There is some jubilation about the, so-called or seeming, victory in the Bundy Ranch standoff. For now, the federal agents have backed down. It might seem that the libertarian's natural position would be on the side of the rancher. Not me. Bundy's position is very unwise, not productive, and very un-libertarian.
First, Bundy's standoff against federal agents with militia and other armed citizens is downright dangerous. The simple fact is that the government is an institution of force, and the U.S. government, in particular, is an institution of extreme strength. The risk of running into a violent and very deadly escalation is great here. I'm revealed that shots were not fired, and the violence that did take place was relatively mild.
Second, it is unproductive because I suspect that Harry Reid is right: "it's not over." This man owes the government a good deal of money. The government will get it. There are a number of causes that need libertarians' voices. Supporting armed standoffs with the federal government over use of federal land is (a) diverting attention from real libertarian concerns (see below) and (b) is not the way to be considered as a serious and rationale voice in these discourses.
Third, the land belongs to to the federal government, and Bundy owe's fees to the property owners for use of their land. Opposing the use of paying property owners for the use of land is decidedly un-libertarian. In anticipation of some possible objections, I am not arguing that the government should be land-owners (and massive land-owners at that). I am also not interested, in this case, whether this is a state or a federal issue; as far as I can tell, this is federal land. I am also not considering how the federal government came to own that land (e.g., voluntary purchase vs. seizure vs. eminent domain). How they received the land is absolutely a libertarian concern, but as it stands now, the government owns it. As such, it is not a premise I am considering in my argument. The libertarian solution to this should not be to pretend that land-owners can't put a price on the use of their land; the solution is to privatize everything. As Ron Paul said, "This is a typical example of when everyone owns a piece of land and no one does all at the same time."