Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[MistyBlue]

I understand your opinion Anton. I also agree with it when it doesn't involve living things suffering.

But with living things suffering...you and I can use ostracism all we want. By the time it starts to have any lonely affects on the uncaring animal owners..those animals will have either continued to suffer all that time or have died slow painful deaths. Death by starvation or parasite overload is excrutiating by the way. Living with it is also excrutiating.

Had the government come in and done the same with something not living and suffering in an extremely cruel and inhumane manner...I just might be standing right by many of your sides arguing the same side.

When it's affecting a living thing...even though I do consider it property...I can not personally condone the continuation of it's suffering whilst hoping my ignoring the folks purposely causing the suffering is hurting their feelings. That's my opinion.

"One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals." - Mahatma Gandhi"

My opinion is that by blindly supporting the animal abusers..the community as a whole will seem seriously flawed to everyone outside of it. And while many claim they don't care what others may think...they're also never going to grow or progress or ever hit that 20,000 mark without new members. And the members they have now may be perceived differently after the publlicity of this case.

Biting off the nose to spite the face in a way.

[AntonLee]

honest to god, if someone had started a fund to help pay off people who mistreated their animals in return for the release of those animals, I would have donated.

Even an "evil voluntaryist" such as myself doesn't want to see an animal suffer.  I am not willing however to use force against those people.  Not that it matters, but my own personal vet told me that I was abusing my animals because they were overweight.  I give my cats treats twice a day and feed them twice a day.  The same thing I've done since I got my first cat in Cub Scouts.  My first two cats lived a good 9 year life in my home.  I am now labeled an 'animal abuser' as the Vet said and pleaded with me to enter my cat into their "biggest loser" contest.  Prizes awarded for the cat that loses the most weight.  My cats don't care for what I'm sure they consider 'starving' them (I feed them twice a day, but no more treats and a different wet food that's better for them and twice the price).  My baby Bailey didn't eat for an entire day and it killed me to see her laying in the corner.

Now, thank god someone didn't bust into my house and steal my kitties away from me.  I can only hope that no one here takes that step to call some pigs over to 'liberate' my property which also happen to be my friends.

[MistyBlue]

Ah geez...didn't think you were an evil anything. As I said...I understand your point of view. I might not agree with it 100% but you might be surprised as how much of it I do agree with.

I just don't happen to believe that many things can be 100% anything. 100% non-involvement by government doesn't make sense to me. I try looking at it with an analytical mind instead of an idealistic one. Not to say you or anyone else is definitely doing that...but I do definitely pick things apart and think things through and continue the idea in my head through time to see if I think it would work or if research states it has a snowball's chance to work.

In a perfect world...we could leave all animal welfare (to pick one issue) up to each individual. But history shows that's a massive mistake on the parts of the animals. Also current times show the same...just look to other countries that have zero animal welfare laws to enforce.

It's not easy not feeding our cute pets whatever they enjoy. Been there done that a million times over.  An obese pet can develop serious health issues, but the possibility of killing with kindness has a much different impact on a social group than killing with malice or neglect. An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell. And before someone jumps in with "Oh they weren't showing signs of that!" please be aware that prey animals and predators act and react completely opposite to many outside influences. A hurt predator isn't risking it's own life by showing weakness in many cases. It may risk being outcast if it's part of a pride or pack but most predators aren't. If an animal is a natural food source for other animals and *especially* if it's a herd animal...any of it's own kind acting off/differently/slow becomes an instant target for predators. So that makes large herbivores sch as common livestock excessively stoic in regards to showing any weakness.

Remember my comments about colic being a huge horse killer? One manjor reason for that is although it's immensely painful for the horse...the horse rarely shows signs of it at all until it's progressed to a very serious point. It's genetically coded to never show weakness of any type if it can help it. So once an owner sees the physical symptoms...the problem is pretty advanced and many times past the point of any satisfying medical intervention short of surgery.

To *me*...allowing suffering due to a political or social opinion isn't a compassionate thing to do.

As for the reward system of paying off abusers and neglectors to get them to surrender those animals...how do you stop them from acquiring more? And doing the same to the next ones? And if you keep donating to pay them off...aren't you then just aiding the cycle? And not only condoning but rewarding the unwanted behavior while allowing even more animals to suffer the same way?

If there is a way to prevent live property from suffering while being owned by abusive or neglectful owners without the intervention of a third party, I'm all ears. But so far not a single proposed solution has any merit at all. Ostracism? What if the person doesn't care if you like them or not?

[J’raxis 270145]

this seemed to become more of a grudge against some supporters of one side of a failed marriage that I don't even need to know the details of to understand that it's not something that's any of your business.  To attack those who defend others' rights to life, liberty, and property I find downright heinous.  To demean Jraxis in such a manner truly offends me, and shows me how pathetic some of this FSP crowd can be.  What I saw was Jraxis defending someone's right to property against those who decided to fuck off on the NAP.  How disgusting.

All in all, I've decided I'm done listening to people spout off about Bill and Ivy being assholes and people I don't want to associate with.  When it comes down to it, I'm more fearful of some of you calling the police on me because I smoke weed and drive fast than I am Bill and Ivy.  I look forward to finding out for myself sometime about these so called "evil people" as was explained to me once.  As for Mr. Pervert Android, my one time at Taproom he couldn't have been more friendly and welcoming.  Not once did I think he would have called the popo because I had a bag of pot in my pocket.  Some others, I'm not so sure about anymore.

Thanks, Anton. So when the hell are you escaping from MA like I did and moving up here?

[Moebius Tripp]

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of people posting here are adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle.  If each of us professes NAP except for issue x, then we end up stuck in this same growing quagmire of bigger mightier arbitrary government by force.

[anthonybpugh]

Wow, over 50 pages.  I'm not sure if I can read all of this so let me see if I understand things correctly and just sum things up.   

You have got some animals suffering due to the neglect from their owners. 

The owners then hide behind a bunch of witless activists who shamelessly make esoteric arguments about property rights and dispute resolution all while ignoring the fact that animals were suffering and apparently oblivious to the fact that they are simply being used as cover. 

Instead of being ashamed for causing unnecessary suffering due to their careless irresponsible neglect, the owners (along with the cohort of witless activists) are engaged in a very principled libertarian campaign of trying to make excuses and shift blame from themselves and onto other people.

Some people getting on their high horse and talking about being principled as if they know what they are talking about.  Yet they seem to forget about your basic core principles such as Integrity, Responsibility and Compassion.   

The person who showed compassion and did something to help end the suffering of these animals is somehow the unprincipled one here and is now the bad guy?

[AntonLee]

so when can I come over to take your things?  Nevermind I don't need to ask.

[J Leblanc]

A chance to do the right thing is about to happen .I hope they take this op. and don't blow it.I will fill everyone in after it happens All the work we have done better not be for nothing.Be back tonite.

[leetninja]

I think its time to tell the whole story .My next post will do just that but I need to get rid of the anger first .I'll give you this much now .Beth tried for months to get Brians wife to listen ,when it didn't work she came to me .Tell you the rest later!

your posts sound like a bad radio host doing a commercial break tease ...

[Lloyd Danforth]

The horses are probably going to be returned do to the bills that are being run up and the shelter law no longer in effect.

[MistyBlue]

Yes, the horses will most likely be returned today if not soon. Not because of the shelter laws as much as the fact thay the law states this was a temporary seizure. Temporary means they get them back. I'm sure the younger stock have been fed back up to a level no longer dangerous to them and it is quite expensive for the SPCA to provide all the testing, health care and feed the horses needed. Brian and Heidi know that...they chose to keep the money for possible attorneys and bail instead of using ti to care for their horses. Much better to create a cause du jour and get tons of attention and donations than to feed the horses you can see through your window shivering due to lack of feed and shelter...watching them waste away to bones. 
So I guess the comments on the state or SPCA taking them for all the money they'll get wasn't correct. They lose money on stuff like this all the time. They're over run with animals in need and have to follow the laws regarding a temporary seizure. Dollars to donuts Heidi never repays them for saving her horses. Or uses any money to put up decent shelters and not ones made out of sticks. You don't have to put up the Taj Mahal...but something weatherproof might be a good idea. They *have* to had looked up the shelter laws by now I'd hope.
FWIW...has anyone called the SPCA or visited there to ask any questions? Because they were inundated with calls and complaints from countless people on those horses. Daily calls in most cases. From people driving by and seeing the deplorable conditions of those animals. Perfect strangers cared more about the suffering of those horses than Heidi or Brian did. And since they don't share the FSP views on 'no government' they did what they could and called the SPCA.
They (SPCA) were probably waiting for the owners to do the right thing...they never did until forced to do so. And even then have done it supposedly half-arsed. So blame Beth for the countless other people who called about those animals...makes no sense but then I'm not selling common sense on here.  And never think this could be Brian and Heidi making their own trouble...after all it's not like Heidi has a history of doing this. Or that either has a history of lying about it. Or that they've now actually put up decent shelters...because who would put up ones made of sticks if they REALLY cared about those horses? Or if they REALLY cared about not getting in trouble and attracting attention again? (my rolly eye muscles are pooped out, so imagine some inserted here)

[sandm000]

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of people posting here are adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle.  If each of us professes NAP except for issue x, then we end up stuck in this same growing quagmire of bigger mightier arbitrary government by force.

I prefer to call it the Zero Agression Principle.

Also the except for issue x is the central theme of this thread, do animals have rights, do people have an obligation to care for them?

Deer licenses are sold by the state every year to cull the dear, which are arguably the cutest creature in the woods. So the exact opposite of an obligation to support deer exists in current society. So why is there a positive obligation to feed any other animal on your land?

[MistyBlue]

Shooting deer isn't causing long term suffering. Neither is shooting a horse. Catching a deer, putting it in a tiny enclosure too small for it to develop and stay healthy, denying it shelter or the means to shelter itself and then slowly starving it is a hella lot different than sighting one and dropping it.



Not to bore anyone else with the horsie facts...but lack of movement means they cannot digest properly. The more they move, the better their guts work. Nature evolved them to walk and digest at the same time. Less movement = less digestion. Just an FYI.

[NJLiberty]

It has taken 53 pages to discuss a simple property right's issue? Methinks a lot of folks have let their emotions get in the way of reason.

I must confess I have not waded through all 53 pages of this discussion, but from what I have read I am left wondering if it were something less cute than a horse would any of this have happened? If I were raising earthworms for example to be sold to be impaled on a hook and used for bait, and I didn't keep their bedding moist and they dehydrated to the point that they died would anyone care? Would someone come out to my farm, seize the worms, and nurse the survivors back to health? I suspect not. And I suspect it would be the same with many types of animals that don't elicit a warm and fuzzy reaction from people.

But why should it be any different for horses? I don't pretend to know whether the horses were treated well or not. That is a separate issue from whether or not the government should be called in to seize someone's property. If the horses were owned by these folks then it is up to them to decide how to feed, house and maintain them. If they want to mistreat their property and render their property useless, it would be asinine, but their choice. It isn't up to me to tell them how to maintain their property. They aren't my horses. I may disagree with them about the way they are maintaining their property, but the fact remains they aren't mine. It would be the same if they were horses, cows, pigs, chickens, or what have you. I don't suddenly have some special claim on these folks simply because they are keeping livestock. 

Now before the animal lovers on here jump me, I don't condone or support the mistreatment of any type of animal. My mother-in-law works for a horse rescue farm out in California. It never ceases to amaze me what people will do to their animals. It is a shame that any animal suffers the way some of them do. I don't understand why someone would mistreat their own property, particularly another living thing they have taken into their care, but then again I don't understand a lot of things that people think, say, and do.

However I cannot condone the forced seizure of someone else's property, living or non-living, because I don't like the way they take care of it. Using force  to impose my will and my opinions on others is simply wrong.

If I was aware that someone was mistreating their property I could certainly talk to them about it. I could try to help them find a better solution for their situation. If it is apparent that they are doing this maliciously, rather than through ignorance or just an inability to cope with the situation, then I would no longer have anything to do with these folks because they would not be the sort of people I would want to associate with. And yes shunning folks could take too long for it to save the animals in question, but in my opinion it is better that a few animals die while a peaceful solution is reached, than to promote and support the stealing of other people's property.

George

[shyfrog]

Can we just merge all the 9/11, Browns, NAP/ZAP, and Ivy threads with this one? 

And please remember, if you can't take care of your horses like everyone else...







...then you shouldn't be raising horses!

Hey Misty, I can roll my eye too  yarrr