Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[AntonLee]

the law IS at the point of a gun.  I fear you might think that we're all against 'the rules'. . . I have no problem with 'rules'. . .if you own property. . . you can make 'rules'.  Since government doesn't really OWN anything, they don't have really any say about the 'rules'

a 'rule' where I live is that you can't leave shit on the ground, you can't point a gun at me, you can't rape children in my home, and you can't fart on my favorite chair.  Doing so would have you escorted from the premises.  When you own something, you can make rules about it.  If you don't own something, you can't make rules about it (or at the very least, the rules you might make for someone else's property are illegitimate)

if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being.  I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary.  If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns.  They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.

I love America!!!

(just kidding I really wouldn't do that to you, I'm a decent human being)

[Bill St. Clair]

if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being.  I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary.  If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns.  They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.

Well said. Nothing like taking something a little further than "the law" usually does to make a point. MistyBlue appears to think that her opinion about what constitutes animal cruelty entitles men with guns to take Brian's property. How would she feel if "the law" went a little further and banned ownership of animals outright? Because a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who managed to get elected voted one day to make it so doesn't make it any more right in my book. Either horses are property or they're not. If they are, then it ain't nobody's business how Brian treats them (not that I think he mistreated them, I wasn't there, so I don't know). There's a name for a society that claims people have property rights, but puts all sorts of limits on how they may use "their" property. It's called fascism. At least communism is honest about everything belonging to the state.

[John Edward Mercier]

the law IS at the point of a gun.  I fear you might think that we're all against 'the rules'. . . I have no problem with 'rules'. . .if you own property. . . you can make 'rules'.  Since government doesn't really OWN anything, they don't have really any say about the 'rules'

a 'rule' where I live is that you can't leave shit on the ground, you can't point a gun at me, you can't rape children in my home, and you can't fart on my favorite chair.  Doing so would have you escorted from the premises.  When you own something, you can make rules about it.  If you don't own something, you can't make rules about it (or at the very least, the rules you might make for someone else's property are illegitimate)

if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being.  I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary.  If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns.  They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.

I love America!!!

(just kidding I really wouldn't do that to you, I'm a decent human being)

So Brian's deeded title to his property is worthless?

[AntonLee]

I'm sure it's not worthless to him.  I've not heard anything about him being a bad neighbor.  Seems to me like a guy minding his own business is much more desirable than busy body neighbors.

[MistyBlue]

Anton...if you did that I'd have to go to your house and fart in your favorite chair. After eating pickled eggs.      (also kidding, but possibly not about the pickled eggs  )

Bill and Anton...it's not "my opinion" on what constitutes animal cruelty. The definition for each state is determined by panels of experts in animal care and health fields. So it's not even an opinion but an educated fact. And it really should be common sense that if you starve an animal, you're causing it to suffer and purposely causing suffering is cruel.

And since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.
As for putting a few small morality and anti-cruelty conditions on the ownership of something living...I don't see an issue with that as long as those laws aren't overboard. So I keep up 100% with those laws and those who make those laws and follow them around and make sure that doesn't happen. Seems to work better than pissing and moaning on a BB.  I'm no bleeding heart animal hugging overly emotional pinhead. I think the bare minimum in animal care needs to be addressed. When it wasn't by the law...the conditions of an enormous percentage of animals were horrendous. Centuries of condemnation and outrage and neighbors helping neighbors didn't do shite. Going back to that is assinine. Brian and Heidi didn't bother to meet even the BARE minimum for health for those animals. And it's seriously not that hard to do. Then they come crying online at the speed of light blathering lie after lie and contradicting themselves over and over. So where was all that blathering for help if there was an issue all along? They were trying to dump those horses at overloaded rescues, but didn't bother asking the SPCA because they hate government. So screw the animals...let 'em suffer as long as they can shun government help. That's an immature and spiteful way to handle an issue IMO.

[AntonLee]

hmmm so we need experts to dictate what they decide is common sense.  If they're going to public schools you might as well take the "educated" out of "educated guess"

NO thanks, I'll do as I please with my property.  You'll continue to send men with guns because of what you believe in.  It's okay, it's just my life and shit.

I don't like pickled anything, so those who ingest pickled things must leave them outside.  To do so I will have to form a panel to decide on the punishment for those who enter my home after eating pickles.  Machines that scan your stomach to make sure there are no pickled things must be purchased.  Technicians hired to make sure the machine works correctly.  They need pensions and insurance.  They need vehicles to get back and forth from my house.  I will be adding a pickle tax of 30%.  Thanks for your cooperation, and God Bless America.

[Jan]

And since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.

I'm sure the Jews never imagined that a Hitler-type would come along and try to gas them into extinction.

[Bill St. Clair]

I'm sure the Jews never imagined that a Hitler-type would come along and try to gas them into extinction.

<satire>
And it was all done legally. But if they try it in America, all we'll be able to do about it is hold up signs and let them drag us off to the ovens. Violent defense against government employees is not useful.
</satire>

[cyne]

Misty Blue said:

And since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.

If you don't have any worries, you're not paying attention!   It's a constant battle to keep our rights.    There's a campaign to make us all "guardians" and not "owners" of animals, and laws have been passed in some places to make it so.   Here's a  list from www.guardiancampaign.com  - in these cities (and the entire state of Rhode Island)  animal ownership is no more; people are now guardians, not owners.   

2 0 0 7
San Jose, Calif. (June 19, 2007)

2 0 0 6
Imperial Beach, California (July 19, 2006)
Santa Clara County, California (April 25, 2006)

2 0 0 5
Bloomington, Indiana (December 21, 2005)

2 0 0 4
St. Louis, Missouri (August 9, 2004)
Albany, California (June 7, 2004)
Windsor, Ontario Canada (May 10, 2004)
Wanaque, New Jersey (May 10, 2004)

2 0 0 3
Sebastopol, California (December, 2003)
Marin County, California (All 28 Cities) (December, 2003)
San Francisco, California (January 13, 2003)
Woodstock, NY

2 0 0 2
Amherst, Massachusetts (April 24, 2002)
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (March 11, 2002)

2 0 0 1
Sherwood, Arkansas (September 24, 2001)
Rhode Island (statewide) (July 5, 2001)
West Hollywood, California (February 19, 2001)
Berkeley, California (February 27, 2001)

2 0 0 0
Boulder, Colo. (July 12, 2000)


  Coming soon to a town near you.   

[erisian]

Not to mention breed-specific legislation and zoning restrictions. No, there probably won't be an act of Congress banning animal ownership outright. But Misty, you should know as well as anyone that it is intended to be a death of a thousand cuts, not a beheading.

[Pat McCotter]

And don't forget Steve Sprowl and "local animal activist" attempts to  stop the pig scramble at the Stratham Fair in 2002.

SPCA seeks to halt fair's pig scramble

[AntonLee]

Steve Sprowl kept losing the race, hence why he wants to end it.

[leetninja]

Steve Sprowl kept losing the race, hence why he wants to end it.

well played sir ... well played!

[ny2nh]

Let me be the first to say that, yes, I want people like Beth in my midst. I know there are plenty of others who will agree - most of which either do not post here or will not post here. I generally don't even log but I have been following this thread.

Beth is a principled person - anyone who knows her knows that. I'm not sure if Veracity is Sharon or just some cohort of hers, but too many of the "facts" they posted would have to be from someone connected to her for it to be random. The one thing that I do know is that there are plenty of people who can substantiate all sorts of details about issues with Sharon in the past, not just Beth. People that there is no reason in the world to not believe.

I am confident that what Beth did with regard to the horses was in no way some sort of spite over a disagreement with Heidi. Maybe she did it because the horses were in danger. Maybe she felt the horses were in enough danger that she complied with the police request knowing that there would be backlash, knowing that it would hit hard at home. That is not a decision she would make just out of spite.

I feel bad that Brian has had to deal with all of this horse mess. Had there been adequate shelters, had there been the number of horses Beth was told there would be, had there been ample hay and grain, had things just been different, none of us would be even having this conversation. It's nothing personal against Brian at all - it's just a very unfortunate situation that could have, and should have, been avoided altogether.

Let me reiterate - yes, I want people like Beth around me. She is a good and decent person that I'm glad to have as a friend.

Tammy

[MaineShark]

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.

Violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights.  Since you argue that violence is acceptable in response to animal abuse, then you are arguing that animals have a right not to be abused.

Of course, animals don't have rights, so you are arguing a contradictory set of assertions.

He's definitely entitled to compensation. But without laws/regulations on putting in and maintaining a septic system...what's to stop the neighbor from constantly doing the same thing? And if that neighbor didn't pay up? Without a law to back it up...how does the farmer get his compensation? Or if the neighbor can't afford to replace 74 head? Then the lack of the law just bankrupted the farmer who did nothing wrong other than having an asshat of an ignorant "don't wanna follow no health laws" neighbor. That's fair?

You're applying a double-standard.  Governments murdered a quarter of a million men, women, and children in the last century.  They maimed, tortured, raped, starved, enslaved, assaulted, abused, and oppressed billions more.  They vaporized two cities, fire-bombed many more, set off nuclear weapons for "practice" and built piss-poor nuclear reactors that contaminated haw many square miles of land?  They dump toxic waste and refuse to clean it up.  They stifle innovation, preventing medical progress that could cure many diseases.  The list goes on, and on, and on.

Amateur thugs, "asshats" and what-have-you could never hope to compete with that level of death, destruction.  If you are going to judge two systems, use the same standards, please.  Yes, anarchy/"voluntaryism" is imperfect, because humanity is imperfect.  But if you apply the same standards to both options, one clearly comes out so far ahead that even comparing them is just plain silly.

This is what confuses me...if I hate the teaching system I blame the board of ed and not the teachers. If I hate the laws...then I work to change the laws and don't waste my time and energy hating on those who's job it is to uphold those laws. It's not like the LEOs make the laws.

You are responsible for every action you take.  Every last one.  It doesn't matter if someone offered you a paycheck if you will just harm some innocent people.  You are responsible for every good and ever evil thing that you do.  So am I.  So are they.

Cops choose to attack innocent people.  It doesn't matter if they do it because they get paid to do it, of it they do it because they believe that hurting innocent people will make the world a better place, or if they do it because they had a vision that told them to go around hurting innocent people.  The only thing that matters is that they do it.  They do it, and they are responsible for what they do.

Bad laws don't cause problems because of legislators.  Legislators can write whatever drivel they want, for all I care.  Won't interfere with my life, any more than what's written in the newest novel at the bookstore.  Those laws only interfere with my life because thugs with guns use them as an excuse to attack, kidnap, torture, and murder innocent people.  The thugs with guns are the problem.

And, to be blunt, "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.  It wasn't an excuse when the thugs decided to exterminate my kin in Europe, and it's not an excuse today.

Joe