Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[erisian]

This is how it's worded in The NH Constitution:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

Article 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.

[KBCraig]

MistyBlue, even though your posts are a bit long, they would be much more readable if you would use the return key more often.

For starters, hit "return" twice after ending a paragraph; this will create a blank line of space before the next paragraph. Just that simple step will make your posts much easier to read.

[stanford]

Guys, I'm feeling a little low on karma. Power me up if you will. Or smite me a blow if you are so inclined.

[AntonLee]

looks like I got whacked pretty good too.  Thankfully, to me it means little more than the fact that people read what I said and reacted.  Smite and applaud away.

[KBCraig]

The phantom smiter is definitely active lately.

[John Edward Mercier]

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.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Nowhere in it does it list 'property' as an inalienable right.

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.

[coffeeseven]

I'm getting hit too. All you non-thieves get 1+

[cyne]

The phantom smiter is definitely active lately.

It seems I have not been granted the right to smite nor applaud anyone.   It feels a little unfair to see my karma keep dropping when I'm not allowed to play that game!   

[Moebius Tripp]

Me been feelin' smited, also.   

[stanford]

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Nowhere in it does it list 'property' as an inalienable right.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I know what life and liberty are. My silly interpretation is that I need property to pursue happiness. I mean, how happy are you without the wind blowing through your hair in your new convertible? And nothing says "happy" like racking a round into your new AK-47. So the word "property" isn't in this sacred document. Does that mean that property is not an inalienable right?

The sacred document continues:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Does this mean that if I no longer want to be governed I can withdraw my consent? Were it only that easy. Many have tried. Many have been thrown in metal cages for doing so. Talk about your cruelty to animals!

[AntonLee]

only silly people need a piece of paper to tell them that they have rights to private property. 

[MistyBlue]

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.

Ask and ye shall receive:

I realize these are bunches of questions, pick some at least:



Beth built the fences? Or you did? Or professionals did? Because so far you have personally stated three possible theories for how the fences ended up on the property. In video you stated you personally built the fences and they fell down. Then Heidi states in same video that professionals were hired to build fences. (if pros built the fencing seen in the video I hope they weren't paid) Now you're saying the poor fencing is entirely Beth's fault. Which is it?

Then there was this comment by you:

Nov 6 08:Here's an update. Steve Sprowl, the SPCA investigator, finally called me back today and said that all he wanted to do is to check out the sheds as required by law. I assured him that our very expensive racehorses were well taken care of. I explained that the "Animal Cruelty Officer" from the town next door visited a couple months ago and reminded me that there was a "law" that required shelter between November 15th and April 15th. I told the cop then that I was aware of that rule of theirs. Their law actually says November 1st. Of course, I was supposed to be aware of this law by the mere fact that I was born?

My questions are:
So you weren't aware at all? And November wasn't even your first time being told of the shelter law...a few months before November you were also told. Why? No horses there yet supposedly. So you state you weren't aware of the rule, but you also state you were aware of the rule and were told a couple months before November, again in November. And neither of those times did you think to do a 30 second Google search to get the exact wording on the NH shelter law that states in full each horses must have a 10x10 3 sided covered area? Took me 30 seconds to find that info since I'm not in NH. After two warnings it never occured to you to check that since you've also stated you would have been happy to comply had you only been told/known?

[MistyBlue]

And last group of questions:

Your own comments:

Just a couple of points. I've learned things since this whole fiasco started. You are reading/watching/listening to/channeling information that I've written/taped/recorded/thought as some facts were known and others weren't yet known. To say there are inconsistencies across time is certainly accurate. That's the nature of breaking news. Do you expect a newspaper to go back and correct last week's article when new information comes to light today? It would be nice if I had all facts on every facet of this case that were known and yet to be known in the future. That way, I'd be able to be more consistent.

My questions:
As facts were known to YOU? You did not know any of your own inconsistencies? You had no idea who actually built the fence until someone else told you? When you stated you built the fences you had no idea you didn't? When you claim you spent $____ on hay you had no idea you didn't do that? When you stated the horses got hay and grain always all the time you had no idea they didn't when you were standing next to Heidi as she said different on camera? When 3 different people told you between summer and November in 2008 that your shelters were inadequate and not legal you had no idea that they had done so when you claimed nobody told you anything about shelters until March? Even though it's been your own words stating these facts? I could go on listing the lies....or you could inform people that you have an extremely shoddy memory. Or that you've been skewing facts in order to get the most false support possible or the most fawning over you possible. Or maybe just the most free labor possible?

They're all related questions in each group.

[Russell Kanning]

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.

In this case, I don't think I should call the cops to steal their horses or even tell them how to care for them. I do want to let some people know that I do not agree with the spca or the government thugs in the taking of the horses. I also do not have the time or money to help them with their horse business.
I also will stay out of your business, unless it involves you helping the thugs or otherwise hurting people.

[MistyBlue]

An understandable viewpoint Mr Kanning. I'd love to be able to always help every neighbor of mine out through tough time or issues, but it's not always possible or feasible. And there might be neighbors I don't like so much...I'm honest enough to admit that also.  Although I'm pretty lucky in the neighbor department.
But many others in this forum have stated that the replacement solution for removing the government and SPCA from upholding animal welfare issues was that the community would take care of the problem. But in this case...their own community didn't. You might not have voiced that the community should help out with animal welfare but others did. Yet when it was needed, nobody did. So my point was that the solution proposed is already proven to have not worked.
And if it doesn't work by those who think that the community should step in...and if the rest who don't care either way won't step in...then I guess people just allow their animals to decline and suffer and possibly eventually pass away? If you're one of the people that think property rights trumps everything including suffering then I guess that is the answer.
I'm jusy trying to understand the mind set of the folks on here. Everyone has different levels of beliefs and what they support and don't.

This comment I don't understand though:

I also will stay out of your business, unless it involves you helping the thugs or otherwise hurting people

I'm confused as to why I would have you in my business if I "help the thugs." I gather thugs are LEOs? I already do volunteer through 2 local PDs here in CT once in a while. I teach self defense and firearm safety on a volunteer basis. And a form of modified personal protection for women and teens. Does that mean I am now somehow open season for getting into my business? Because I don't share a hatred of LEOs? That sounds odd to me.

But if a solution is offered as a Better Way by some folks and yet that solution isn't working...then it's really not a better way, is it?