Harry Reid has been a "public servant" for his entire career (including working as a security guard for a couple of years while in law school). He has never had a private sector job. He grew up poor and inherited nothing. Yet his net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars.
Like Hillary Clinton's cattle futures "investment" miracle, this is how politicians are bribed. They are not typically bribed with large stacks of unmarked bills. They typically use their extended network of family and cronies as proxies, who participate in various corrupt transactions (often real estate) that superficially look like investments, but are really just payola in a thin disguise (e.g., buying assets at extreme discounts, and selling them at extreme markups, or getting awarded fat government contracts).
Tom Daschle's wife, I recall, was a particularly egregious offender. She was a lobbyist, and if you wanted the Democrat Senate to take any action in your favor, you had to hire her, which (by the way) was very expensive.
The "conspiracy" is not that the particular Chinese solar energy company that is represented by Reid's son is buying the particular parcel that Bundy grazes his cattle on (a deal to be authorized by the former Reid staffer who runs the BLM). Getting Bundy's cattle off of this land will pave the way for some company to buy it (or lease it), even if it's not the one Reid's son represents. The feds will use their control to make more sweetheart, corrupt deals, for the benefit of the ruling caste, even if it's not this particular company buying that particular parcel.
So, the purpose of the State's effort against Bundy is not to get his $1 million in unpaid grazing fees. The BLM and court system will have spent that much over course of the 2 decades of this dispute just litigating and paying cops to enforce the rules. They'll spend that much on government media consultants to manage the PR fallout from this episode. The point of coming down hard on Bundy is not the grazing money. The point is to establish control.
Cenk Uygur, being an authoritarian Statist, sees no problem with federal assertion of control. He never considers the question of the federal government's authority, or the basis for the various federal court decisions (which were decided in favor of federal authority, not surprisingly). Despite his protestations of openness, he never addresses these issues. He emotionally recoils at the mere whiff of an idea of there being any dispute over federal authority, and the idea of local or private guns being deployed against federal guns. He wants federal guns to be aimed with impunity, I guess, and expects them to meet no resistance. Challenges to authority offend Uygur's sensibilities, and so his sympathy evaporates. These are not arguments. They are emotions.
What strikes me, however, is why you, MartV, would come to an anarchist message board touting a video that is based on the unquestioned legitimacy of federal government authority.
I then wonder why you would then argue that such a video, in which the speaker blithely assumes the existence of an authority that does not exist, has "debunked" something. Uygur hasn't debunked anarchism. He merely disregards it. That's not an argument, much less a correct one.
I am also struck by your decision to spend the time to compile your post claiming to have "debunked" Stefan, only to then declare that he's "irrelevant." Irrelevant people are ignored, not challenged. Clearly you have some other motivation, which you are not revealing.