Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[cyne]

uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. 

A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".

SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6

  Which is "one of their own?"  Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership.  I don't know about the others.  Are any of these part of the "horse community?" 

[Sam A. Robrin]

uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. 

A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".

SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
  Which is "one of their own?"  Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership.  I don't know about the others.  Are any of these part of the "horse community?" 

I don't know what Dada's point was--lots of people will organize to fight taxes that directly penalize them; what counts is how they react to programs that affect others.  We've seen ample evidence to that latter, and that's why I'm still watching my horses--figuratively speaking--and caution all liberty-lovers to do likewise!

[John Edward Mercier]

uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. 

A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".

SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6

  Which is "one of their own?"  Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership.  I don't know about the others.  Are any of these part of the "horse community?" 

Rep. Skinder and Sen. Jacalyn Cilley are.

[KBCraig]

uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. 

A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".

SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6

  Which is "one of their own?"  Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership.  I don't know about the others.  Are any of these part of the "horse community?" 

I believe it was Skinder who made the statement that she "thought the horse community would want to help the state's revenue problem." It could have been Cilley; both are bad. You can ask in that thread for clarification, if you'd like.

[stanford]

[Stuff deleted. MistyBlue is a lobbiest and calls me a liar. That kind of stuff.]

As for invoking the violence of the government...can you be more dramatic? Nobody drew a pentagram on the ground, lit candles and pleaded for the SPCA to come care for the animals she's been starving. I did not see any violence in the videos...and it wasn't done at the point of a gun.

Here's the problem, my fellow freedom fighters. MistyBlue is obviously a pretty smart person, but can't see the violence inherent in the system. She doesn't see any violence in those videos.

Does violence have to be fists flying and guns going off in order for you to see it? What if a robber came up to you, told you he has a gun in his pocket and said he would kill you if you didn't give him your money? Would you see the violence then? I'll tell you that the government will call that "armed robbery" even if he didn't have any gun. The threat of violence is enough to convict a man. But when the government threatens you with violence you wouldn't call that violence?  Try not paying property tax and see how long it takes them to kick you out of your home. That's violence, even though you might not see any guns unless you actively resist.

These men came to my house, disarmed me, and took my wife's property. What would have happened if I resisted instead of videotaping? Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't shackle me, drive me to their jail, and lock me up in a cold cage.

Please please please tell me that you see the violence in that situation.

So, instead, I stood by, disarmed, and did the only thing I could to resist. I videotaped their actions to show others just what a violent gang this is.

If an obviously smart person like MistyBlue can't see the violence here, we've got a much harder fight to see freedom in our lifetimes.

[AntonLee]

so if Brian stood in front of the police stopping them from stealing his property (which is exactly what happened) do you think the guns wouldn't have come out.

one doesn't need to point a gun when you're a cop.  They are a weapon, a weapon of the state.  Their presence to me is a threat to my bodily functions.  Every person living in this country should be more on guard when one of these thugs is in your presence.

[John Edward Mercier]

uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. 

A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".

SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6

  Which is "one of their own?"  Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership.  I don't know about the others.  Are any of these part of the "horse community?" 

I believe it was Skinder who made the statement that she "thought the horse community would want to help the state's revenue problem." It could have been Cilley; both are bad. You can ask in that thread for clarification, if you'd like.

Correct.
Though I really didn't follow Skinder's reasoning.

[erisian]

so if Brian stood in front of the police stopping them from stealing his property (which is exactly what happened) do you think the guns wouldn't have come out.

Right! And how many cops were there? A dozen or more. An organized group of armed men prepared to use deadly force. If anyone else did it, it would be called terrorism.

[MistyBlue]

Skinder was indeed the one who stated that she thought the licensing fees would boost state revenues. And I agree...few were able to follow her reasoning.

For the record...in most states when the equine community fights taxes on horses or licensing of horses or anything like that...it's not about the money we'd have to pay. Which is normally minimal. In my area the towns try from time to time to send out property tax bills on horses...hoping enough owners will not realize they don't have to pay that and send in the few paltry dollars. The towns' reasoning has zero to do with revenues, although that's what they tell the public. It has everything to do with hoping a large enough percentage of horse owner pay it without complaint to set precedent. Once they can prove that...they can change the status of horses from livestock to either pets or luxury property. That change alone can and most likely would be a close to fatal blow to the equine industry and a huge bite out of this state's Right To Farm and Agriculture properties. Property taxes on ag land or farm land is lower than normal. Because horses are livestock...like cows, sheep, swine. Those animals are NOT taxed due to being livestock and under Farm rights. Most horse farms and private backyard barns have only horses. They require more everyday work than other livestock to remain healthy and worth money so it doesn't make financial sense to also be shearing sheep, milking cows, etc. Pay taxes on the horses...changes their livestock designation if enough do that because we don't pay taxes on livestock. No livestock, no property tax breaks. Property is then rezoned...from ag/farm to either residential, rural residential or worse...commercial if you're running an equine business there. Property taxes will at best double for rural res...they triple and add a bit for res only and they can more than quadruple for commercial. So a boarding barn's taxes can go from the lower farm tax of $3000 per year to upwards of $12k per year. More than $1000 per month just on taxes alone. Clients can't afford the rate hikes for board to cover that and since there's nowhere else cheap to board anymore dump their horses. Boarding barns close due to lack of clients and can't afford taxes. Same with backyard owners...my taxes alone could go from $5k to $11,500. Horses glut the market...nobody will buy since nowhere to keep them, horse values crash. Less horses means less vets, hay suppliers, farriers, feed stores, etc...so even the wealthier have issues keeping horses since fewer of those brings in supply and demand and rates hike more. Buh Bye horse industry...hello to new development and higher property taxes for the towns. And some bleeding heart wackadoos agree with this on some levels because they hope changing status from livestock to pet or luxury item will stop slaughter for good. Little do they realize the issues. *sigh* Yeah, this thing annoys me. Zoning and Right To Farm are pet projects of mine.

Now that I've bored everyone to tears...my apologies. But at least it's about how the smaller local governments piss off the regular folks by trying to be sneaky. They send out tax bills as low as $5 - $8 per horse hoping to screw with people's heads. Who's gonna argue about $5 per year? And if ONE state does it...every other state uses that as precendence and follows suit. So us horsie folks do fight and fight HARD against changes like this. And not because it only affects us personally...because it changes zoning and freedom for everyone else although most might not follow the convoluted path of how that's being planned.

Brian...I regret feeling the need to call you a liar...but you can certainly see the drastic contradictions on your many different statements everywhere. I've been following the story all along because considering what I do...these things in other states do very much affect every other state. The "personal property" issue is one I follow closely because I fight to keep things that way. However I also realize the pros and cons of fighting it and how to do it in a way that gets the most public support possible. Because in the end...it's the results that matter more than the reasoning some people may have behind fighting for those results. If all of us get more freedom the end of an issue...isn't that more important than how it was actually achieved? It's easier to lead a horse than try shoving it forward from behind. You still get where you're going without pissing off the horse and/or getting kicked in the head. Some of the comments in this thread are easily found via a google search...and are what the general public will find reprehensible. And the gp is likely to vote with their feelings and not their heads...so try not pissing them off too much. There's a lot more of them and to make LEGAL changes one does require the majority. Wouldn;t it be better to have legal rights to freedom instead of constantly ranting and fighting ineffectually for it?

As for the violence comments...it's a case of semantics then I guess. I tend to be a pretty literal, low emotion person. Drives my husband nuts sometimes that I'm about as feminine in the emotion department as a rock. Except for the fun use of sarcasm from time to time...I don't use flowery speach unnecessary to making my point. To ME...violence in violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also? I know that would make me a violent person because I do carry if I feel a need to. It's not often...I know I have a right and a license to but honestly I don't come across a lot of reasons to use a pistol at a feed store, the coffee shop, etc. Even as a 5'2" small built middle aged female. Firearms make many people not used to them uncomfortable, so I prefer to keep the general populace comfie around me so when I'm working with them to make legal changes that benefit all of us they listen to me without thinking, "oh, it's that nutter with a scary gun!" Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean I need to 24/7 and making other people who don't share my firearm hobby uncomfortable. I also have a legal right to walk around town wearing a live duck on my head as a hat...but that would probably also freak other people out and then I'm thought of as a nut and can't find any support for the IMPORTANT stuff now, can I? (although it would be hilarious to see their reactions...however since I'm known enough around here by everyone else they'd probably just accept it as another one of my weird pranks, LOL)

As for hating the LEOs just because they're LEOs...I don't get it. It's their job...they're not making the laws, they only uphold them. You don't hate a soldier for following duty. You don't hate a coworker for doing what the boss says. Having a badge is not inherently evil, I've volunteered with the local PDs long enough to know very few LEOs have the type of personalities some people attribute to them. Hate the laws? Change them...work on your own public image and work the system the way that gets results and AFTER you get the results you want you can then crow to the world how great everything you did is.

many of the comments on this thread and others in this BB are making some of the FSPers look like drama queens and kings. many come across as mature, rational adults but a few constantly making comments about everything being similar to the Holocaust (seriously? Could you pick a less likely comparison? And anyone who has relatives that actually went through that will be insulted BEYOND belief that comparing a few civil liberties or horses being moved to a new location and rehabbed to the death and carnage of the Holocaust. It's the same as hearing my 16 year old daughter tell me she will die if she doesn't get to go to a dance...ridiculous and immature and completely ignorant) or that everything that the PD does is at the end of a gun. And you're all gun supporters...yet you make it sound as if all firearms are the epitome of violence even when just worn at the side like all of you probably do. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. It makes zero sense to claim all PD activity is "Violent! They have a gun!" and then pontificate ad nauseum about the rights of everyone to wear a gun everywhere and that doesn't make you violent. You aren't doing any of us other gun supporters any good at all.
And to end my wordy ridiculousness...(I think I just invented that new word)...I have noticed the change in subject since there isn't any argument against your own words of contradiction. I was staying out of this personally and just monitoring it for horse owner rights but then dragging Beth's name into the mud and using a tale of fibs to do so apparently harshed my mellow. And I truly hate having my mellow harshed.  

[Pat K]

Don't kid yourself they see the violence.

They approve of it.

As long as it's not pointed at them.

[shyfrog]

*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input 

[stanford]

[Stuff deleted that I mostly agree with...]

MistyBlue, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to agree on some animal welfare vs. private property issues, but I think we have a shot at finding some common ground in other places. This thread has gone on waaaaay too long, and there's just a few people left following it, so this could be kinda fun.

As for the violence comments...To ME...violence is violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also?

I don't think I mentioned anything about the officer's actual firearms. The police officer himself is the weapon that the state uses to enforce compliance of the citizens. You would know better than most that a gun is just a machine. No gun has ever harmed anyone except in some freak accident. It usually takes a human to kill another human. A gun is just an efficient way to do it, but it requires motivation and action.

Make no mistake that taking property with the threat of force is violent, whether the assailant wears a mask or a badge.

Your assertion that me wearing a gun is violent, but in truth it's actually just the opposite. There are two ways to deal with people: reason and force. If I have ten dollars and you want it, you can explain to me why you need it more than I do. If I decide to give you the money, we both get what we want. Or, you can get my money by threatening me with violence. In this case, you have gained but I have lost. Either way, you get the money.

But if I had a gun on my hip, I have just removed from you one of the two ways to deal with me. I wear a gun because I am a peaceful person. I just want to remove the threat of violence from any interaction I might have with you or any other person.

The guns that are owned by the state are a different matter. The people calling themselves government can initiate force on anyone they please with no retribution. Sending you a property tax bill is just one of these initiations of force. If you don't think you are dealing with a violent organization, try to ignore your next tax bill.

There is an excellent essay titled, "The Gun in the Room". You might want to give it a read if you still don't think everything that the government does is based on violence.  http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/11/gun-in-room.html

I'd be really interested in your evaluation.

As for hating the LEOs just because they're LEOs...I don't get it. It's their job...they're not making the laws, they only uphold them. You don't hate a soldier for following duty.

Anyone who performs immoral actions is wrong, regardless of where they get their paycheck. Please excuse me for using the old Nazi standby, but the comment you made above is exactly the one the soldiers were trying to use in their defense at Nuremberg. "Just doing my job" does not remove the responsibility for acting in an immoral manner.

OK, how about a non-Nazi example? In 1942, FDR declared that all Americans of Japanese descent were to be rounded up and placed in internment camps. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed him up. If you knew where an American of Japanese descent was hiding, it was your legal duty to report them. Failure to report was grounds for arrest. "Just doing my job" meant sending innocent people to prison. Good people disobey bad laws. It's the only moral thing to do.

Those are extreme examples, created in a time of national crisis. But there are still unconstitutional laws that are enforced every day by LEOs "just doing their job". A friend of mine was arrested in a public square last month because he was peacefully holding a flower in his hand. A flower. He was handcuffed, escorted to a police car, fingerprinted, and put in a cold cell. The officers who did this were "just doing their job". Unbelievable? Yes. Incomprehensible? Yes. Outrageous? Yes.

Oh, the only fact that I left out is that the flower was cannabis. Does that change any of the outrageousness of this act? You have to decide. There were no guns drawn, no fists raised, but I hope you'll agree that if someone forced you, against your will, into a cage when you hadn't harmed anyone, that you would think you were a victim of violence.

I could go on, but I've already gone on long enough. If you want to know what makes some of the more outspoken activists tick, you'll have to go through the process that most of us have gone through concerning the true nature of government and the initiation of force.

Until you see what we see, you'll just view us as a bunch of drama queens. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not a nut job. I'm just a guy who wants to live without violence. But I'm prepared to fight that violence wherever I can in order to create a better world for my children and grandchildren. By the way, my boys are also working to achieve the same goals. The nut doesn't fall far from the tree!

If you want to understand more, I'll be happy to be your guide. Just let me know. And I'll try not to harsh your mellow!

[John Edward Mercier]

Skinder was indeed the one who stated that she thought the licensing fees would boost state revenues. And I agree...few were able to follow her reasoning.
For the record...in most states when the equine community fights taxes on horses or licensing of horses or anything like that...it's not about the money we'd have to pay. Which is normally minimal. In my area the towns try from time to time to send out property tax bills on horses...hoping enough owners will not realize they don't have to pay that and send in the few paltry dollars. The towns' reasoning has zero to do with revenues, although that's what they tell the public. It has everything to do with hoping a large enough percentage of horse owner pay it without complaint to set precedent. Once they can prove that...they can change the status of horses from livestock to either pets or luxury property. That change alone can and most likely would be a close to fatal blow to the equine industry and a huge bite out of this state's Right To Farm and Agriculture properties. Property taxes on ag land or farm land is lower than normal. Because horses are livestock...like cows, sheep, swine. Those animals are NOT taxed due to being livestock and under Farm rights. Most horse farms and private backyard barns have only horses. They require more everyday work than other livestock to remain healthy and worth money so it doesn't make financial sense to also be shearing sheep, milking cows, etc. Pay taxes on the horses...changes their livestock designation if enough do that because we don't pay taxes on livestock. No livestock, no property tax breaks. Property is then rezoned...from ag/farm to either residential, rural residential or worse...commercial if you're running an equine business there. Property taxes will at best double for rural res...they triple and add a bit for res only and they can more than quadruple for commercial. So a boarding barn's taxes can go from the lower farm tax of $3000 per year to upwards of $12k per year. More than $1000 per month just on taxes alone. Clients can't afford the rate hikes for board to cover that and since there's nowhere else cheap to board anymore dump their horses. Boarding barns close due to lack of clients and can't afford taxes. Same with backyard owners...my taxes alone could go from $5k to $11,500. Horses glut the market...nobody will buy since nowhere to keep them, horse values crash. Less horses means less vets, hay suppliers, farriers, feed stores, etc...so even the wealthier have issues keeping horses since fewer of those brings in supply and demand and rates hike more. Buh Bye horse industry...hello to new development and higher property taxes for the towns. And some bleeding heart wackadoos agree with this on some levels because they hope changing status from livestock to pet or luxury item will stop slaughter for good. Little do they realize the issues. *sigh* Yeah, this thing annoys me. Zoning and Right To Farm are pet projects of mine.
Now that I've bored everyone to tears...my apologies. But at least it's about how the smaller local governments piss off the regular folks by trying to be sneaky. They send out tax bills as low as $5 - $8 per horse hoping to screw with people's heads. Who's gonna argue about $5 per year? And if ONE state does it...every other state uses that as precendence and follows suit. So us horsie folks do fight and fight HARD against changes like this. And not because it only affects us personally...because it changes zoning and freedom for everyone else although most might not follow the convoluted path of how that's being planned.

I hate to quote such a long post... but this doesn't hold reason either.
In NH, Ag designation is simply a matter of zoning... not taxation. Current Use is taxation... but unmaintained forest land is the lowest rate with quality soil Ag land being the highest. Also NH has a property tax on autos at the municipal level... they could easily expand it to encompass other forms of property (even used to have bicycle registration when I was a kid).
But Skinder's reasoning really wasn't in support of the municipal property tax system.

[KBCraig]

Brian already gave a wonderfully articulated answer, but I would like to address the "violence" issue in a slightly more succinct way.

As for the violence comments...it's a case of semantics then I guess. I tend to be a pretty literal, low emotion person. Drives my husband nuts sometimes that I'm about as feminine in the emotion department as a rock. Except for the fun use of sarcasm from time to time...I don't use flowery speach unnecessary to making my point. To ME...violence in violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also? I know that would make me a violent person because I do carry if I feel a need to. It's not often...I know I have a right and a license to but honestly I don't come across a lot of reasons to use a pistol at a feed store, the coffee shop, etc. Even as a 5'2" small built middle aged female.

Here is the major difference: when you're carrying a gun, even openly, and you engage someone and would like them to do something, but they don't do what you want, then you aren't going to pull your gun and make them do it anyway.

That is the major difference between your conversation with the clerk at the feed store, and your interaction with the police during a traffic stop: you will do whatever the officer says, not because you agree that he's right, not because he's wearing a gun, not because he can summon help and take you to jail by force, but because even if he does all those things, the prosecutors and courts will agree with him and take his side.

As others said, it's not that the policeman wears a weapon; he is the weapon.

If your voluntary exchange at the feed store turns nasty for some reason, you can leave freely. If your involuntary exchange during a traffic stop turns nasty and you attempt to leave, you will be tackled and/or tazered and/or shot, then taken to jail and/or the hospital (if not the morgue).

MistyBlue, I thank you for sticking around for some open-minded debate about the underlying philosophy. I think you really "get" the property issues involved. Many of us here are also animal lovers; my wife and I are personally involved in dog and cat rescue (although we prefer voluntary social networking solutions over quasi-governmental agencies like SPCA).

The liberty lovers here can be your strongest allies when it comes to protecting you and your horses from government abuses. That's all Brian and Heidi are asking in return.

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

.... you'd see that's very evident that we're not related. I use the same screen name online everywhere.

Why not just tell Brian who you are? You are posting a lot. Why not introduce yourself.