Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[MistyBlue]

Thanks Kevin for the explanation. 

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.

In this case I don't see it as a case of government abuse. There are clear, well researched, *easily found, well written and extremely easy livestock welfare laws to follow in the state of NH. And any livestock owner worth having livestock should easily be able to follow even these simple, low expense livestock keeping laws. Covered 3 sided shelters enough to house every animal on the property in case that's necessary, decent quality food in the correct amounts to keep them from starving, access to palatable water at all times. Hardly seems difficult. They weren't willing or able to provide those 3 simple things.
Brian and Heidi weren't being held to take by their own FSP community...which is the solution I keep reading on this and other liberty forums. More freedoms would equal more moral responsibility within communities and these things would be handled by the people instead of the law. Well, that wasn't working. These two people are only proving in the most obvious way that the proposed change to animal welfare laws no longer being upheld by the SPCA or government wouldn't work. Either nobody else cared, nobody else noticed or nobody else knew enough about equine condition and care to know any better. So the proposed solution doesn't work for either ignorance, ignoring or lack of knowledge. A professional was not needed to see those horses were well below anything close to a healthy weight or condition in the latest released video. Yet many on here are coming up with all sorts of reasons they were like that...or that those body conditions were perfectly acceptable...or that the body conditions didn't matter anyways. So if any of these folks had visited Brian and Heidi's farm at any point and saw those horses in that condition...according to comments made on here they wouldn't have done anything anyways. Prolonging suffering of other living things. Property or not. So the proposed plan obviously doesn't/wouldn't work anyways and proves *so far* that the SPCA is needed with back up from the law. Because at this point, the community hasn't policed itself well at all that I have seen.

Even the law isn't in the least like the Natzi regime...1) they get a warning and told the laws. 2) Temproary seizure with return if they improve things. 3) Seizure without return. 3 chances to get things right. They ignored the first as evidenced by Brian's own words online all over the place. And due to both their claims that Heidi has had a lifetime in horses, in showing, is now into racing and has done sales and does training and does all her own work with her horses...it's been said repeatedly that there wasn't any way on this earth that Heidi didn't know about about proper care, proper condition and most especially...needing Coggins. Since nobody else within their community has the authority to demand proof of Coggins or probably even knew what Coggins tests were or what they were for...if there isn't a law and the SPCA to uphold it they could very well have killed hundreds, even thousands, of horses. For those not grasping the need to protect against EIA by having proof of negative Coggins tests: think what an airborn e bola strain could do if someone came into your area with that. Yes, it's that deadly and that hard to contain. And what's worse than e bola...there's no possible cure for it. How is that protecting anyone else's freedom of remaining disease free?

It's a sad condition all around...the loss of freedoms is tough enough without freedom fighters proving in no uncertain terms in a very public way that their own cause is extremely faulty in this area and that their own community's answer for it is to ignore that anyways.

As for involuntary traffic stops...if I'm speeding well over the limit and get pulled over, it's not so much involuntary as it's "taking my chances and then whining about them not going the way I wanted." The LEO has no right to be overbearing about it, and usually aren't. As a regular Joe...what are *my* rights of driving safely without people driving at reckless speeds? Where is my freedom to drive safely? As a regular Joe I can't pull someone over and demand that they drive a safe speed. And in rural areas...it's much harder to control a car at 60 on winding narrow roads with visibility obscured by trees and curves than it is in other places. So nobody has the right to pull that driver over and demand they drive a safe speed, and they fly around a curve...deer in the road or car broke down and swerve and take out someone else driving a safe speed. Someone who would have had time to avoid a crash had they driven a safe speed.

As for avoiding being mugged for $10 by carrying openly...I would think more people would leave you alone if you had a live duck on your head.    Thugs included.

Russell...I have never hidden who I am. I can tell you outright but really should allow everyone who feels a need to know to do a 5 minute google search since it seems researching issues before jumping on bandwagons is something that might be lacking here considering how obvious untruths weren't noticed so far until pointed out. (and then ignored)

I am easily found. My name is Rebecca. Pleased to meet many in here.  (not Gail, haven't met her either. I'm not in NH)

[slave_3646]

In this case I don't see it as a case of government abuse. There are clear, well researched, *easily found, well written and extremely easy livestock welfare laws to follow in the state of NH.

Just a friendly question for you... did Brian and Heidi sign an agreement that stated they'd follow those laws? Or did some group of people decide that Brian and Heidi (and everyone else for that matter) better follow those laws, or else?

[John Edward Mercier]

Depends.

You can't support the force of government to property rights, then not support that government has a such an authority.

[Dave Ridley]

<<I don't know what Dada's point was--lots of people will organize to fight taxes that directly penalize them>>

I think if everyone just fought for their own rights that would be a big improvement over what we have now.

[John Edward Mercier]

A lot do.
The same groups that fight for their rights, many times are the aggressors in another's fight for freedom.

[stanford]

Brian and Heidi weren't being held to take by their own FSP community...which is the solution I keep reading on this and other liberty forums. More freedoms would equal more moral responsibility within communities and these things would be handled by the people instead of the law. Well, that wasn't working. These two people are only proving in the most obvious way that the proposed change to animal welfare laws no longer being upheld by the SPCA or government wouldn't work. Either nobody else cared, nobody else noticed or nobody else knew enough about equine condition and care to know any better. So the proposed solution doesn't work for either ignorance, ignoring or lack of knowledge.

I don't see it that way, Rebecca. In the current world, people have been indoctrinated to think the government will take care of these things, and they sometimes do, with the grace of a Mack truck on a go-cart track. They only have one arrow in their quiver: force. People are complacent, thinking the government is using the money they collect in taxes to make the world a better place, when in fact the people who call themselves government are only using their force to achieve some goal.

Suppose these laws were changed to disempower the SPCA from being a quasi-government arm. In order to survive, they would have to think of other ways to help protect the animals. Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.

We can't even begin to conceive of the wonderful things that would happen in a world where the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Of course, there would probably be less need for lobbyists.

[slave_3646]

Depends.

You can't support the force of government to property rights, then not support that government has a such an authority.

If you're trying to answer any of the questions I asked, you failed to do so. Depends isn't an answer to any of them. 

[John Edward Mercier]

It means you can take both sides of the equation.
If your property rights are derived and protected from the force of government... then the government plays a role in them.

For instance, I have title (right) to my land. This is derived by deed (from the State of NH). The authority of which was granted upon independence and derived from the British Crown under King George III.
So in the case of my real property (land), its exclusivity accrues from societal contract (government).
While those things upon it that are not natural and derived from human labor are personal property.

NH has some of this written in its constitution, though few of the legislators fully comprehend the reasoning behind it.

[BillKauffman]

This is just a continuation of the thread on the FSP forum that questions whether or not property rights are absolute or not. Animals seem to have special "rights/moral" status with many people because they can feel pain which would make them call into question whether or not people have absolute property rights to animals.

[BillKauffman]

Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.

Hmmm...does this mean in your opinion the horses were in need of these things?

[stanford]

Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.

Hmmm...does this mean in your opinion the horses were in need of these things?

Some people apparently thought so. Wouldn't it be nice if those people who were concerned asked us before bringing in the guns of the state?

Of course, we don't know what probable cause the government had because they still (four weeks later) refuse to unseal the affidavit listing the reasons for the raid. The way I understand it, their rules say they need to release the information as soon as charges are filed, unless releasing the information would compromise further investigations. So are they planning more arrests? Perhaps the farrier? Perhaps the caretaker? Perhaps the guy who delayed delivering hay because it was raining on the day it was scheduled? How much more investigating do they have to do before they live up to their fourth amendment duty? To wit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


They have the horses in their possession. I would assume that they are being taken care of, but we have not been allowed to even know where they are. They allowed WMUR to know where some of them are, but we have been warned not to come anywhere near them without permission. Apparently now we need permission to enjoy our own property. The government's active silence on this matter is very disturbing.

They'll have to prove in court why they took so long to unseal the affidavit.

It all comes down to a very smelly situation that has little to do with the horses. Perhaps they were expecting that Heidi would be a push-over like most people are in this situation. Thank you very much to the liberty community for helping with the fight, both monetarily and with moral support.

Not so much to the horse community, which has already convicted Heidi based on nothing but hearsay and gossip.

[MistyBlue]

Just a friendly question for you... did Brian and Heidi sign an agreement that stated they'd follow those laws? Or did some group of people decide that Brian and Heidi (and everyone else for that matter) better follow those laws, or else?

Hi Slave. Of course Brian and Heidi didn't sign an agreement to follow these laws. Just like they didn't sign an agreement when they purchased/bred their horses to provide adequate care, food, water and shelter when they acquired them. It's *usually* one of those things people would call "a given." Nobody forced them to move to this state, they chose to. By doing so, they passively agree to follow the laws of that state until such time as they can change those laws to better suit their own ideas and ideals. And yes, some group decided that whomever should move to NH should follow their laws. You have the right to vote on those laws just as everyone else does. Deciding to ignore the outcome when the vote doesn't go your own way is akin to pouting. I could honestly see your point...IF the law was unreasonable. It isn't unreasonable. It isn't excessive and the state of NH has a pretty low level of minimum animal care welfare law according to most other states. As a matter of fact, where they come from in CO they have a much more lax welfare law and had a tough time following that one too. And stating "well I could do that there, why not here?" is like going over someone else's house and pooping on their carpet and then being indignant when they find that unacceptable and saying, "Well I can do that in my house!" (of course you probably won't get any visitors or any other social invitations if that actually happened LOL)

Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property. And few areas impose that many constrictions on the quiet enjoyment of your property. You could walk around naked wearing a duck on your head and crapping on your own carpets at home...but I wouldn't suggest doing that while blowing an air horn non stop at 3 am if you have nearby neighbors.

Many to most people do want the government's aide in protection of that property to an extent...which I do agree with because not every person has the ability to protect their own property. And I'd hope not everyone wants this society to be survival of the strong only and weak no longer have rights. Because I can guaran-damn-tee you that as tough as everyone thinks they might be...there's always someone tougher or more wiley and if they decide they want your property, you're screwed.  

I also don't want the government's nose up my butt over every little thing. I do follow the Nunya rule...sometimes it's nunya's business. Why do things have to be absolute? Why not choose to comply with the reasonable and lobby/fight/vote against those things that arne't? Very few things in like are black and white or have an absolute. And if people want an absolute on everything they personally believe in...yet the majority of their area doesn't agree with that so the first group doesn't get their own way...then move to a better fitting area. It's a big planet and there's quite a few locations that have absolute freedom of rights. It might be somewhere without electricity or internet...but we can't all get everything we want. We decide what's most important to us and choose our locations from there. A small handful cannot and *should not* force everyone around them to live a lifestyle nobody else wants.

Suppose these laws were changed to disempower the SPCA from being a quasi-government arm. In order to survive, they would have to think of other ways to help protect the animals. Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.

Brian, respectfully disagree. Research shows that animal welfare did indeed start out just the utopian ideal you've outlined above. It changed over time...because it did not work. Not to mention...and where is the "new and improved" SPCA supposed to get the income for supplying everyone who doesn't feel like paying for their own property's upkeep? And what's to stop more people from saying, "Well if we don't feed/care for our animals the new SPCA will for us. And we get to keep our animals and not pay for upkeep." Or a ton of people who can't afford enough food for pets or horses can now get them because there's no longer any reason to try to afford them. If you think peole take advantage of stuff like the welfare system...imagine the same for animal care. Rewarding ignorance or cheapness or stupidity has never improved any society anywhere.

If you weren't willing to pay for the proper nutrition and parasite control for your horses...why should someone else have to do that and not reap the benefits of enjoyment of the animals? I would imagine you're hardly destitute. Two adults working full time...one who has two businesses...owning many supposedly "very expensive race horses"...and you couldn't afford these things? Or chose not to so someone else should pony it up? (pardon the pun folks) Would you be donating to the new improved utopian SPCA without force so that others can benefit from it? Think about that question because it's a toughie...either you say you wouldn't donate which means your idea has no merit in your own mind...or you would donate which means you had the funds all along to care for those horses and chose not to. And Mr Kauffman also has a pretty interesting point...I suppose that means the horses did indeed need those things?

As for not needing lobbyists anymore...that would be MY Utopian world indeed.   I'm not paid for that at all. Never a thin dime for it. It's a crapload of work for absolutely no financial gain. I do it because it needs to be done, otherwise all the lazier folks have the government doing stupid things to them and it WILL affect me also. So I put on my big-girl panties and cowgirl up. No whining here...if I want something changed I work towards changing it. Because it's the right thing to do, not because it gains me fortune or fame. More like notoriety/infamy with local governments and headaches most of the time, LOL! And before I try changing anything...I put in the hours and time and effort needed to FULLY research the best way to do that, the way that will have the best chance of succeeding and whatever long term snowball effects those changes might have. In other words...I aim before I shoot.   Better chance of hitting my targets. so lobbying is a huge pain the tuckus to me and I'd love to drop it. I've got enough on my plate already.

BTW, just out of curiosity's sake and because I'm feeling a bit   right now...I did have a buttload of questions for you in previous ridiculously wordy posts of mine. So far you've managed to not answer any that I recall reading. You must have been the best Dodgeball player as a child.  

[BillKauffman]

it's the government that gives us the right to own property.

No, we come out of a state of nature and consent to forming a civil society which includes giving up on arbitrary use of force (might makes right) and empowering governance via a constitutional limited mandate with a monopoly on force within a geographical territory to adjudicate wrongful acts and uphold our natural rights to life, liberty and labor-based property which pre-exist governance (notice I slipped in that originally horses weren't labor-based).

Some people believe that this consent has to be explicit and therefore society's natural conclusion with this requirement is free market, poly-centric law (no monopoly on force to uphold statutory law within a geographical region) with private defense agencies and private insurance.

Most others outside the anarchist wing of the liberty movement - apparently like you - believe in an implicit social contract theory.

Very few things in like are black and white or have an absolute.

Most all the people here believe that the right to life, liberty and property IS absolute.

A small handful cannot and *should not* force everyone around them to live a lifestyle nobody else wants.

But a majority should? I think the explicit consent crowd believes they are doing no harm while adhering to the non-aggression principle (NAP).

[stanford]

Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property. And few areas impose that many constrictions on the quiet enjoyment of your property.

Rebecca, I really hope you don't think the government gives us the right to own property. Or any other rights, for that matter. Even their founding documents (declarations, constitutions, etc.) are very clear that rights are endowed by our creator, and that governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty and property. Something like that. If you can point me to the part where my right to own property is granted by governments, I'd be interested in looking at that.

My philosophy starts with the assumption that you own you. If you don't believe that you own you, then who does? If you do own you, then you also own the things that come from you. At what point in this journey does someone else have a claim on you?

This 8-minute video does a great job of illustrating this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

BTW, just out of curiosity's sake and because I'm feeling a bit   right now...I did have a buttload of questions for you in previous ridiculously wordy posts of mine. So far you've managed to not answer any that I recall reading. You must have been the best Dodgeball player as a child.  

Actually, I was that guy setting up the projectors in school. Didn't much care for sports.

Frankly, I just skimmed your long posts. Being a typesetter, I appreciate white space and everything looked like a blur. Your posts were kinda tough to read.

If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer, but I'd request that you make them short, pointed questions. You can ask them here or by private message if you'd like so as not to bore the few people who are still slogging through this thread.

[shyfrog]

Governments do not grant rights.
They can take them away and often do.
Our system was set up to protect the people FROM government and to protect the minority FROM the majority.
In essence, to protect their rights.
Unfortunately, it is a failed experiment as is evidenced daily.

Rights exist. Period. They cannot be granted.