Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[AntonLee]

whatever, it's all good.  I can't make others choose to use logic and thought over force and aggression, they have to be capable of that thought on their own. 

[Pat K]

"First and foremost, Brian evicted Beth and Dan over it, which necessitated them having an entire modular home relocated."

Are you freaking kidding me!

Note to all inhabitants of earth, if you bring an armed raid
on my house, then think that your gonna stay living on my
place, rubbing my face in it. You are out of your Fucking mind!

[KBCraig]

Posted without comment.

[MaineShark]

There's still a shameful lack of speaking out about the issue of animal abuse, and an ongoing attempt by some to claim that Beth, two professional vets, the NHSPCA, and multiple horse rescue people were all lying about the horses being underfed and inadequately cared for (matted fur caked with shit, skin sores, wearing wet blankets in freezing weather, untrimmed hooves, fed hay that had been left outside on the ground in the rain and snow where it rots).

Claiming that thugs who think nothing of sticking guns in the faces of innocent people and their families are also capable of lying, is not exactly a stretch.

Seriously, does the fact that someone gets "abused" by the state negate any actions he may have done to bring that "abuse" upon himself?  That's the message I'm getting from most of the posters on this thread.

Unless his actions include initiating force against others, they are not justification for "bringing abuse."  No matter what they are, if they do not involve initiating force against a person, they are not justification for force.  End of story.

Those who initiate force against others, or willingly aid and abet the initiation of force against others, have zero credibility among decent people.

Beth had the option of presenting her concerns to neutral third parties who could have evaluated the issues objectively, and brought social pressure against Heidi, or not, as the actual situation warranted.  She's certainly been substantially dishonest in the past, and made false accusations of animal abuse among that dishonesty, but neutral third parties could have evaluated the situation, neutrally.

She chose to hire thugs with guns to threaten, coerce, and pillage innocents.  That means she has no credibility.  The thugs and their accomplices have no credibility, either.  Between them, they effectively destroyed all evidence which could have been examined by neutral parties.  Brian and Heidi are, in the eyes of all decent people, innocent until proven guilty.  And Beth (et al) ensured that they can never be "proven guilty" in any neutral situation.

But seriously, how come so few of you have the balls to come out and say that, apparently, Brian and Heidi were treating their horses in a cruel manner, and that's not OK with you?  It's not OK with me.

Because it's not "apparent" that any such thing happened.  No credible sources support that claim.  And the non-credible players destroyed the evidence, ensuring that the facts remain forever hidden.

Whether horses were abused is an unknown.  That people were abused is a known.

Joe

[Friday]

About the time the search warrant was unsealed, Beth quit. That was the end of my contract with Dan. He needed time, so we came up with a month-to-month rent. When he could, Dan moved his trailer. There was no eviction. That was the end of the contract.

I apologize for the misstatement, then.  No one actually told me that B&D were evicted, I had somehow drawn that conclusion.

[Friday]

It's not hard to learn, Sandy. Initiating force is wrong. Taking someone's property is initiating force. Threatening them with jail if they don't pay $11,601 is wrong. The people who understand freedom get it.

I get all of that.  Those who have known me for several years know how much of my time, energy, money, physical health and personal life I have poured into trying to spread that message to others.  I am very confident that those I admire and respect count me as someone who "understands freedom".

The point I was trying to make is that all of the Porcupine focus on this issue has centered around the seizure of the horses and not what *lead to* the seizure of the horses.  I'm clearly a minority of one here, so I'll drop it.  Enjoy Murphy's Taproom.  Cheers!   

[Puke]

This thread is still going? Wow.

[Russell Kanning]

I am not bothered by how Heidi treated her horses. I don't know much and I haven't delved into the situation. I definitely know that the situation did not call for me to interfere with their lives.
I don't think calling the cops on them was a good idea.
If I lived next to a crazy cat woman, I would probably not interfere with her.
If i lived next to these horsey people, I would not support them in their nhspca and police  activities.
This thread will not die. I would guess Brian will have more trouble. It didn't cost the horsey crowd enough to make them stop.

[stanford]

This thread will not die. I would guess Brian will have more trouble. It didn't cost the horsey crowd enough to make them stop.

The problem with their current "laws" is that it costs someone nothing to invoke the violence of government. The government likes it that way, and actively encourages snitches and busybodies. It makes the cops look more legitimate.

Perhaps in a post-government world there would be a cost to righting a perceived wrong. The case of the animal lover stealing a dog that is being beaten, for example. In that case, the dog is saved, but the person could face theft charges in arbitration. At that point, both parties would have a chance to air their side of the story. The arbitrator could say the theft was unfounded and that the animal lover would have to pay restitution.

That seems a lot more fair than today's situation because people can't make baseless claims about "animal neglect".

Let me tell you, I didn't neglect that porterhouse steak I had last night. That steer gave his life willingly and contentedly for the greater good. And I'll say, it was good!

[AntonLee]

those animals are okay to string up, slice down the middle to let their inards fall out.  Some animals are just fine and dandy to tie up and stuff full of food in order to make them nice and fat. 

I think pigs are cute animals.  They always come over to me when I visit the farm.  They're funny and they make cool noises.  Their backs feel like sandpaper, but that's okay.  On top of all that I find them delicious.  Thank god that horse people don't cross over into pigs, otherwise no more bacon, no more sausage, no more pork strips, no more pork flied lice, no more pork ribs, no more petting them at the farm.

Some people enjoy a delicious horse, just like some people think Cat is second to none.  It's not my thing, but hey, those horses aren't my property, neither are the cats, neither are the pigs, nor the cows.

Hypocritical thinking, that this "society" has chosen what animals are okay to torture, maim and murder and which ones aren't.  Problem is, I didn't get a vote. . .and neither did you.

and would it matter in the end?  Does your opinion matter to those who actually own the livestock they're going to need to eat or sell to live?  Not really, because some people have guns, some people have big mouths, some people like to have people with guns hurt other people because they don't treat their property as they would.  The only shameful part is that ostracism didn't happen, but force sure as hell did.

[Keyser Soce]

Is this a baaad place to post that the dome goats have a date with destiny and curry sauce tomorrow at 2pm? All are welcome.

[Kat Kanning]

What, no horseradish?

[CJS]

I used to et a goat dish at a Jamican place on the south side of Chicago.. damm miss Hudson's ...

   Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?

[Kat Kanning]

   Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?

Yes.  Just not certain plants.

[lildog]

The point I was trying to make is that all of the Porcupine focus on this issue has centered around the seizure of the horses and not what *lead to* the seizure of the horses.

Friday, the problem is there are two forms of thought here.

Some feel that animals should have some level of rights while others feel that animals are property and thus no different then say a table.

If you treat your table poorly and allow it to get scuffed up and destroyed that's no one's business but your own.

You and I are clearly of a different mind set because we see horse and other animals have feelings and senses which make them different from a table.  If you beat a horse it feels pain where if you beat on a table that table feels nothing.  But I admit I'm conflicted here because while I do feel animals shouldn't be allowed to be beaten or abused, if you raise a cow for meat and when the time comes you go out and shoot it are you doing anything wrong?