Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[MaineShark]

First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it...

There's no "perhaps" about it.  If I believed that animals were being abused, I would surely try and remedy the situation.

I think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.

What does that say about you?  Regardless of whether there was abuse or not, you believed that there was abuse, and you turned a blind eye to it?  Doesn't sound like the behavior of someone worthy of much trust, to me.

It seems the FSP is polarizing into two distinct groups. The first, original group came to the state with the intent of working for positive change. Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency. The second group, which seems to include a lot of latecomers, doesn't give a damn about anyone apart from themselves, and wants to make the most waves possible. I count myself in the first group. This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.

That's an interesting take on things.  As someone who has considered NH his home and been involved at various levels here, for years before the FSP was even a shadow of an idea, I have to disagree regarding pretty much the entire content of that claim.  Most of the early movers involved with the FSP are the ones "making waves," and also the ones who believe in decency towards their neighbors.  The ones behaving with the least decency tend to be later in the move, but also tend to be interested in defending the status quo rather than working for change.

And, speaking as a native Yankee, do you have even the vaguest conception of how despicable most of us consider backstabbing?  You talk about being good and decent neighbors, and then turn around and support those engaging in behavior which most natives are going to consider the polar opposite.

Joe

[shyfrog]

I have yet to see a compelling reason for bringing the full force of the state down on them.

As for animal treatment: Has anyone ever seen Molly and Spencer? Or perhaps the cats that have outlived their 9 lives and then some?

BTW...I am at the Travis household every weekend (Sundays for band rehearsal, good food, and shooting) and count them as friends.

[Keyser Soce]

Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals,

That's not what he said.

Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency.

Like not calling the cops on them?

[aworldnervelink]

There's no "perhaps" about it.  If I believed that animals were being abused, I would surely try and remedy the situation.

OK, my bad. I believed at the time that it was not my business to speak out, so I remained quiet. You stated previously

I would, therefore, support non-violent means of discouraging abuse, including support for education of animal owners as to their proper care, voluntary sanctions against abusers (ie, encouraging local businesses to charge the abusers higher prices, for example), or outright ostracism in severe cases...

These are all good things that I will take into consideration. I've been struggling with this because there don't seem to be any easy answers.

Look, I am not necessarily in support of what the state did. However, there was clearly a problem, and clearly something was going to happen regardless of any amount of jawboning on the forums. As evidenced by postings on the Union Leader, this is yet another thing that the general public is using to paint all Porcs as wackos. Is it not possible that we can do a little better?

[J’raxis 270145]

Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.

The only vendetta I have is defending the people I consider to be friends when an anonymous poster creates a new account and posts a bunch of completely unfounded, bizarre stuff to try and make Beth look horrible. Gee, I would never think Sharon could have anything to do with that. It's not like she ever called the feds on anyone or anything.....but now Veracity would like to somehow say that Beth is responsible for that? Okay then.

If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affidavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.

As usual, there is always more to the story than meets the eye. But I guess because Brian declared the truth at a party, it must be so. Sure, people can talk to Brian and get one side of the story. They can also talk to Beth and get the other side of the story. Or is Beth's side just completely wrong because she was put in a situation that involved the government?

As usual, you try to strawman what I say. Good politician.

First: "Was put." Try "put." Active voice. As in, she did something.

Second: There are no "sides" to whose name is printed on a bloody piece of paper. If Brian said Beth's name is on it, then I'm going to believe Beth's name is on it. If Brian is lying, it'd be a pretty idiotic thing to lie about: The affadavit is a certified public record that we're all going to get to see when the trial begins, so if someone else's name is on it, how could Brian possibly think he could get away with claiming otherwise?

Third, most importantly: Getting the State involved to protect someone else's property against them is about as "completely wrong" as it gets. It's an outright act of aggression. I have no issue with people turning to the State to try and fix things (e.g., political activism). I understand people occasionally begging the State for permission to do stuff out of fear or whatever (e.g., getting permits). I'll even tolerate, but not really "support," people turning to the State when acts of aggression have been committed against a person. But victimless crimes where all that's been hurt are some animals? Hell no.

I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).

I actually do care what the condition of the horses was.

Let me rephrase here: I don't care about the condition of the horses in the context of this thread. Back when people were debating with the horse-owners coming onto the forum, I posted at least once that everyone doing so was missing the point (and probably falling into an intentional trap): The thread is about the State vs. Brian, and the correctness or wrongness of the State telling Brian how to treat his property, not Brian's treatment of his property itself. William tried to drag the thread back on-topic again, too: This thread is "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats."

But no. People are going to keep turning this into an argument over the private care of a private citizen's private property. Let's not concentrate on the fact that someone sicced the gang with guns on someone over that care. Let's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care. "Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"

I do not support someone maliciously mistreating animals. I'd ostracize such a person as surely as I'd ostracize an aggressor. But it's not an act of aggression against a person, so it doesn't rise to the level of requiring State intervention. (Like I said earlier, I don't support any State intervention in people's lives, but I'll understand and won't condemn—and it's in keeping with the FSP SoI—people turning to the State when an act of aggression is committed against a person.)

And why does it matter whether it was another freestater or not? Is there two different ways to act - one towards freestaters and one towards the rest of the community? Like someone recently posted - I think on this very forum - being a freestater shouldn't mean you are expected to be held to a lower standard. I've paraphrased and I apologize to the poster for that, but it was along those lines....as to why we tolerate poor behavior just because someone moved here because of the FSP.

Ever heard the term hypocrisy? S'pose I could keep making politician jokes here, but I'll stop.

I'll paraphrase Brian on this topic: The one thing that binds freestaters together is their belief that the government isn't the solution to (most, if not all) problems. Some of us are Christian, some atheists. Some of us vegetarians, some meat-eaters. There's virtually nothing we have in common, except that one thing.

Anyone claiming to believe in something is certainly going to be held to that standard by me—their own standard, chosen by themselves. A freestater siccing the State on another over animal-welfare regulation is damned hypocritical.

And, yes, your principles and mine are different....they always have been....and I'm really okay with that. Really. And you of course are always 100% correct.

Nah, I've been wrong plenty of times. For example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person. And up until this situation, I thought she was at least a libertarian, who, even if she might have personal emotional reasons that have made her do a few bad things, she was at least on board with the idea that we don't use the State to solve our problems.

After all, you surround yourself with some pretty damn principled folks. Gladly, I surround myself with different folks.

I surround myself mostly by people who understand the principle of non-aggression. Not local politicians who feign libertarianism to get them involved in mediocre Republican political campaigns. And certainly not people who cry to the State over their disapproval of other people's utilization of their own property.

[J’raxis 270145]

First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it, as some feel that the community should be self-policing. My own view is that Heidi is mainly responsible, and Brian is just along for the ride... but if he wants to ride that train off the cliff it's his choice. I think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.

I'll admit, I don't go out to Brian's property nearly enough to know anything about the condition of the horses—in fact, I've never even seen the horses. But Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?

Wow, there was the perfect opportunity here to demonstrate how we can privately police our own, how we can respond in a free market way to undesirable behavior... and you dropped the ball. That, or you and Beth actually believed that a statist solution was a superior solution.

Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals, feel free to stay away from me.

Straw man. See my post to Tammy.

Don't come to my parties or movie nights, once I've sufficiently overcome the bad taste in my mouth to start having them again. You disgust me.

Haven't been to one of your parties since 2007, and I don't plan to go to one again. I'd already decided I didn't want to associate with you as a result of your own past actions, and I respect people's property rights.

[ny2nh]

Darn, Jeremy's not going to Kevin's parties.

[J’raxis 270145]

I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.

I don't want to turn this thread further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that. Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?

[ny2nh]

I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.

I don't want to turn this thread further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that. Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?

So now you're ragging on Kat for not allowing Ivy to post here? Kat is somehow part of this clique that is turning people against Ivy? Wow.

[MistyBlue]

Let's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care. "Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"

Ridiculous dramatics.   I'm never shrill nor hysterical. I'm too often branded as too uncaring/cold because I refuse to whine or shriek or chest thump. I've also never equated children with animals. Never. That's your own estimation of this issue or it's a dramatic way to try to portray me as ridiculous.

But Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?

Did nothing about it? Beth was feeding those horses her own hay from her own out of pocket money because Brian and Heidi refused to. She was there personally caring for those horses to the best of her ability despite the uncaring owners. And she was supporting them as much as she could with *her own money.* Seriously...should she have taken out a loan to feed those freeloaders...erm...freestaters horses for them?

Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?

Would you like another list of the lies Brian has told so far? How about Heidi's list? They're lying to all of you because otherwise they're pretty positive that they'd be getting little, if any, support or agreement.
I *attempted* to give information about horses and their health and very bare bones basic needs to counter the lies Brian and Heidi have been feeding to those of you who know nothing about horses...so that those of you can make an INFORMED decision with all the FACTS. If facts aren't wanted...my apologies. I personally prefer to know the truth before I throw in my towel on any sides of anything I feel is important. I assumed others felt the same.

BTW...slander is spoken. Libel is written. Absolute truth is considered a defense against either. Try calling Brian and Heidi's past areas/personal contacts for a different version of the truth. Or prefer to believe them despite their extremely obvious lies where they change the stories themselves all the time. Up to you. Am I the only one finding it odd that TWO of their past caretakers aren't on good terms with them due to their lies that were told to them?

[J’raxis 270145]

I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.

I don't want to turn this thread further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that. Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?

So now you're ragging on Kat for not allowing Ivy to post here? Kat is somehow part of this clique that is turning people against Ivy? Wow.

How did you even get that from this post? I was asking Kat to reconsider banning someone, because to a large extent, a lot of the animosity against Ivy is based on stuff that Beth (and secondarily, yourself, Kevin, and a few others) has said and done.

[aworldnervelink]

For example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person.

I hate to go off on a tangent, but since you still don't get it I'll make another attempt: Bill was married to Kate! Marriage! A contract! Get it? Any synapses rubbing together?

[ny2nh]

No, Kevin, you're confused. You're just out to turn people against Ivy. All this animosity against her is just because some clique makes stuff up about her just to make her look bad. Really Kevin, you should really try to embrace the goodness in Ivy more.    And shame on you for being Beth's friend. Ivy=good, Beth=bad....don't you get it?

[aworldnervelink]

I'm from the Midwest, sometimes I'm a bit slow...

[J’raxis 270145]

Let's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care. "Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"

Ridiculous dramatics.   I'm never shrill nor hysterical. I'm too often branded as too uncaring/cold because I refuse to whine or shriek or chest thump. I've also never equated children with animals. Never. That's your own estimation of this issue or it's a dramatic way to try to portray me as ridiculous.

This wasn't directed at you personally. It's my estimation of how a now–50-page thread about someone being attacked by the State was hijacked and turned into a thread about animal cruelty, seemingly with the implication that if cruelty was proven, that that somehow justifies the State pointing guns at people.

But Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?

Did nothing about it? Beth was feeding those horses her own hay from her own out of pocket money because Brian and Heidi refused to. She was there personally caring for those horses to the best of her ability despite the uncaring owners. And she was supporting them as much as she could with *her own money.* Seriously...should she have taken out a loan to feed those freeloaders...erm...freestaters horses for them?

Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, if Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.

But that's not what happened. Beth answered an alleged wrong with another wrong. Two wrongs don't lead to a right. Now, this issue has become defending someone who's been attacked by the State for illegitimate reasons. The condition of the horses has unfortunately become secondary.

And I have no idea where this "loan" suggestion came from.

Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?

Would you like another list of the lies Brian has told so far? How about Heidi's list? They're lying to all of you because otherwise they're pretty positive that they'd be getting little, if any, support or agreement.

If the allegations are true, you're probably right. If the allegations against them had been presented on our forums here, like that "open letter" post above, and they turned out to be true, you're probably right. But instead this situation was turned over to the police. So a bunch of us are rallying to support Brian & Heidi, because regardless of what they're doing with their horses, being threatened by the State over it isn't a legitimate answer.

I *attempted* to give information about horses and their health and very bare bones basic needs to counter the lies Brian and Heidi have been feeding to those of you who know nothing about horses...so that those of you can make an INFORMED decision with all the FACTS. If facts aren't wanted...my apologies. I personally prefer to know the truth before I throw in my towel on any sides of anything I feel is important. I assumed others felt the same.

I don't mean to be harsh, but why wasn't any of this done before this situation turned into "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats"?