Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[D Stewart]

And why is it that animals do not have rights?

The question is, whence do rights derive? Answer that and you can figure out if animals have rights or not.

No, this is not the question.  If it were, the issue would be a moral one, that animals would clearly have rights, and that we should not transgress against them unduly.  IMO, that might make it OK to do animal slaughter, sacrifice, eating, testing, labor, etc.  In someone else's opinion, that might not make it OK to use the animal for anything at all.

But again, not the point.

The point is, our government is not established to protect the animals or their rights.  It is founded in consent of the people, instituted for their general good, and the only natural rights which shall be surrendered are those surrendered equivalently by all men in order to ensure the protection of other men.  An animal is not a member of our community under Part 1 Article 12, nor does he pay taxes reciprocally for such protections.

Any complaint against an individual for animal cruelty or mistreatment cannot properly be brought through the mechanisms of government.

A complaint against a person for having allowed or caused his animal to interfere with someone else's property or person might be properly brought.  If we are to believe that the true basis for the actions at the Travis farm falls within these bounds, then I am a monkey's uncle.  However, if the asserted basis is now going to be that the horses were not properly vaccinated so as to protect the equine property of others, then that would IMO be a reasonable cause for the government to act.  Clearly, they would properly act in a very different way.

A complaint for breach of contract is also fair.  If breach of a perpetual conservation easement were the true issue here, a civil action might reasonably be brought.

Moreover, these issues often are based on hugely subjective judgments which arise not least due to ignorance (as to animals and their behavior and proper treatment) on the part of one or both of the parties.

[Peacemaker]

Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.

It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.

That is certainly possible, but

• Sprowl's threat to get a warrant was empty. They needed a vet to assert probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. The easy way to do that would be to prejudice the local vet(s) against the Travises.
• Small town cop politics... The cop said he knew Brian well. Since they were not socially acquainted, it is reasonable to infer that the cops had their eye on Brian et al because of their "radical" tendencies, and he knew Brian "well" because he had run a background check on him.
• Cops and bullies like Sprowl always get their knickers in a twist when their authority is challenged, and usually go into vendetta mode.

Great analysis.  The Bully, Sprowl, got "Dissed" (then got Pissed) when he showed up the first time and couldn't Tresspass, so he made plans to get even. 

I"m hoping for a Back to the Future ending where "Biff" ends up working for the one he bullied! (the Horses Caretaker!...fat chance). 

Come to think of it, for convenience sake, can we refer to Sprowl as "BIFF" in the future?   He think he's earned the Nickname.

[dalebert]

Shenandoah (1965)

This film starring Jimmy Stewart portrays a widower named Anderson at the time of the War between the States who refuses to join either side and just wants to be left alone. His crusty independence and anti-war attitude have made this film a libertarian favourite. As an exercise in nostalgia, Mr. Anderson's rugged individualism is enjoyable. But don't forget how impractical it is... What if Americans all started minding their own business like him? Imagine if all Americans, like Mr. Anderson, focussed primarily on raising virtuous, hard-working children and cultivating their own property instead of "accepting responsibility" as world leaders and getting involved in every two-bit border conflict on the globe and starving Iraqi children out. Here's some favourite quotes from the film:

"Virginia needs all of her sons, Mr. Anderson."
"That might be so, Johnson. But these are my sons. They don't belong to
the state. We never asked anything of the state & never expected anything."
"What's confiscate mean, Pa?" "Steal."
"Like all wars I suppose... The undertakers are winning it."

Movie night?

[margomaps]

Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.

It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.

That is certainly possible, but

• Sprowl's threat to get a warrant was empty. They needed a vet to assert probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. The easy way to do that would be to prejudice the local vet(s) against the Travises.
• Small town cop politics... The cop said he knew Brian well. Since they were not socially acquainted, it is reasonable to infer that the cops had their eye on Brian et al because of their "radical" tendencies, and he knew Brian "well" because he had run a background check on him.
• Cops and bullies like Sprowl always get their knickers in a twist when their authority is challenged, and usually go into vendetta mode.

Great analysis.  The Bully, Sprowl, got "Dissed" (then got Pissed) when he showed up the first time and couldn't Tresspass, so he made plans to get even. 

I"m hoping for a Back to the Future ending where "Biff" ends up working for the one he bullied! (the Horses Caretaker!...fat chance). 

Come to think of it, for convenience sake, can we refer to Sprowl as "BIFF" in the future?   He think he's earned the Nickname.

And in other news, my mailman didn't deliver my mail right after the last snowstorm.  I had a verbal disagreement with the post office a few weeks back about a damaged package, and that smarmy mailman has been looking for an excuse to screw me over ever since.  It just so happens that the plow came through 10 minutes before the mailman and blocked off my mailbox with a huge mound of snow.  Coincidence?  No way: the mailman and plow guy obviously met beforehand and conspired to deprive me of my mail.

Everyone knows about mailmen acting this way (they're federal employees after all), but fewer are aware of the plow guys out there who have it out for people with driveways.   

[BillKauffman]

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences!    My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm.   Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.

Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?

Just like human children... not until they're taught. A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.

How do you know that they know?

A child at a certain age can understand how it feels to hurt another person because they can be hurt themselves by someone else.

But a wolf? I don't think so...

You don't think at a certain time in their lives that a wolf has been bitten by another and felt pain?

How do you know the difference between observing instinct and learned behavior where the animal can understand/know consequences?

[Sam A. Robrin]

Movie night?

I was thinking the same thing.
There's no copy listed in the Keene library's catalog, though.
Incidentally, mises.org has a long list of favored movies: http://mises.org/content/film.asp

[erisian]

Coincidence?  No way: the mailman and plow guy obviously met beforehand and conspired to deprive me of my mail.

Everyone knows about mailmen acting this way (they're federal employees after all), but fewer are aware of the plow guys out there who have it out for people with driveways.   

You don't have much experience with small town cops or self-important control freaks, do you?
They are usually petty, vindictive, are known to hold grudges for a long time, and live to use their positions to mess with other people's lives by any means necessary. When you diss one, retribution will surely come.

[freedan]

Here is a link to a BB that has no charity for Brian and Heidi. I do not feel qualified to respond on this horse focus BB. They seem to have vilified the victims here with out much evidence. It seems that the powers in action here do not wish us to see said evidence. Why is that?! There seems to be some incident in Colorado that has these horse people convinced of the guilt of Heidi specifically. Someone of equine interest and aware of Heidi and Brian's true reputation should post a response on this site:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194174

Dan

[J’raxis 270145]

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences!    My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm.   Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.

I could program a very simple mechanical device to engage in the stimulus–response mechanism you're describing. As for trainability ("understanding consequences," as you put it), that's pretty simple to program, too. Would such devices now be "self-aware" and deserving of rights?

A dog is not self-aware, and it's only sentient by the extremely broad definition of possessing sensory awareness (it can see, smell, &c.), not the more important definition of possessing consciousness.

[BillKauffman]

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences!    My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm.   Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.

I could program a very simple mechanical device to engage in the stimulus–response mechanism you're describing. As for trainability ("understanding consequences," as you put it), that's pretty simple to program, too. Would such devices now be "self-aware" and deserving of rights?

A dog is not self-aware, and it's only sentient by the extremely broad definition of possessing sensory awareness (it can see, smell, &c.), not the more important definition of possessing consciousness.

Yes. Thanks. Consciousness, as well as, sentience!

[J’raxis 270145]

It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group.  And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass.  When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?

This logic is faulty; you're comparing apples and oranges. "Gun owners" isn't a set group of people who joined an organization with a mission statement, bylaws, &c.. The SPCA is.

If people here were vilifying "animal lovers" as evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c., you could compare them to "gun owners."

If people are vilifying the SPCA similarly, the comparison might be a specific organized group of gun owners (e.g., the NRA). And if that organization engaged in evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c. behavior, is it safe to say its members support? Yup.

[margomaps]

You don't have much experience with small town cops or self-important control freaks, do you?
They are usually petty, vindictive, are known to hold grudges for a long time, and live to use their positions to mess with other people's lives by any means necessary. When you diss one, retribution will surely come.

I have enough experience to recognize that your statement -- while undoubtedly true for some individuals -- is an absurdly broad and mean-spirited generalization.  Furthermore, even if your generalization is true for Steve Sprowls, your conspiracy scenario requires the active cooperation of the vet...and that's the part I'm not going to buy into without corroborating evidence.

[J’raxis 270145]

A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.

Do they learn that the bite is inflicting pain, or do they learn that the bite will lead to a negative consequence upon themselves (being bitten in return?) that will lead to their experiencing pain?

(That is, do such animals experience empathy?)

[Tom Sawyer]

Dogs experience empathy. They are very aware of peoples unspoken emotions.

Our last dog Kaos was very much connected to Becky, he wouldn't leave her side if she was sad, sick or stressed.

I trusted his judgement of people and their internal, unspoken motives.

[BillKauffman]

Dogs experience empathy. They are very aware of peoples unspoken emotions.

Our last dog Kaos was very much connected to Becky, he wouldn't leave her side if she was sad, sick or stressed.

I trusted his judgement of people and their internal, unspoken motives.

And that is why people are more likely than not to insist (via the law) that they be treated humanely...