Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[John Edward Mercier]

Implied consent.

The real estate and natural resources that make up the State of NH were taken by force many centuries ago. The British Monarch had never set foot in the Americas so had no real claim to the property, and thus did not have the naturally-derived authority of self ownership to acquire the property... then transfer it to a anyone directly at that time, or indirectly to those of us in possession at this time.
Even the agents that claimed it in his name did not have the natural authority. The Province of NH, that would later be named the State of NH, only existed in the southeast portion of the current land mass.
The western portion was part of the Iriquois Nation, and the northern portion part of the New France Colony. Both were acquired by force during the Seven Years' War (French-Indian War)... and were titled to the State of NH under the Jay Treaty enacted after the US Constitution did away with the Articles of Confederation and removing any Canadian claim to its former territory.

I don't think it would be plausible at this juncture to return the property to the original bloodlines, nor to even determine the restitution for abolishment of the original claims... as some property was clearly occupied while surrounding was only occassional or common use.

[lastlady]

Any updates on how the horses are doing now? Is there going to be a trial? Did the Travis family get all of their horses back? Are they in better condition? Anyone know if there is any mediation going on? Anything positive coming out of this?

[Goble]

If horses are trespassing onto my property after I've informed the owners of the problem, I'll post signs along my fence line stating that any livestock that is unlawfully deposited upon my property shall be confiscated. I'd also make good on that warning should the policy be violated.

How is that any different from the police or dept. of ag. confiscating them after warning?

The difference is, the property was deposited upon my property against my will.

My neighbor's child behind me tends to throw toys over the fence. I usually pick them up and throw them back over. If it's something that appears to be fragile, I'll walk around and leave it on their front porch. I have no issue with it. But if I looked in my back yard and their dog is gleefully digging a hole and has crapped everywhere, I'm going to be angry. Even so, I'd probably just talk to my neighbor about it and see if we couldn't resolve it. If this becomes a regular issue, I'll write a letter to the neighbor explaining that if I find his dog in my yard again, I'll consider it mine, to be disposed of however I see fit. This is right, whether in the lawbooks or not.

If I look over the fence and see a see him beating his dog mercilessly, and the dog appears to be infested with disease and malnourished, I'll feel badly for the dog. I'm not going to call the police. It is not my place. It is wrong to do so, whether lawful or not.

The law has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. I believe animal cruelty to be wrong. I believe animals are property. I believe property is the property owner's affair, not mine. Any attempt on my part to steal the animal is wrong. If the animal wanders onto my property in a cruelly neglected condition, I'd probably be more hasty in letting the neighbor know that if the dog comes onto my property again, I'll be disposing of it.

I don't understand what is so complicated about it.

You either believe in property or not. If I ambushed you and stole your animal, you'd probably say,"Help! Help! Someone's stolen my animal!!!" If my reasoning is that you don't use adequate flea control and the dog is forced to eat Gravy Train instead of Science Diet, would you feel that I had acted justly, simply because my opinion of animal cruelty differs from yours?

The reason this mindset is dangerous, is because once the government can decide what ways are acceptable in the way of property maintenance, said government can slowly use each example as an excuse to expand the rule. Until we own absolutely nothing, not even ourselves.

[MistyBlue]

MistyBlue, you seem like a nice person who means well, but you're throwing unrelated evidence at this case. In your opinion, this is a clear and cut case of animal cruelty in which the state was forced to step in between the owners and the animals for the animals' protection. I disagree.

I can't disagree with you over specific facts, I wasn't there, but I can disagree over principles. In your opinion, so it seems, animal suffering supercedes property rights. In my opinion, property rights supercede all others, except in situations of human violence enacted upon other humans.

It doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.

If Heidi had been contracted to care for these horses to certain specifications, or if Heidi had purchased these horses under conditions of a written contract, then I could see someone having the option of legal recourse. Whether our current way of hashing out contract violations is efficient or not is for another debate. But if any of the horses legally belong to someone else, who has entrusted their care to Heidi, and stipulations have been contracted, then possibly that horse should be confiscated, or compensation of another kind be paid to the owner. Otherwise, the condition of the property is beside the point

Hi Goble. Yes, it seems we disagree and have different opinions on this subject.
My opinion does match with current laws on this subject...I don't agree with all laws though. I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those. Included is the unnecessary suffering of animals. I personally believe a society that condones it either directly or through inaction due to another set of beliefs isn't a humane or even succesful society. It doesn't make your beliefs wrong or my beliefs wrong...it just makes them different. In this case the current laws in that area agree with that, and they aren;t even considered stiff laws on animal cruelty. And instances in other areas and countries that do not have humane laws or that do have a 100% property rights in absolute lifestyle have much higher crime rates and much less happy citizens. Because lawless areas attract lawless folks who might not like laws for reasons other than peaceful or constitutional reasons. So IMO abolishing certain laws and leaving certain things 100% up to each individual is a mistake. It does not work for other areas. I doubt highly it would work there in NH either.

To me, I don't care how crappy someone else is as long as they aren't cruel to other living things that can suffer. Allowing that passively makes me less of who I am and what I believe and also condones cruelty. Even if I professed that I hated animal cruelty...by allowing it passively as someone's property right...I condone it. So mouth service on the subject doesn't mean anything if I allow it to happen.

Unfortunately if Heidi had a contract stating at the time of purchase that she had to care for her animals in a certain way...that's still not legally binding. Once you pay someone for something and they sign over ownership, in the eyes of the law that animal is yours. There are many pet owners who even have attorneys write out buy-back or first right of refusal contracts for horse sales and those don't stand up in court about 80% of the time right now. (yes, I follow that also legally) So a "standard of care" contract wouldn't do any better.

I do understand the idea of laws being wrong to some people...but understanding and agreeing are two different things. If I see someone mercilessly beating a dog next door and just stand there feeling bad for the dog or shunning them after that...IMO that makes me as cruel as the dog owner. And that would be the same for anyone else who ignored the situation...they'd be as cruel as the dog owner and only slightly less responsible IMO. I personally think a "blind eye" couple with bad feelings over the situation is ridiculous. I do understand you feel differently...but it's also your personal opinion and not an actual fact that it's wrong for the law to step in on a case like that. It doesn't make either of us wrong or right in our beliefs...but the majority does agree with animal cruelty laws and I choose to live in areas that have them. By choosing to do so I do not move into an area and try to force everyone else to agree with me and do things my way because I think my opinion is fact.

Believing in property or not when it comes to living property is not a black and white case. Laws change and evolve over time...for reasons. Sometimes good reasons, sometimes bad reasons. At the time the right to property some on here want back in a 100% absolute way...people being deliberately excessively cruel to their animals were able to be put in stocks or have their animals taken by whomever witnessed it if it happened in a public place. So even then the absolute right to property wasn't exactly 100% absolute.

[MistyBlue]

Any updates on how the horses are doing now? Is there going to be a trial? Did the Travis family get all of their horses back? Are they in better condition? Anyone know if there is any mediation going on? Anything positive coming out of this?

Lastlady,
I am not the owners of the horses. But last updates are the horses have been lose a number of times in the last 2 weeks. The Travis family got 11 of the 12 horses back a while ago and may have the 12th back by now but I am not sure. The first seizure in NH is a temporary one so they got the horses back after they were made healthier, had proper disease testing done and after the shelter laws were no longer convered by date.
According to independent vets the horses were in better condition than their arrival when returned and they hope they continue to improve under the care of the owners.
The court date is July 22nd.

[Goble]

@Mistyblue:

I cannot accept this notion that some people believe some things and others believe other things and so no one is ever wrong. Belief and opinion can be wrong. This is why we debate - to determine who's opinion or belief system is the right one.

There is plenty of research on the subject of stricter property rights that points to the opposite of what you've written above. Laws get in the way of business and business raises the standard of living. But I'm no utilitarian. I believe in property rights based on principle. But it just so happens that this principle of people doing for themselves ultimately leads to the greater good of humanity, but even if it didn't, I'd still hold fast to what is mine. 

It doesn't make me a less humane or compassionate person because I choose to allow my neighbor to do what he will with what is his. It makes me more humane.

If I decide that riding a horse is cruel because it forces the animal to be a slave to it's master, that the bit hurts the animal's mouth so much that it must turn or stop to relieve the pressure, that a three sided enclosure is not sufficient for the winter time, that horse shoes are cruel because they must be nailed into the hoof or that racing is cruel because the jocky carries a whip, do I then have the right to take any horse on any persons property that doesn't conform to my regulations? Do votes, legislation or public opinion really change that?

I've read over the NH livestock laws and see nothing about shelter. Does this mean that cattle, sheep, goats and swine are less vulnerable than horses? Shouldn't breed of animal play into all of this? Leaving a chihuahua outside in 30 degree weather would be quite cruel. Is leaving an Alaskan Malamute out in 30 degree weather also cruel, even though Malamutes have been known to sleep on TOP of their doghouses in subzero weather? I'm sure animal rights extremists would say that there is no difference, and I'd have to agree with them, though my ultimate conclusion is the opposite of theirs. And by that I mean their conclusion(animal liberation) is wrong and I am right.

This, again, is why bureaucracy fails so miserably. The only way to provide adequate laws for all situations is to confound and confuse any and all trying to follow and enforce them. You can't legislate common sense. It's best to leave it to the property owners to treat their property as well or as poorly as they wish.

Cruelty cannot ever be eradicated, not without a different kind of cruelty, tyranny, taking it's place.

Also, about lawless people being attracted to lawless areas... I disagree. The "Wild" West was far less so than hollywood would have you believe. Most towns had a citizen appointed sheriff who may or may not have been a criminal in the east. These towns were actually quite peaceful, especially by today's standards. Look up the kill stats of all of the old gun slingers and towns. Though some, who made their gunfighting a hobby, killed quite a few, most criminals were simply ciminals for profit and did very little actual killing. There was law and order without a large and complicated bureaucracy.

What was a man's was a man's. As unregulated capitalism did what it does best, areas became more civilized and people were able to work less. This ultimately led to people having so much leasure time and living in such luxury that they had the time and energy to care about animal rights. Unfortunately, government was more than eager to meet these nosey busy-bodies in the middle and now we have the current system.

Now anyone with a grudge, prejudice, curiousity or concern can have state or even sometimes federal thugs invade your privacy, disarm you and steal whatever is in their jurisdiction to take.

Helplessness is so much worse than lawlessness... any day of the week.

[MistyBlue]

I cannot accept this notion that some people believe some things and others believe other things and so no one is ever wrong. Belief and opinion can be wrong. This is why we debate - to determine who's opinion or belief system is the right one.

And I'd hazard a guess that this is your way of saying, "So my opinion is right and yours is wrong."
Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...and I then choose my home in an area where the majority opinions agree most closely with my opinions to achieve as much peace as possible. If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place. I do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.
So that's where we differ. I still happen to think that doesn't make my opinion wrong...or even your opinion wrong. I just agree that we don't agree and for now the laws are supporting my opinion on the stance of animal cruelty. Besides, complaining online will not change the laws. And until I see any evidence that there is an alternative set in place to handle the abolishment of some laws, I'll continue to passively support some of those laws at this time. And so far after reading a few threads on this forum I haven't yet seen an alternative that would work. Even the oft mentioned "shunning" has had a thread where many seem to agree that it wouldn't work in reagrds to changing anyone's behavior. It might make the few people doing the shunning feel a bit better, but doesn't help anything else in the long run seemed to be the consensus.
Also read on there how many different laws have been broken by self claimed FSP folks...and have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online. So it does seem to point to the hatred of laws being a magnet for those interested in breaking them. Unfortunate for the rest of the FSP members...but still no mention of a way to rectify that anyways.

[BillKauffman]

I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.

And that makes her no different than the founder of the FSP who also doesn't believe that property rights are absolute either - although their caveats are different.

[LordBaltimore]

If I look over the fence and see a see him beating his dog mercilessly, and the dog appears to be infested with disease and malnourished, I'll feel badly for the dog. I'm not going to call the police. It is not my place. It is wrong to do so, whether lawful or not.

And if that diseased, malnourished dog-next-door is infectious?

[Goble]

And I'd hazard a guess that this is your way of saying, "So my opinion is right and yours is wrong."

Yes. I didn't mean to be vague about it.

I'll also say that if you are a person of principles then you should believe that you are right and I am wrong. Why even discuss this if you have no true opinion?

Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too.

So right and wrong is determined for you by the number of people who agree? Yeah you're right, mobs always act rationally.

I do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.

Honestly, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. What people in the liberty community propose is letting people do whatever they want, so long as they aren't harming another person or another person's property. You see, I don't support any law that would cause you any form of detriment. If went into my back yard and squeezed the life out of my dog, what detriment is that to you? Besides, you act as if without these laws people would be doing just that, destroying their property.

People who would be cruel to animals will do so whether there are laws protecting those animals or not. The vast majority, would, and have, in fact, treated their animals very well. How could businesses like Petsmart and Petco stay in business if their weren't a hoard of animal lovers out there taking good care of their animals. How would veterinarians stay in business? People will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.

And until I see any evidence that there is an alternative set in place to handle the abolishment of some laws, I'll continue to passively support some of those laws at this time. And so far after reading a few threads on this forum I haven't yet seen an alternative that would work. Even the oft mentioned "shunning" has had a thread where many seem to agree that it wouldn't work in regards to changing anyone's behavior. It might make the few people doing the shunning feel a bit better, but doesn't help anything else in the long run seemed to be the consensus.

One of the biggest traps people seem to fall into is the idea that in order to criticize what is wrong with one system, someone must have a better alternative. This is a ridiculous notion in of itself, but there are alternatives.  Even if we put theory aside, what of history? You claim that these laws were enacted by a majority, when in fact they were enacted by state legislatures that make up not even 1 percent of the state population. If my representative voted on my behalf for something I never would have voted for, my only recourse is to wait 2 years and hope that a representative more in line with my beliefs is elected, and then even if that happens, chances are he or she isn't going to vote the way I would 100% of the time. So am I fairly represented and is my voice really heard? I would answer with a resounding NO.

Majority rule is great for the majority, that doesn't mean that the majority is always right.

Also read on there how many different laws have been broken by self claimed FSP folks...and have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online. So it does seem to point to the hatred of laws being a magnet for those interested in breaking them. Unfortunate for the rest of the FSP members...but still no mention of a way to rectify that anyways.

By serious crimes I'm going to assume you mean acts of civil disobedience, filming in courthouses, not standing or sitting fast enough for a judge, starving horses... just awful.

But in cases of FSP members engaging in violence or theft, I'd say that those people would eventually push themselves out of the community. I still don't know what you would like anyone to do about it. Those who commit violent crimes should be dealt with.

Abolishing any laws punishing thieves, killers or child molesters isn't on my agenda. I would say that government doesn't do a very good job of it, being that innocents are imprisoned every day. Many innocent people have undoubtedly gone to the noose, chair and needle. What is an alternative? I don't know.

Maybe I should just smile and shake my head, playfully scolding the government like a child who's eaten a cookie before dinner whenever I read about someone on death row being released from prison after 15yrs, cleared on DNA evidence or the confession of someone else.

[Goble]

And if that diseased, malnourished dog-next-door is infectious?

I suppose that would depend on whether or not my dog contracted a disease. But see, that comes down to personal responsibility. My dog is on flea prevention, is up on all her vaccinations, stays inside 99% of the day, and makes regular trips to the veterinarian.

I can take care of my own animals, and I do. I'm surrounded on all sides by outdoor animals that do have fleas and that I would doubt, though I could be wrong, ever make it to the vet's office. I've been living here for almost two years and haven't had a problem.

Every scenario I post is not pulled out of my ass. Some are actually from experience, believe it or not.

[John Edward Mercier]

I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.

And that makes her no different than the founder of the FSP who also doesn't believe that property rights are absolute either - although their caveats are different.

They couldn't be, or they wouldn't change over the centuries as our ability to reason matures.
Property is more of economic philosophy than morality. Its why slavery is consider immoral, but at the time of the founding of the union was so important an economic matter that slaves were property.

Its even why historically children take their father's last name, and wife's their husbands (at least in patriarchy).

[MaineShark]

Hey, look, another blatant lie:

Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people.

As Goble noted, these laws were voted on by a few hundred individuals.  Even if every legislator voted unanimously for them (I'll guarantee you that was not the case - I doubt there's ever been a unanimous vote here), that's still only a minuscule fraction of the population.

I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...and I then choose my home in an area where the majority opinions agree most closely with my opinions to achieve as much peace as possible. If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place.

Hitler was democratically elected.

I guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?

Sickening.  Cruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.

Joe

[MistyBlue]

For heaven's sake...the majority votes in the politicians in stages. They tend to vote for folks who they agee with.
And FWIW...the SPCA is donated to by a rather large amount of people. Nobody is forcing them to donate...I'm going to assume they agree with animal cruelty laws since the SPCA supports those laws.
So no, not a blatant lie and Joe...when you can re-paste those copies you have of me "wanting murder for Brian" and all those "saved original posts" that I supposedly changed drastically then maybe I'll believe you. Until then:

[xyz]

People will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.

And when they don't, oh well - too bad how sad?

Cruelty cannot ever be eradicated

So it should be condoned?

I guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?

They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence.  Luckily for them, they were liberated.  Do you think the Nazis considered it theft?? 

Is it the horses' fault they got bought or bred by irresponsible people?  I suppose they should just leave, right?  I'll give them credit because at least they keep trying to.  How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis?  And how are the Candia police different from the liberators?  They simply didn't want the animals to needlessly suffer and die. 

People who would be cruel to animals will do so whether there are laws protecting those animals or not.

Yes, this I can agree with;  however, without the welfare laws, nobody could protect the animals from the cruelest animals of all - you got it - humans.

Cruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.

And I'm pathetic?

Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police?  Is that not  confirmation that your way doesn't work?

I'm really trying to understand the thought processes here, I must admit, I do not.  Hopefully, Anton, someday I will be enlightened.  Until then, I'll be happy in my lala land where people who break laws, be they right wrong or otherwise, are punished if caught.

Awesome pic misty.