Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[BillKauffman]

Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.

We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.

[Goble]

Broken Window:  The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

Brian and Heidi are the little boy.  They starve and neglect their horses and everybody sympathizes with them because they have their horses taken away, which in turn makes work for me to care for the horses since they don't/won't.  When I buy feed for them it benefits the feed store, I get their feet trimmed benefitting the farrier.  I draw blood for coggins tests benefitting the lab.  I get them vaccinated benefitting the vet and pharmaceutical companies.  So not guilty of theft - guilty of being a public benefactor??  (My role is to care for animals that are "dropped in my lap", I was not even at the rescue so don't even go there).

Your application of the broken window fallacy to this scenario is bizarre and ridiculous. Besides, the horses were property being stolen, so you could apply far more accurately as;
The state stole Brian and Heidi's property - this required the services of police, veterinarians, personell, rescue facilities, paperwork to be pushed by city personell, lawyers to be employed, corrections to be made to the property which would benefit the hardware store, all of the feed and medicine you mentioned being bought from the feed store/distributer...

So what exactly is your point?

It doesn't apply to this situation, or to this argument. You might be out of your mind.

I don't really know what a parable about the economy has to do with any of this. But ok.

[MaineShark]

None of your verbatim has any basis in fact.  Suffice it to say.

Is that supposed to make any sense?

"Verbatim" is an adjective or adverb - it can't even fit there in a sentence.

And suffice what to say?

Anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I don't go around telling folks they're wrong because of poor grammar (heck, this thread, alone, is proof of that, given the spelling and grammar that I've replied to without comment).  However, I literally can't even understand what you're trying to say, there, so I need to ask for some sort of clarification.

Joe

[Keyser Soce]

It's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.

Clearly...

I hope it's finally clear and becomes so to everyone else. The purpose of the FSP is to get people who want freedom to move to NH. That's all. Once someone moves here, their only continued involvement with the FSP would be outreach to get more people to move or possibly to help out new movers. The FSP is not now and will never be involved in New Hampshire politics either locally or at the state level.

Are you aware that the FSP has a forum, and that this is not it?

http://forum.freestateproject.org/

Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms? 

Yes.

What would be the purpose and intent?

A) To exercise a right. Rights are like muscles, if not exercised, they atrophy.
B) For self-defense.
C) Because an armed society is a polite society.

Are you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority.

No, jails are necessary because people are freaks. 

Psychologists have a term for that; Projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Misty: Ignore the wiki link, read Projection and Re-Collection in Jungian Psychology.

All excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.

I live in NH and, as the FSP has decided that this is their state of choice, I feel that it behooves me to know what's going on up here.  I have been intrigued and as such, reading, trying to broaden my perspective.  I see there are many questions and few, if any, answers.  How can one effect change when there is not a common basis for what the change should be?  I would never expect one group to have all answers, but a couple would be nice.  You hang your hat on freedom and don't even agree on what qualifies - both ends are fighting the middle.  I've seen more organization and fewer tantrums in the sandbox at a preschool.

Without ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow.

I disagree, I think corruption would flourish and prosperity would go overseas with the rest of our economy.

You don't have to see how every detail would work out.

How about one or two??

This has gone way beyond off topic. I'd be happy to speak more about the above points in person. To that end, you're invited to the Porcupine Freedom Festival which is upcoming in June. It will be in Lancaster at Roger's Campground. There will be hundreds of Freestaters and locals as well as potential movers.

It would be a great opportunity for you to "know what's going on up here". We can talk about politics, philosophy, history, economics, morality, unemployment or whatever else you'd like (maybe not horses though :-). You can have a good laugh about how many of us disagree on the above issues. You may find that only thing we really have in common is a general belief that the governments are too big for our own good.

[xyz]

Hey Joe ~  Exactly...       Lighten up!!

Keyser ~  Sorry to take it so totally off topic.  I've been doing a little research, am rather confused,  and was curious what some of the characters on this familiar forum had to say.  I've been reading this thread for a while and feel like I almost know you guys.  Fancy that.  Anyway, thank you very much for the invitation to your Porcupine Festival.  I may just take you up on it!! And not to worry, I live and breath horses every day of my life, they are usually the last thing I want to talk about in a social setting.      I certainly do not agree with big government and could personally use much less of it.  Obama, well....      Pa - lease!!!  Talk about a "Pork Fest"!!!!

Everyone else, thank you also.  It's been fun, maybe I'll see you around.  Although I must admit that I don't know if I'd ever let you know who I am...  Some of you don't seem all that nice and I'm thinking you'd (some anyway?) carry a grudge.  I, however, do not.  So, ta ta for now as I'm going to put this BB to bed for a while.  Happy Trails.

PS:  Antonlee - I still think you're a crack up even though your last post to me was pretty evil...   

[Russell Kanning]

I'm sure that the voiceless animals, given a voice, would beg to dif

Whether y'all like it or not is of no consequence.

so the animals need to be treated well ... but us poor people just have to lump whatever treatment we get at the hands of others and the government thugs they hire to abuse us?

[Russell Kanning]

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 don't understand this reference.
Why would the FSP be involved with this? Who is this head honcho?
Does he speak for us or always speak truth?

[Russell Kanning]

The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see).  If the only role of government should be to protect life, liberty and property and - I suppose in a perfect FSP world - everyone is in the FSP and is peace loving and deagressive, then wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?

yes ... a whole new way of living is available to each of us ... and if everyone followed the simple golden rule then noone would want a government to abuse others.

[Keyser Soce]

How about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction.

Sorry, only repeated your first comment that said "some." I only picked it out as a key word. So now you say it's the majority and not some...then why post "some?"

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, look it up. Doesn't matter if it's only one, that's the point.

No, I know who does.

Then why constantly ask questions you already know the answer to? Do you also hum the Jeopardy theme song in your head after you hit "post?" If you're only interested in talking to yourself and asking and answering your own questions...why do you keep addressing me?

It's called a rhetorical question (a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply).

Which one are you?

You already know...again asked and answered. Repeating for dramatic effect or ADD?

It's called a rhetorical question (a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply). Although, an answer of "I'm the type of person who just won't leave other people alone" would have been interesting.

And no, it's not the way I personally want it and that's something I've been working on for 15 years. Some changes need to be made, we're working on them.

I don't understand any of this part. What's not the way you want it? What have you been working on for 15 years? Who decides what changes "need" to be made? Will this involve you telling more people what they can and can't do on their own property or with their own property? Who is the "we" that is working on it?

Obese animals are rarely seized...because owners of obese animals generally make them that way through caring too much and learning too little. Owners of emaciated ones tend to make them that way through not caring at all or cruelty. Quite a difference there. And please don't ask me what the difference is because I can't imagine that you do not know the answer.

No, it's clear to everyone the difference isn't the abuse, it's what you judge people's motives to be. All hail Misty, knower of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "Yes, both cases are abuse, but some people are nice caring abusers and some people are mean and nasty abusers - and I can tell the difference".

When is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?

5 months ago. Nope.

Right. But your claim was that you couldn't passively do nothing about abuse. I said there was lots of abuse that you passively do nothing about at which point it seemed that your distinction was whether or not you personally witnessed it (the car example). Point is, you haven't witnessed any of this incident.

Been talking personally to two of his neighbors. The loose horses have been reported by neighbors.

Oh, so it's a firsthand account of hearsay? In a hierarchy of abuses which cannot be passively ignored, where would loose farm animals rank? I imagine that there are thousands of such cases per day in the U.S., are you in the loop on any others?

Or read about it on the internet...

Observed plenty of crimes...did what I could each time. I do leave my computer and I do walk the walk instead of just typing the type.

I repeat, you haven't observed any of this incident. I guess I should be thankful, the more time you spend posting here, the less time you have to figure out how to further trample people's property rights.

Is it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?

The question...inane.

Because your answer is yes? You seem A-okay with aggression but boy howdy, that rudeness just can't be tolerated. Ya think there oughta be a law? Some new federal bureaucracy perhaps? They could read all of our emails, listen to our calls and censor any "rudeness" as determined by a qualified panel of experts. There would be fines and jail time but at last the world would be a safe place for horses and polite aggressors.

I don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.

He did seem to be referring to Nazis on the part of him and wife. A ridiculous comparison...having some horsies removed (luxuries BTW) for not caring for them is hardly even close to genocide of Jews. He (and others who think they can compare other small things to the Holocaust) seem to have very elevated opinions of their level of suffering to make such a ridiculous comparison.
xyz seemed to be making the point that while Brian's suffering was next to nothing (weren't his horses anyways, he stood outside for a short while in winter clothes/Jews had it a bit tougher than that) and Heidi's were ridiculously dramatized as she made sure the camera was on her before overacting (and the towel scene was worse than a grade school play) that horses in the entire issue were actually the closest similarity to the Holocaust than either Brian or Heidi were. The horses were underfed, unmedicated and had horrendous living conditions in too cramped quarters. (not that the horses compare directly to the Holocaust but between Brian/Heidi and the horses...the horses are a hella lot closer)

I'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?

[John Edward Mercier]

Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.

We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.

I think they are acknowledging it... just in their own way.

[MistyBlue]

I'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?

It doesn't matter how slowly you type something, I'll still be reading it at the same speed. (sarcastic comment)

I'll repeat my comments:

The living conditions in Candia have jack shite to do with Auschwitz...the comparison is about as accurate as me saying I'm just like a Nazi because I've eaten Paprika Schnitzel before. The comparison is so vague and laughable it's pathetic. YOU are NOT comparable to a Jewish person in Auschwitz...not now, not EVER. So dismount off the Drama Llama...you're a man for crisssakes...act like one.

Get that?

(seriously comparing you're personal living conditions on Candia as you sit with your unemaciated arse in a comfy chair in front of a computer inside a house with food in your fridge and no ovens ready to murder you for no reason other than your ethnicity...yeah...no drama there. Now I see why a few are so vehement about open carry everywhere all the time...only way to protect yourselves from the big scary meanie conspiracies and your own ridiculous imaginations )

(and yes, I finally got rude back. Apologies to those with social graces on here reading)

[littlehawk]

Ms. Misty,

Do you think it was acceptable for the nazis to kill jews?

[BillKauffman]

Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.

We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.

I think they are acknowledging it... just in their own way.

Seems a little silly though to be beating around the bush - no?

I mean do you think Misty Blue has any understanding at all or knowledge of "free market, poly-centric law" or even "social contract theory"??

[shyfrog]

I'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?

It doesn't matter how slowly you type something, I'll still be reading it at the same speed. (sarcastic comment)

I'll repeat my comments:

The living conditions in Candia have jack shite to do with Auschwitz...the comparison is about as accurate as me saying I'm just like a Nazi because I've eaten Paprika Schnitzel before. The comparison is so vague and laughable it's pathetic. YOU are NOT comparable to a Jewish person in Auschwitz...not now, not EVER. So dismount off the Drama Llama...you're a man for crisssakes...act like one.

Get that?

(seriously comparing you're personal living conditions on Candia as you sit with your unemaciated arse in a comfy chair in front of a computer inside a house with food in your fridge and no ovens ready to murder you for no reason other than your ethnicity...yeah...no drama there. Now I see why a few are so vehement about open carry everywhere all the time...only way to protect yourselves from the big scary meanie conspiracies and your own ridiculous imaginations )

(and yes, I finally got rude back. Apologies to those with social graces on here reading)

You didn't read it. Or you didn't understand it. One more time he said:

The comparison is NOT Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's NOT the horses to the Jews, it's NOT living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz.

The comparison IS the following:
People who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.

[MistyBlue]

People who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.

yes, it's also how the armed services work and plenty of other things work. To jump from politics directly to Auschwitz is high drama and ridiculous.

So the average police officer is NO different than a Nazi officer who was gassing millions due to their ethnicity? Seriously? There isn't *any* levels of degrees between the two? Or is the massive jump between the two brought up to point of nauseousness on this BB due to the drama-like impact?

Because comparing the police and politicians to Nazis means that all of you making the comparison are comparable to the Jews. And I *hardly* think that's close to accuracy. Or do some of you REALLY think you're in the same exact type of situation? If so...I do feel for you but there are meds for paranoid thoughts out there these days.

Ms. Misty,

Do you think it was acceptable for the nazis to kill jews?

Obviously not. But then I am not the ones comparing myself to the persecuted and tortured Jews either, am I?

Does anyone discuss anything here or just type rhetoric for shits and giggles?

I mean do you think Misty Blue has any understanding at all or knowledge of "free market, poly-centric law" or even "social contract theory"??

Ayup...beleeves it or nots I cans read and I does has some smarts too. 

Lovely subset of culture going on here. Don't agree with the radical thinkers? Then you're open to insult for daring think differently than they do. Although they don't want everyone thinking the same...ONLY if it's the same as they think.

Argue amongst yourselves with this stuff. It's what y'all love to do and frankly I find it moronic at this point due to the condescending nature of the conversationalists.