Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[BillKauffman]

Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.

  I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it. 

Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.

I still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?

One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.

[stanford]

Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.

  I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it. 

Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.

I still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?

One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.

If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.

Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?

[John Edward Mercier]

As for the NH Constitution, it does not differentiate between that property which is acquired by human labor... and that which naturally existed without reference to human labor. At least in those Articles... and I would submit if used should include Part First Article Three.
Natural right, I would submit to be common and not allow for the exclusive use of any particular tract of land... nor naturally occuring resource... outside of government.

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

The "surrender" in Article 3 does not specify property rights, only "some ... natural rights."

The 'some' is described in further articles...
Like Part First Article Twelve which allows for the the 'representative body of the people' to take property rights.

But property rights are only natural when originating from labor (Life).
Land and natural resources do not originate from human labor and were originally held in common (Proudhon - Property is Theft).
Its exclusive use is derived by deeded title. The deeded title states by what authority the property was converted to exclusive use for the title holder.

Slavery, written about in sections of the US Constitution, was later abolished as a property right.

[John Edward Mercier]

Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.

  I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it. 

Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.

I still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?

One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.

If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.

Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?

Title insurance covers financial losses resulting from a flawed deed. It doesn't grant the exclusive use of property, which is the deed itself... granted by the State of NH (Unless you have allodial land granted from the British Crown like Dartmouth College).

[BillKauffman]

Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.

  I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it. 

Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.

I still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?

One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.

If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.

Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?

I think you mean a private defense agency to uphold your title.

As I explained before...this all gets boiled down to an argument around the validity of social contract theory. We agree to leave a state of nature and form civil society so as to not be subject to arbitrary force (might makes right). In doing so we agree to cede the use of arbitrary force to governance narrowly constituted with a monopoly on force - via statutory law/rulemaking with elected representatives abstracted from the whole - so we don't have to expend an enormous amount of energy, money and time protecting our property from others with guns.

Now it is true this narrowly constituted role has not worked so well for a variety of reason.

One of the problems is that most - like you - derive your concept of individual freedom from the biology of man (born with)...independent entities who can use reason and free will to voluntarily contract with anyone. This is the essence of classical liberalism which hasn't been around very long...

This naturally leads to a polycentric system of laws with private defense agencies and insurance - as you suggest.

But there is another view of individual freedom that is older than classical liberalism (since antiquity) that believes the only way to achieve (not born with) freedom is by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative civic bodies as the best chance not to be subject to arbitrary rule/force. This is called civic republicanism or civic humanism.

This leads BACK to a system of common law where the judge just presides over the proceedings and the jury (a deliberative body) adjudicates justice based on a narrow interpretation of the constitution - no force or fraud (NAP).

The big, big question though is still...what is property and how is it ethically derived?

The "left" thinks our current Lockean derivation is flawed (homesteading via mixing one's labor with what is "unowned") and therefore government must be expansive (regulatory & bureaucratic via statutory law) in the name of "social justice".

The "right" thinks that the non-proviso Lockean view of property derivation IS just.

So I would like to go back to civic republican view of freedom within a proviso Lockean view of property derivation that deals with the issue of distributive justice in the economic sphere NOT via statutory law based on trying to achieve "social justice" legislatively.

Apparently you and most others here want to go towards a pure classical liberal view of individual freedom and a poly-centric system of voluntary laws with no monopoly on force.

Let the reindeer games begin!!

[MistyBlue]

OK, Rebecca. I'll answer your questions, but it's not fair that I have to answer yours and you don't have to answer mine. How about this? I'll answer one question at a time, and then I'll ask you a question. As soon as we are each satisfied with the answer, we can go to the next round. Let's start with the first one.

Time listed on my computer has this post at 6:42 am today.

You're probably not going to like this answer, Rebecca. Heidi's lawyer has suggested that I STFU (he said it in a bit more tactful way) about specifics of the case. While he's not my lawyer, I'll respect his suggestion so he can best represent Heidi, the owner of the horses. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial.

Time on this listed as 7:40 am today.

Thank you...I just won a bet.   I bet that no other questions would be answered due to not being able to think of any reply anyone on here could believe without resorting to the "attorney told me quiet" reply. Now I'm not saying the attorney didn't already tell you that, because it would be a crappy lawyer who didn't. However...I'm guessing the attorney didn't tell you that in the 58 minute time lapse between the two above quotes earlier this morning.
So, can only surmise that you weren't being truthful when you stated this morning that you would answer my questions. As soon as the questions got hard enough to not reply to with a truthful reply...the STFU from the ATTY pops up. You picked the question you could reply to with something the folks hear can easily believe, the second question was too hard to reply to so you decided to not be satisfied with my first answer to your question. Now the atty popped up early this morning to tell you to stop talking sometime in the 58 minutes between your agreement to answer the questions and when you state you cannot answer.
Okay....forgive me for not believing that in the least.

[stanford]

OK, Rebecca. I'll answer your questions, but it's not fair that I have to answer yours and you don't have to answer mine. How about this? I'll answer one question at a time, and then I'll ask you a question. As soon as we are each satisfied with the answer, we can go to the next round. Let's start with the first one.

Time listed on my computer has this post at 6:42 am today.

You're probably not going to like this answer, Rebecca. Heidi's lawyer has suggested that I STFU (he said it in a bit more tactful way) about specifics of the case. While he's not my lawyer, I'll respect his suggestion so he can best represent Heidi, the owner of the horses. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial.

Time on this listed as 7:40 am today.

Thank you...I just won a bet.   I bet that no other questions would be answered due to not being able to think of any reply anyone on here could believe without resorting to the "attorney told me quiet" reply. Now I'm not saying the attorney didn't already tell you that, because it would be a crappy lawyer who didn't. However...I'm guessing the attorney didn't tell you that in the 58 minute time lapse between the two above quotes earlier this morning.
So, can only surmise that you weren't being truthful when you stated this morning that you would answer my questions. As soon as the questions got hard enough to not reply to with a truthful reply...the STFU from the ATTY pops up. You picked the question you could reply to with something the folks hear can easily believe, the second question was too hard to reply to so you decided to not be satisfied with my first answer to your question. Now the atty popped up early this morning to tell you to stop talking sometime in the 58 minutes between your agreement to answer the questions and when you state you cannot answer.
Okay....forgive me for not believing that in the least.

I told you you weren't going to like the answer. I only answered the questions in the order you asked them. You should have asked the hard ones first.

I'll be glad to answer any questions you might still have after Heidi is acquitted.

Anyway, I'm glad you won your bet, but you should be careful: cynicism could harsh your mello.

[MistyBlue]

It's not cynicism to figure out the obvious.  That would be like being considered cynical if I lived under a volcano and it was belching smoke for a week and I made a bet it was going to blow.

I just asked the questions in the order of the inconsistencies. But at least you do seem to admit the other questions were harder to come up with acceptable answers for. 

So I can assume since you didn't answer when you were told to STFU that it wasn't after the first post telling me you'd answer my questions?

Or wait...can't you answer that question either?


So very many coincidences on the timing and inconsisties. It boggles the mind...but at least it doesn't harsh my mellow.

It is a shame in a way...you've had many past coherent and well spoken/written debates about the FSP movement and your past experiences fighting for freedom. Now one can only wonder how much of that was....umm...inconsistant with the actuality of the situations.

[MistyBlue]

I do not agree with you ... that without moral laws, enforced by nice law enforcement officers, supported by decent caring animal lovers ... that animals would necessarily suffer. Since I may be wrong, it is better that I don't enforce my opinion on others.

Unfortunately history has shown in this country what the results are of an absence of moral animal welfare laws.  And current times show us in other countries around this world what an absence of moral animal welfare laws. And I don't mean third world countries...China doesn't have them. I can't begin to list the dismal condition of animal care and welfare in that country.

Quote from: MistyBlue on Today at 08:02 AM
this is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home

Will someone be lying in wait to confiscate them, too?  Will you declare yourself the winner if that happens?

If this is being viewed as a winners/losers type game...then I can understand that reply.
As long as they don't try starving the cows...nobody will take them. Seriously...it's not rocket science. If it's a living thing, it needs to eat to prevent it from suffering. If some folks think starving something not human is okie-dokie as long as they're waving a flag as they do it...well, gag right back at y'all.  (insert sarcasm here) 

[AntonLee]

is food a right?  If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right?  Is that your argument?

So we should be forced to provide homeless people food?  What if I decide to spend all my money on drugs and hookers?  If I don't have any money left for food, would it be okay for me to force others to give me food?  If I don't have food, I WILL suffer.

As a matter of fact, if I spend all my money this week on just hookers, and don't have any more money for food OR booze. . .then I should probably get an amount of food and booze.  Sometimes, when a person drinks too much their body starts to NEED this substance to survive or they will face harsh physiological changes such as the DT's.  Therefore, we must provide alcohol to alcoholics so that they don't suffer as well.

Personally, if I don't get some M&M's at the end of my day it's a lot like suffering.  Make with the M&M's please.

[MistyBlue]

Changes the frames and maybe you won't need to pay for it and can then afford groceries.   
(okay, just checked out the smilies on here...WAY cool emoticons)

Seriously though...pets can't leave their property and go to a soup kitchen or go grocery shopping or even apply for food stamps or a better owner.

Should we be forced to provide homeless people food? Absolutely not, they can go to soup kitchens, apply for aide, beg on the streets, barter for it, work for it or steal it. (I am NOT saying they should do any of these things but they are options open to them) Animals can't do any of those things. Just because they are property does not mean they're not worthy of decent treatment. And the "decent treatment" is the very basics for supporting life: shelter, food, water and whatever medical care they might need/or to be humanely euthanized. I'm not saying they have to be tucked into the Ritz Carlton every night and sung lullabyes for heaven's sake.

The analogies between humans and animals doesn't work either way...not if I were to compare animals to humans by giving them full human rights and not if you use them in sarcasm to try to make a point that's about as sharp as a bowling ball.

Believe you me...I am NOT for animal rights. I am for animal welfare. There's an enormous difference. Enormous. Like HUGE. Nothing alike. Really. I swear. 

If a person wants to humanely kill and then process their livestock and eat it...fine by me. If they want to torture it for sh*ts and giggles..or by not feeding it enough to keep it relatively healthy so that it suffers....well that falls under welfare. The welfare of the animal...not it's rights, it's welfare.

When this country didn't have animal welfare laws...the animal abuses were beyond the point of even being counted any more. The Amish are mentioned a few times on here as a sort of model to follow...guess what happens in their communities when someone starves their animals? Those people rally around and take care of the issue...nobody did that in this community so that leads me to believe it's more lip-service than emulation. Is this how you want the general public to view the FSP? As people who not only either condone or turn a blind eye on animal abuse/neglect but on public BBs actually tout it as a Right of theirs to be able to even torture if they so choose because their Rights should ALL be absolute despite what suffering some of that may cause. That there can be absolutely no conditions or caveats to any of the rights whatsoever.

Yeah, that'll get a lot of positive support and really want more people to join in and help out with your project. 

BTW:

is food a right?  If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right?  Is that your argument?

So we should be forced to provide homeless people food?  What if I decide to spend all my money on drugs and hookers?

Way to jump the shark with this post opening.
And yes Captain Obvious...it is my argument that something starving is suffering. Although it's an obvious connection for most people I guess in this case I do need to point that out. Is it your argument that it's not?

[cyne]

is food a right?  If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right?  Is that your argument?

So we should be forced to provide homeless people food? 

  Only the homeless people you own and keep confined so they can't get out to get food for themselves.  If you own them, you're responsible for their care.    I think I'll stick with the dogs and horses!

[AntonLee]

Pets can leave their property if they really want to.  They could also eat their masters (and do) when really hungry.  I've seen a horse kick down a fence.   Homeless people aren't the only ones with options. 

As far as I'm concerned, if something is starving it's because they haven't put the effort in to find something to eat.  I agree that if you own something that you're responsible for their care.  The amount of care I would say is up to the owner, not the public consensus.  In the end, there are OTHER ways to deal with things you don't like. . . besides using the force of government.

If you cared so much, why didn't anyone make a bid to buy that horse and give it a good life as you might see fit?  The answer is because you quite enjoyed the retribution you sought to people who behaved not as you would like.  Men hiding behind their badges and threats of force quite enjoyed their little adrenaline rush.  They got to act like heroes and run up the field to attack the bad guy.  I wish I could have been there.  There's something that always cracks me up about swat teams running. 

My old neighbor broke some rules, he had WW2 mortar shells and an old plugged cannon.  He had some cocaine and a crappy landscaping job on his property.  That means my own parents had to call him in.  Watching the SWAT cowards was like watching a douche convention. . . running down the street from their 'plumbing van'

it's all very funny, this force shit. . . until you realize that 1) You're paying for it against your will... and ... 2) You're next

[MistyBlue]

Dude...like whoa. 

I am going to guess this is the BBs funny guy? This is tongue in cheek, correct?

Horses cannot eat their masters. They're herbivores. They eat...like...herbs.  Not Herb the guy...herb the plant.

Most animals cannot think and problem solve in the abstract. Which is why they don't have rights. So they're not likely to form a recon mission for groceries. 

Which other way would you suggest dealing with an issue like this? I see the "well go give them your money to buy their horsie." Okay, there's one. Of course rewarding bad behavior with cash isn't likely to stop them from repeating it ad nauseum, I can see you don't have children and haven't figured this simple equation out. "Reward for bad behavior = escalating bad behavior for more reward." Apparently only horses have horse sense anymore.

Oh wait...I see you asked the question and answered it for me. Not the answer I would have given but then I'm guess you prefer playing solo and not having an actual debate with another person. Just enjoying your words in print then? 

There were other options open to Brian and Heidi...they tried to give 10 or so horses to a rescue who didn't have the room or finances to take that many at once. Okay...so they were willing to give them away. Couldn't find any other takers? None of the other FSPers wanted them? They're supposedly oh-so-expensive now that the SPCA has them. But were free a couple months ago. The SPCA does take horses that owners no longer want to/can feed...you can call them and give up those animals to them. They will then care for the animals and adopt them out. Why not that option? Ohhhh...because those are the...what was it...douchebags. Rather see them starve than give them to someone who will feed them and care for them just because you hate who they are. Yeah, makes sense. A wonderfully mature, adult attitude.

What's the deal with using douchebag as an insult anyways? I've never seen a douchbag run...and can't for the life of me figure out what a swat team and small bags of a vinegar solution have in common. And why douchebag and not colostomy bag?

It's an odd man who wears a sidearm into a battle of wits. 

[KBCraig]

The Amish are mentioned a few times on here as a sort of model to follow...guess what happens in their communities when someone starves their animals? Those people rally around and take care of the issue...nobody did that in this community so that leads me to believe it's more lip-service than emulation. Is this how you want the general public to view the FSP?

The obvious disconnect between the two is that the Amish --all of them-- own, use and rely on horses on a daily basis. As should be obvious, only a tiny fraction of Free Staters know anything at all about horses (probably about the same percentage as the general population).

I, personally, know everything anyone needs to know about horses: one end bites, the other end kicks, and everything in between costs money. 

The only FSPer that I know of who has a lot of horse knowledge (other than Heidi), and who happened to be in a position to see what was going on at the farm, was working there. I neither judge nor condemn her actions in staying quiet at first, or speaking out now; both were her call to make.

So, the "community" argument falls apart for Free Staters simply because so few had either knowledge of horses and their needs, or direct knowledge of circumstances at the Travis farm. Once they were asked to do what they could do --basic barn construction is easy-- they showed up in force. None of them knew one end of a horse from the other, but they knew how to work hammers and nails.

The community argument does not fall apart for the "horse community", because the accusations were centered amongst the people who are supposed to know how to care for horses. This is the community that failed, by seeking to use the power of the state instead of the power of community. Instead of helping, they accused. While knowing much more about animal husbandry than how to build pole barns, they didn't offer even that much help.

They sure offered to show up with massive trailers, though.

It would have been a nice bit of intra-community fellowship to offer assistance --even assistance of knowledge about local resources-- instead of calling for police to seize the horses. After waiting through four months of winter!

Instead of asking why Heidi and Brian didn't get help from the FSP community, why not ask why they didn't get help from the horse community?