看來這不過是不想交稅和不想為土地沙漠化擔責的託辭。不可否認的是，這是一位血勇之人，我覺得這是美國政治不同層面上愈演愈烈的對立衝突的直接體現（聯邦與各州，個人與政府），也是不同利益群體之間的矛盾（牧場主與環保主義者），而非像他所說的那樣出於民主精神。

我的阿拉伯語答案被管理員大大刪了

整個人都不好了

(＃－－)/ .

我覺得現在知乎的趨勢應該是鼓勵各種語言答題

(￣︶￣)↗

我做一下@鉛筆的翻譯，如果有錯請告知。以後有這種事都叫我來翻譯好了，我純當英語提高了。樓下有 @大果的翻譯看上去比我好，你們可以去看，他有列出中文維基百科的鏈接，由於我看的是鉛筆給的英文鏈接出於英文水平的不足和背景知識的欠缺我做出的簡單的引文解釋有問題，維基中文版居然補足了其背景知識（才知道有中文對應我的眼淚掉下來）。鉛筆後來又做過了更改，從原來認為農場主的不負責任轉為支持其為自己權利的捍衛，並且更改了一些語句，補充了一些例證。（我有很認真地發過私信，結果他不收，大哭。）我的翻譯接近直譯，大果更多是意譯，不過有些語句我的理解和他不同，我明天發私信問他吧（求這次收！）。

This is not related to democracy at all, because Cliven Bundy supported himself by state rights as well as his family inheritance.

1.此次事件完全與民主無關，因為Cliven Bundy是以州權和他的家庭遺產為由支持他的行動。

But neither stands up to close scrutiny.

2.但是這二者均經不起嚴密地推敲。

I would say this more resembles a state of anarchy rather than a state of democracy.

3.我認為這個與其說是民主狀態不如說是一種無政府主義。

However, this phenomenon showed the intrinsic irony in a western democratic society.

4.然而，這次的現象成為了對於西方民主社會的深層次諷刺。

Suppose the BLM(bureau of land management) people did dispel the crowd by force and caused injuries during the process, who will be responsible for the bloodshed?

5.假設美國土地管理局的人員的確驅散了人群並且在過程中導致了人員受傷，那麼誰又將會為這次的流血事件負責呢？

Theoretically no one has the right to thump the law, and violators should be punished.

6.理論上沒有人有權利去踐踏法律，違法者理應受到懲處。

But in reality, once the protesters were injured during the process and people appeared rather agitated, the cast of the blame is always on the law enforcement section of the government. Any government dare to enforce violence on its people, legitimately or illegitimately, will always risk the chance of being toppled down by a greater force or swamped in civil war.

7.但是實際上，一旦反對者在過程中受傷並且人們顯得極其激動，政府的執法機構便會遭到加罪。任何政府膽敢施予暴力對他的人民，無論是合法或非法，都將冒著被更強的暴力推翻或深陷內戰之中。

Thomas Jefferson wrote famously in the declaration of independence:

8.湯姆斯傑弗遜在獨立宣言中廣為人知地寫道

9"一旦任何形式的政府對於上述目標造成損害時，人民便有權去改變和推翻它並且建立一個新的政府，它以上述原則為基石，以上述原則為形式去組織它的權利，以至於人民最有希望達到他們的安全與幸福。

Clearly the spirit still echo with us nowadays. But who has the right to recognize if the government did "destructive ends"?

10.很明顯這種精神依然與現在的我們應和。

If the government claimed itself being legitimate, while harming civilians (in this case, Bundy"s son) for violating its administrative order or court decisions, is it still legitimate anymore?

11.如果政府宣稱它是合法政府，那麼當它懲處那些違反它的管理條例以及法庭判決的民眾時，它仍然合法嗎？（在這次事件是Bundy的兒子）

I would guess most people"s gut feelings would be such a government is reaching out too far.

12.我認為大多數的民眾的直覺將是政府管得太寬了。

Such popular resentment would risk the whole administration to be discredited and even revolutionized. I believe that"s precisely what BLM tried to avoid.

13.這種廣泛的怒氣將會產生整個行政機構被不信任甚至會被推翻。我確信這是美國土地管理局竭力避免的。

14.聯邦制的理念在於像美國這樣足夠大的國家裡，不同的利益團體彼此之間互有一個大致的平衡，利益的多樣化保證了任何一方也不能取得優勢實施殘暴的統治。

Thus democracy will be preserved in the end. But they did not, and could not answer the question coming afterwards, that what if there is severe internal discord which could disintegrate the federal state, and it cannot be solved via "administrative or judicial means", or employment of legitimized state violence.

15.如此民主將會在最終得到保存。但是他們沒有也不能回答接踵而來的問題，那就是國內嚴重的不和會撕裂聯邦國家，並且這也是不能被行政或法律手段解決。並且這種不和會導致合法化的國家暴力的運用。

For example, what if the two parties abide different law and could not reach an agreement?

16.例如如果雙方遵守不同的法律並且無法達成協議呢？

What if the court refused to make a decision( like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)?

17.如果法庭拒絕作出裁決呢？（諸如Mar這個人已經被哥倫比亞區的長官任命為地方執法官，結果他的任命被他的上級拒絕，於是Mar告到當地法院，法院裁定他的上級違法但是拒絕替Mar強制任命。於是Mar上訴到最高法院提請違憲，但是法院以初審管轄權為由，拒絕了Mar的要求。）

What if the court decision is ethically wrong(like Dred Scott v. Sanford)?

18.那如果法庭判決從倫理上來說是錯的呢？（這個案例在1857年，Dred是一個非裔美國奴隸，他想取得自由，就告到法院，法院裁決非裔美國人無論自由還是被奴役均不是美國民眾，因此沒有權利訴訟。並且裁決在所有美國建立之後的土地上聯邦政府無權對奴隸製作出任何干涉。）

What if the court decision is right but cannot be easily enforced in real life(like Worcester v. Georgia, Brown v. Board of Education or this one)?

19.那麼如果法庭判決正確，然而卻無法在現實生活中輕易執行呢？（W這個案例是法院取消了一個傳教士的有罪判決，並且判定喬治亞州關於非美國生人沒有本州許可出現在美國生人的領地有罪的法令是違憲的。因為這個判決關係到了當地部落，州以及聯邦政府三方，所以是一個很麻煩的判決。Brown這個判決就更厲害了，它裁決公立學校中黑人白人分隔制度的法規違法，但是這個判決其實是經過很久的孕育的，之前有第十四修正案的平等保護條例作保，這個判決被認為是民權運動的重大勝利）

I do not think there is a simple answer to these questions in any democratic society. One needs both great political wisdom and great political power to tackle them properly.

20.我不認為在任何民主社會對於這些問題會有一個簡單的答案。這個答案既需要偉大的政治智慧，也需要強大的政治力量，從而可以妥善地處理這些問題。

In this case, Cliven Bundy felt he was mistreated because:

21.在本次事件中Cliven Bundy感到被不公正對待是因為

...(they) have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They"ve closed all those things down, and we"re here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We"re after liberty. That"s what we want.

22.他們掌握了所有那些喜歡打獵釣魚的卡拉克郡人的其他權利。他們取消這些事情，所有我們抗議這個法令，我們追尋自由，我們追尋解放。這就是我們的所求。

and he has a point, that local affairs should be decided by local people in principle.

23.他有個觀點那就是原則上當地人決定當地事。

No one will be happy if someone far above from them makes decision impacting his or her daily lives.

24. 沒有人會高興一些遠離自己的人做一些影響自己日常生活的決定。However, it appears to me that this is merely an excuse for failing to pay the federal tax and being responsible for the delicate desert environment.

25.然而我認為這些不過是拒絕支付聯邦賦稅和對脆弱的沙漠環境的不負責的借口罷了。

While I cannot deny his action has an element of valor in it, I think it reflects more on the growing dichotomy in US politics across different levels and different interest groups, and not just on the spirit of democracy as he claimed.

26.在我不能否認他行為英勇的同時，我認為這個行為反應了美國不同層面不同利益團體在美國政治中逐漸增長的分裂，而並不是他所聲稱的民主。

Reference:

Bundy standoff

The Irony of Cliven Bundy"s Unconstitutional Stand

Cliven Bundy: 「The citizens of America」 got my cattle back in Nevada

我快要累死了，佩服鉛筆。求檢查，求表揚。

大洛杉磯可以說是美國左派大本營。

德克薩斯州，內華達州可是說是美國右派大本營，小布希就是德州的。

此次行動符合不符合美國法律不評價，但絕對符合自由主義的精髓。

其實作為全世界自由主義堡壘的美國也在一天天墮落啊！

奧巴馬下台，民主黨下台，保守派共和黨上！

怕被噴，匿了。

這就是一種民主。那麼多人持槍反對聯邦政府，在專制國家，有可能嗎（即使不持槍）？

政府懲罰不了他們，因為這是一個三權分立國家，政府只有行政權沒有司法權。

但是這在法律層面說是一種過於極端的民主。人民拿起槍來反對聯邦政府，使得聯邦政府無法工作。這種事件，很像中國「文革」時期，紅衛兵不是官員而是普通人民，但是可以隨意打砸搶燒，看起來很民主？但是造成了很大的破壞，踐踏了他人的權利，讓經濟停滯不前。這就是極端民主的惡果。

謝謝。

不能說這種行為符合不符合民主制度，只能說合不合法，回答是不合法，但我認為這種行為符合民主精神，因為這麼多人，他們都是人民，有自己的訴求，為什麼要侵害他們的利益滿足另外一部分人的利益？況且，這個錢收過去誰知道你政府拿來幹嘛用？還給華爾街那群銀行家們發獎金？

天朝拆遷，農民冤死，有人就羨慕起美國人，說要是這些農民能像美國人一樣手裡有槍，就不至於這樣。現在，美國的農民們出來親身示範了。

真想點贊，美國步槍協會（National Rifle Association）一直反對政府管控槍支的最大理由之一就是：當這個政府想要侵害公民利益的時候，擁有武器的公民能夠反抗強權，which也是共和黨人一直堅守的價值觀。

現在It"s the time!完美的符合了這一價值觀，對此我又想說求仁得仁又何怨，又想說不作死就不會死，還想說作繭自縛自作自受自己挖坑自己埋。

沒錯我就是幸災樂禍的態度！

現在所有和我一樣對美國民主嗤之以鼻的傢伙都在盯著美國，看他們如何處理這次事件，要麼政府讓步，損失一些利益，換取民主這個詞不被玷污，要麼美國政府實施暴力，給環球時報提供靶子。

（我覺得共和黨應該很希望是前者，這樣無論奧觀海如何解釋，都可以把民主黨描述為一個暴政的形象，「看啊！這就是一個專制政府的下場！看啊！人民持槍的權力果然是不可或缺的！」即使是後者，奧觀海的屁股也不好擦。）

政府當然可以宣稱他們不合法，因為法律就是政府制訂出來的，如果不合法可以成為政府暴力鎮壓剝奪民眾權利的借口的話，那麼擁有武器的民眾任何時候都不可能「合法的」反對政府了。

不過話說回來，美國政府是否可以考慮接受民眾的要求呢？無非就是一塊地而已。

如果以善意的想法來思考的話，這些反抗者和警察之間是否會有一定的默契呢？彼此都不至於開第一槍，因為誰都知道開槍的後果，這又不是獨立戰爭，是人民內部矛盾，「亂民」們拿起槍，也只不過是想獲得一點談判的籌碼罷了。

題主可以去看看囧司徒每日秀，最近一期有講這件事，還挺搞笑的，裡面的民兵說，如果發生戰鬥，就讓女人沖在前面，這樣電視就會拍到政府向女人開槍。有木有，超逗的。

然後那個違規農場主，因為放牧好像欠了上百萬的債，一直不還,法院最後沒辦法才派人過去，強制收他的牛。那農場主，還自稱不承認美國政府，覺得自己就是開國元帥，結果還到處拿著美國國旗，自己打自己臉...#囧司徒每日秀#【美民兵與政府武裝對峙事件】

因政府圍捕非法放牧的牧民牲畜，美國政府騎警和牧民支持者近日在西部的內華達州爆發衝突。12日，美國政府宣布返還圍捕的400多頭牲畜，以結束對峙。據媒體報道，美國政府圍捕牧民牲畜的最初原因是當地要發展太陽能電力，而發電廠將由一家中國公司建造，美國參議院多數黨領袖、民主黨人里德及其長子是這個預計耗資50億美元太陽能計劃的「利益相關人」。