Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[Russell Kanning]

you can take it even further ....  even if I see one person kill another ... I am not going to call the government or take away their liberty
it makes it easier to make decisions

[Russell Kanning]

Hey, Stephen Sprowl has a website http://www.stephensprowl.com/

From that site: "SPCA: We scope out your most valuable animals for us to take and sell!"

I'd be somewhere around last in line to defend the actions taken against Brian and his family, but is there any evidence supporting the above claim?

you can ask the spca or some of their victims ... I am not sure what they do

[John Edward Mercier]

There has to be a line somewhere. 

There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?

Ditto Mike. That was where I wanted to take this, to that imaginary line. I suppose that's part of helping people to realize how they need to grow. I know that not too long ago I wouldn't have had a second thought about 'doing the right thing' by 'protecting the animal'. It wasn't until we had a run in with the local know it all that wanted to impose her values and opinion on us that I realized that any imposition of my values on someone else was wrong, and that to do so would be to violate their rights.

People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.

I love my animals. Don't you dare try to force me to take care of them the way you think I ought to.

And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[slave_3646]

And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)

Because they're property.

Unless of course  you want to go all Zen Buddhist Monk style and recognize that every living thing has 'rights', plants included. Have fun starving to death with nowhere to live because any action you might take to satisfy those needs of yours would undoubtedly end up with you violating the 'rights' of some other living organism...

[leetninja]

so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?

could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?

could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?

the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?

[leetninja]

There has to be a line somewhere. 

There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?

that is more than a bit of twisting one part of what i said.  i dont think i should have to say that i didnt mean it that way ... but i didnt mean it that way.

i meant that there has to be a line somewhere in regards to what kind of treatment an animal should receive and there has to be an acceptable/unacceptable way of caring for and treating an animal.  possibly consequences for abusing animals. 

why am i even explaining this ... do me a favor - dont twist my words.  k thanks bye. 

[cyne]

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.

Try this essay by Vicki Hearne - "What's Wrong With Animal Rights?"   www.sfponline.org/Uploads/20/Hearne.pdf

[margomaps]

Have you watched that 20/20 piece?

I have not.

On the other hand, if someone showed a video of anarchists smashing private property or hurting people, with the tagline, "Anarchists: we smash private property and hurt people!" -- I wouldn't put much stock in that either.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Have you watched that 20/20 piece?

I have not.

On the other hand, if someone showed a video of anarchists smashing private property or hurting people, with the tagline, "Anarchists: we smash private property and hurt people!" -- I wouldn't put much stock in that either.

Why don't you watch the Stossel special that I posted, which Kat is speaking of and see if your comparison holds water.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Here you go Margo

"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel

Part 1

Part 2

[Mike Barskey]

so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?

could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?

could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?

the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?

Yes. I think that an owner of property can do whatever he wants with his property. I do not think that taking a brand new car that you own and driving it off a cliff (that you also own, let's say) is a good use of your property, but you have the right to do it. I think it's far worse to torture or harm or kill an animal you own, but it is your animal - you have the right. If I don't like it, I will possibly resort to voluntaryist methods of dealing with it - not drawing an arbitrary "line" over which I assert you have crossed and therefore it is now "right" for something to happen to you.

[Mike Barskey]

There has to be a line somewhere. 

There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?

that is more than a bit of twisting one part of what i said.  i dont think i should have to say that i didnt mean it that way ... but i didnt mean it that way.

i meant that there has to be a line somewhere in regards to what kind of treatment an animal should receive and there has to be an acceptable/unacceptable way of caring for and treating an animal.  possibly consequences for abusing animals. 

why am i even explaining this ... do me a favor - dont twist my words.  k thanks bye. 

I didn't twist your words. As far as I understand them, the next logical question for me is "if there is an arbitrary line, what happens when it is crossed." So I asked that question.

You have yet to answer: why does there have to be a line? Or maybe a better question is: if you have a line that you think people should not cross, what will you do if my line is in a different place or revolves around a different level of torture (or what if I don't have a line?)?

[lastlady]

but we sometimes let people vent their frustrations at a huge powerful system that hurts millions of people each year.

and I really appreciate that...

[margomaps]

Why don't you watch the Stossel special that I posted, which Kat is speaking of and see if your comparison holds water.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I just got done watching the segment, and I'm pleased to report that my comparison not only holds water, but is even more apt than I first thought.  What exactly in that program was supposed to change my mind?  He profiles a few bad-apple type SPCA enforcers who have clearly done harm.  Am I supposed to extrapolate this to all local SPCA branches and assume they're all corrupt?  Consider the consequences of that way of thinking:

"Anarchists smash private property!"
"Gun owners go on rampages and kill people at schools!"
"Homeschoolers are religious wackos who molest children in scary compounds!"

Wow, a lot of freestaters are gun-owning anarchist homeschoolers -- scum of the Earth!

Stossel himself sums up the program with a critical point that you might have overlooked:

"By the way it's important to understand that all these SPCA's are independent of each other"