Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[Velma]

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

I'll be negative soon, lol.   

[BillKauffman]

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.

I've tried to explain to you that in a voluntary society people have to explicitly sign a contract to abide by the rules governing them.

They believe property rights (first right being right to self and all other is a corollary to one's labor) trump everything including the suffering of animals which is a moral but not criminal wrong.

[coffeeseven]

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.

I speak only for me. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. If I CHOOSE to share my things with you it's because I CHOOSE to share my things with you. If you FORCE me to share my things with you it's called theft.

[KBCraig]

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.

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

That's below your usual standards, JEM. Brian's point was that rights are not given by government, and do not originate from government, and that the U.S. founding documents are clear on that philosophy.

I also would expect that someone as well-read as you would know the history of the phrase "pursuit of happiness". The earliest versions explicitly mentioned property, but that was considered too limiting; everyone should be able to freely define what their own "happiness" is, and not everyone seeks property. Some want the freedom to seek their own vocation, or education, or lifestyle.

The judicial opinions and legal scholars I've read (IANAL) typically hold that free ownership of property is the "pursuit of happiness" referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually it was from Lockean philosophy. Locke did not believe that which existed naturally (not derived from human labor) could be owned exlusively outside of societal contract (government).
Its why the NH Constitution allows for the taxation of certain elements but not others...

[mackler]

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

*gag*

[John Edward Mercier]

I think she missed my point... specific property is defined as common or private when government is the agent of exclusivity.

Domesticated animals do not fall under that category... they are neither natural nor common to NH.
But its quite obvious to most that NH is deciding on what restrictions will be placed on common property... irregardless of the basis of their fiduciary responsibility protect the individual common right from infringement.

And I fear that it will only get worse.

[Pat McCotter]

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."

[BillKauffman]

My silly interpretation is that I need property to pursue happiness.

Happiness being subjective may or may not require property.

Certainly your life and liberty also requires that the products of your labor be your property.

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life...Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

"The right of life and liberty--that is to say, the right of the man to himself--is not really one right and the right of property another right.  They are two aspects of the same perception--the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself.  The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 210

Does this mean that if I no longer want to be governed I can withdraw my consent?

Yes, by moving or within the political process set forth in the constitution or revolution.

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

MistyBlue I appreciate your attempt to explain your views. I hope you realize that the participants on this forum don't walk in lock step with each other.

Many here view LEO as paid enforcers, even the name "Law Enforcement" as opposed to "Peace Officer" points this out. Russell for example does not "hate" cops. Russell tries not to "hate" anyone. He opposes what they do. For example him and his wife were arrested for holding signs on a public sidewalk. Russell had his arms twisted behind his back almost to the point of permanent damage by federal marshals, his crime, peaceful noncooperation after attempting to hand an IRS employee a piece of paper.

See Russell and others here take the Gandhi/MLK approach of peaceful resistance. They don't threaten or yell at the cops, the worse the do is remain silent or tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

Russell, Lauren, Dave Ridley and others have served time, sometimes extremely excessive punishments. Lauren was held 90 days, treated very badly for sitting on a porch in resistance to the imminent domain takings in New London CT.

[stanford]

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

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.

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?

No inconsistencies here. I started to build the first fence during the summer. I laid out the area and put the first wire of a four-wire fence. Beth told me she knew how to build fences, so I let her finish that one and do the rest, which she completed with the help of her boyfriend and my son. Like all fences, they were in constant need of repair, which was done by Beth and Heidi through the winter. Near the end of winter, the maintenance hassles were too much, and so Heidi hired a professional fence company to come in and replace them all with five-wire fences, which stand today.

Is that satisfactory?

So here's your question: You said:

Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property.

Where did you find that the government gives us the right to own property, and how are those rights conveyed by the government to someone who wants to own property?

[MistyBlue]

Fair enough....I can answer your question with your own words, the Constitution gives us the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being for many to own land. I've been under the impression that the Constitution was the start of our government, although I may be wrong in that.

Also the government allows us to consider land "our own" even before we own it. As in when we have a mortgage on the property....the bank may technically have all rights to the property when they own the controlling percentage of that land's worth. Kind of like the one who owns the controlling amount of shares in the company has the legal right to coontrol that company.

Yet if we take a mortgage on a property for 80% of it's worth...it's still ours to do with as we wish as long as we pay our mortgage/promise off in a timely manner. The bank cannot come in and say, "We own 80% of that property and it's better business for us to use it as ________ until you've paid off 51% of the worth of the property."

I guess we all interpret it in different ways. But if I follow the chain of rational thought backwards from purchase to owning a property...I keep bumping into the government at some point. Who knows? Maybe my train of thought is incorrect to other people.



Here's your next question: (I am humming the theme from Jeopardy here, LOL)
You stated both in the newspapers and online that you had no idea what the welfare shelter laws were for NH until March 2009 when they came to take the horses for neglect and non-compliance.

Yet you also stated in many different forums and areas that not only was your family informed in November that shelter was necessary, you also admit that another ACO had been out 2 months prior to then to tell you the same and even Ms. Paradis from the rescue told Heidi that you were not set up to care for and shelter 30 horses. You were told who to contact to get the specific shelter laws, and common sense dictates that after two comments from different ACOs and one from a rescue owner....it would make sense to look up the laws online in a 30 second google search to find oout what exactly those laws state.

Are you still stating that you had no idea that there wasn't adequate shelter on your property? (for desert evolved horses not equipped by mother nature to withstand NH winters)

[MistyBlue]

I've tried to explain to you that in a voluntary society people have to explicitly sign a contract to abide by the rules governing them.

They believe property rights (first right being right to self and all other is a corollary to one's labor) trump everything including the suffering of animals which is a moral but not criminal wrong.

If it's a voluntary society why do they have to explicitly sign a contract? 

Just kidding... ...I understand the point that suffering of animals would be a moral wrong...but would the contract mentioned above address anything moral? And if it doesn't, what would be the remedy for moral wrongs such as purposely causing animals to suffer either with malice or by careless neglect?

If there isn't any remedy for that...then that's a free yet not moral society isn't it?

Shunning is not a remedy because that *was* the remedy for a couple hundred years or so. It worked so poorly that moral laws had to be implemented, the problem was rampant at that time due to leaving the care of animals 100% up to those who owned them. They never did remove animals from the Property status though, they just implemented consequences to those who, through  malice or careless neglect, caused undue suffering to living things not able to have their own freedoms. So wouldn't that be the same as what's going on now? The government causing emotional suffering to some humans through either mailice or neglect...yet it's perfectly okay to remove the freedom of being free from suffering just because the living thing isn't capable of speech or cognitive thought? Is that acceptable?

[MistyBlue]

Tom Sawyer...thanks.  I do see that not everyone here marches to the exact same beat but does share the same core beliefs about liberty.
The ED issue in New Haven was a fiasco and definitely a bastardization of the ED laws by the government here. I was also involved with protesting and fighting that. (I used to be a Realtor) I'm still pissed off about the outcome, that was 100% wrong. And I'm sorry to hear that Lauren paid that price for protesting that also...that's reprehensible. 

[stanford]

Rebecca, I assume you're satisfied with my answer on the fences because you've taken on my question.

Fair enough....I can answer your question with your own words, the Constitution gives us the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being for many to own land. I've been under the impression that the Constitution was the start of our government, although I may be wrong in that.

First of all it was the Declaration of Independence that stated that all rights are unalienable. That is, we have them when we are born (the words they used were "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness").

The U.S. Constitution was written to create a government that will work to protect those rights.

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? What about other property, like my car? Or my television? Does government give me a right to own that property as well?

So I'm not quite satisfied with your answer. Can you try to clarify?