# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  What do the libertarians on here think about Animal Rights?

## pessimist

Is there room for animal protection laws? Or are they just deemed personal property?

----------


## brushfire

Personal property.  I could go through it, but some have done so already, and are more entertaining.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yeah, I'd say personal property to.  But the real question is "would you feel comfortable using lethal force over this"?  If the answer is "no", you clearly shouldn't support a law.

----------


## pessimist

> Yeah, I'd say personal property to.  But the real question is "would you feel comfortable using lethal force over this"?  If the answer is "no", you clearly shouldn't support a law.


Should it be legal for a dog to be chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food or water?

EDIT: reworded to english. I need to get off the internet

----------


## ctiger2

> Should it be legal for a dog to be chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food or water?
> 
> EDIT: reworded to english. I need to get off the internet


No, that is animal cruelty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If a dog is chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food nor water, that should be legal?


I think it already is illegal. 

I wasn't going to get into this thread because 9 times out of 10 they're loaded arguments with a prescribed reason for starting them but I just had to put down the best working dog I've ever owned a month ago. I could dig a hole and plant a 4x4 end up and by gosh, he'd stand on the top of it until he was sent. Dogs really only want to do one thing in life and that is to please their owner. But we do have people who are blind to that and do exactly what you've mentioned here about keeping them out on a chain with no food or water in 100 degree weather days on end and living in their own feces. The dog deserves better. All he want is a job to do. There is no pack structure in what you've described. And I could go on and on about it but it's the one conversation that plucks me and kind of gets me steamed up when I get into it with the wrong people.

----------


## pessimist

> No, that is animal cruelty.



So you believe in an animal protection law?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Should it be legal for a dog to be chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food or water?
> 
> EDIT: reworded to english. I need to get off the internet


I'd say its awful but it should be legal, yes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'd say its awful but it should be legal, yes.


If it were your neighbor doing this would you tell them that what they are doing is awful?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If it were your neighbor doing this would you tell them that what they are doing is awful?


Absolutely.  I wouldn't threaten to shoot them, though.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Absolutely.  I wouldn't threaten to shoot them, though.


Well, nobody said anything about shooting them. Good for you for at least having some fortitude, though.

Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. I try to generally avoid direct/personal questions like that around here.

----------


## brushfire

> Absolutely.  I wouldn't threaten to shoot them, though.


My cat was once on my buddy's land.  The cat would get on his truck when it was warm, cause it gets cold around here, and he would launch it into the snow.  I told him, hey man, you should take that cat to the shelter.  When I asked for it, with the intentions of bringing it to the shelter, he said sure - take it home.

Apparently shelters dont take animals anymore.  So I got stuck with the cat, which I've had for the last 12+ years.

So ask the neighbor if you can have the dog...  It may better make your point, but be prepared to be punished for your good deed.

----------


## pessimist

> Absolutely



What if they said "eff you I'll do what I want". Could you in good conscience sit and watch a dog suffer and die like that?

----------


## brushfire

> What if they said "eff you I'll do what I want". Could you in good conscience sit and watch a dog suffer and die like that?



You dont have to watch it.

----------


## pessimist

> You dont have to watch it.


But you know it's happening, and you likely see it when you walk in your backyard or whatever. Could you in good conscience let your next door neighbor do that to his dog? 

Wouldn't you feel the need to intervene?

----------


## phill4paul

I don't think that anyone should interfere in anyone else's business. Unless they are so passionate that they are willing to intercede themselves. No need for government involvement.

----------


## Suzanimal

> But you know it's happening, and you likely see it when you walk in your backyard or whatever. Could you in good conscience let your next door neighbor do that to his dog? 
> 
> Wouldn't you feel the need to intervene?


Yes, I would feed and water the poor creature until it mysteriously broke free from it's shackles.

----------


## otherone

> What if they said "eff you I'll do what I want". Could you in good conscience sit and watch a dog suffer and die like that?


NO. Thank goodness we live in a humane society where we can simply dial 911 and an agent of the state will arrive and put the poor beast out of it's misery.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't think that anyone should interfere in anyone else's business. Unless they are so passionate that they are willing to intercede themselves. No need for government involvement.


I've done it twice. Both times I've ended up with the dogs. No government involvement.

----------


## pessimist

> Yes, I would feed and water the poor creature until it mysteriously broke free from it's shackles.



Well, then you're a good person. I think a lot of people would do the same (I would), but many people wouldn't.

----------


## pessimist

> I've done it twice. Both times I've ended up with the dogs. No government involvement.



Are you advocating violating a person's individual rights and trespassing on private property?

----------


## phill4paul

> I've done it twice. Both times I've ended up with the dogs. No government involvement.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes, I would feed and water the poor creature until it mysteriously broke free from it's shackles....


....and got hit by a semi. Heh. 

I'm just fuggin with you, suzanimal. I just kind of pictured it in my head. Suzanimal turns the lil feller loose and sings YAAAAAY yer free...dog bolts....screeeeeech...X X

Ah well. Guess you had to be there...

----------


## brushfire

> But you know it's happening, and you likely see it when you walk in your backyard or whatever. Could you in good conscience let your next door neighbor do that to his dog? 
> 
> Wouldn't you feel the need to intervene?


As in my last post, if you're not willing to take on the responsibility of the animal, there's not much more you can do.  I dont condone it, and I cant say that it doesnt bother me, but there's pain all over this planet.  There's children that are abused in unimaginable ways.  There are animals who suffer greatly in the wild.  At some point you have to deal with it and simply pick your battles.

I'm cool with all my neighbors and have no problems talking with them.  2 Neighbors have concrete kennels (one's a 4x4 pad, and the other is much larger 12X16 I'd guess - used to be a slab for  shed) and they keep their so called pets there.  In my talking with them, one animal pi$$es all over the house, and the other tears the sh!t out of the furniture.  Concrete and elements sounds better than a .45 slug to the skull.  I'm not willing to take the dogs, so...there it is.

Life is a struggle for most.  Its fortunate that some have time to feel the pain and guilt of having a dog tied to a tree.

Bring over a longer chain, if you must.  Say, hey - this is really none of my business - its none of the cops business, or anyone else's but yours of course.  I think your dog might benefit from having a little more slack in their chain.  Not to make an awkward situation, but I want to give you this chain for your dog, if you'll take it....

----------


## fr33

Animals don't have rights. They have a few privileges. Any pet owner will admit this if they are honest.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Are you advocating violating a person's individual rights and trespassing on private property?


Nope. I knocked. They answered. I asked for the dog on both occasions. On both occasions, I left with the dog. One of them held out for a carton of Marlboro 100's, though.

----------


## phill4paul

> As in my last post, if you're not willing to take on the responsibility of the animal, there's not much more you can do.  I dont condone it, and I cant say that it doesnt bother me, but there's pain all over this planet.  There's children that are abused in unimaginable ways.  There are animals who suffer greatly in the wild.  At some point you have to deal with it and simply pick your battles.
> 
> I'm cool with all my neighbors and have no problems talking with them.  2 Neighbors have concrete kennels (one's a 4x4 pad, and the other is much larger 12X16 I'd guess - used to be a slab for  shed) and they keep their so called pets there.  In my talking with them, one animal pi$$es all over the house, and the other tears the sh!t out of the furniture.  Concrete and elements sounds better than a .45 slug to the skull.  I'm not willing to take the dogs, so...there it is.
> 
> Life is a struggle for most.  Its fortunate that some have time to feel the pain and guilt of having a dog tied to a tree.
> 
> Bring over a longer chain, if you must.  Say, hey - this is really none of my business - its none of the cops business, or anyone else's but yours of course.  I think your dog might benefit from having a little more slack in their chain.  Not to make an awkward situation, but I want to give you this chain for your dog, if you'll take it....


  That's how neighbors and relationships are started. Of course some people are just $#@!'s. Other's are at their wit's end. I'll not suffer an animal to be _abused_. I just won't. No government needed on my part.

----------


## Suzanimal

> ....and got hit by a semi. Heh. 
> 
> I'm just fuggin with you, suzanimal. I just kind of pictured it in my head. Suzanimal turns the lil feller loose and sings YAAAAAY yer free...dog bolts....screeeeeech...X X
> 
> Ah well. Guess you had to be there...


I wish I could laugh at your joke but I have set a few animals free and found out later it didn't really work out for them. I set some mail order "seahorses" (I think they're really some sort of shrimp) free in our creek once and my brother called me a "dumb ass". I just thought they would be happier.


Suzanimal is innocent!!! She would never steal someone's property. She _would_ feed and water it until someone found a good home for the critter just before it miraculously disappeared.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Animals don't have rights. They have a few privileges. Any pet owner will admit this if they are honest.


That's kind of a tough one. I suppose that if we deemed them "pets" there could be some argument for that but the fact of the matter is that all of us alive today owe our very existence to animals.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I wish I could laugh at your joke but I have set a few animals free and found out later it didn't really work out for them. I set some mail order "seahorses" (I think they're really some sort of shrimp) free in our creek once and my brother called me a "dumb ass". I just thought they would be happier.
> 
> 
> Suzanimal is innocent!!! She would never steal someone's property. She _would_ feed and water it until someone found a good home for the critter just before it miraculously disappeared.


Yeah, I know what you meant. I told you I was just fuggin with you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'm probably going to bail on this thread. Like I said, I try to stay out of pow wow's like this and here I went posting a half a dozen times in it already. Damn hypocrite, I am.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, nobody said anything about shooting them. Good for you for at least having some fortitude, though.


Ultimately, if you advocate government laws that is what you are advocating threatening, even if you don't realize it.

If someone like P4P decided to personally intervene, its possible (though difficult) that he could limit the retaliatory violence to a certain level and no more.  But if government is involved, it is going to be a lethal threat.




> Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. I try to generally avoid direct/personal questions like that around here.


Its cool.




> What if they said "eff you I'll do what I want". Could you in good conscience sit and watch a dog suffer and die like that?


Yes.



> Animals don't have rights. They have a few privileges. Any pet owner will admit this if they are honest.


This.




> That's how neighbors and relationships are started. Of course some people are just $#@!'s. Other's are 
> at their wit's end. I'll not suffer an animal to be _abused_. I just won't. No government needed on my part.


OK, I respect your personal willingness to get involved.  I'd be MUCH more inclined, in the absence of government, to take on an abortion doctor so unborn children could live, but that's just me.



> That's kind of a tough one. I suppose that if we deemed them "pets" there could be some argument for that but the fact of the matter is that all of us alive today owe our very existence to animals.


Only if you believe in macroevolution.

----------


## brushfire

> That's how neighbors and relationships are started. Of course some people are just $#@!'s. Other's are at their wit's end. I'll not suffer an animal to be _abused_. I just won't. No government needed on my part.


There are creative ways of dealing with a$$holes too.  I've had my share of those, and I've used some ingenious creativity.  My wife has called my creativity "immature", but what does she know?  Heck, she's the one watching a reality show with midget chicks from vegas.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Only if you believe in macroevolution.


Very good, grasshoppa.....


Crap, there I go again.  _Now_ I'm done.

----------


## fr33

> That's kind of a tough one. I suppose that if we deemed them "pets" there could be some argument for that but the fact of the matter is that all of us alive today owe our very existence to animals.


What does that even mean? Of course I owe my existence to animals. That is because animals don't have rights. If they have rights I and my ancestors violated them. But they don't have rights. They don't even know what a "right" is.

----------


## phill4paul

> If someone like P4P decided to personally intervene, its possible (though difficult) that he could limit the retaliatory violence to a certain level and no more.  But if government is involved, it is going to be a lethal threat.


  You'd be surprised. I'm, honestly, the most peaceful individual you could ever meet. When it comes to physical interaction. I exhaust all options in most cases. 




> OK, I respect your personal willingness to get involved. I'd be MUCH more inclined, in the absence of government, to take on an abortion doctor so unborn children could live, but that's just me.


  That gig is yours and yours to decide your actions towards it. Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly sympathetic to that cause. RP nd these forums have swayed my view from "pro-choice." One of the things I love about this place.  However, I understand that it is still being worked within society as to how it will be handled. There will always be abortions. As there will be illegal drugs. I tell ya what.. Can we agree that if there is an infant, or an adult, chained in a yard with no water or food that both will intervene, at least neighborly way, on their behalf?

----------


## phill4paul

> There are creative ways of dealing with a$$holes too.  I've had my share of those, and I've used some ingenious creativity.  My wife has called my creativity "immature", but what does she know?  Heck, she's the one watching a reality show with midget chicks from vegas.


 I lost you at midget chicks. Are they strippers?

----------


## pessimist

> That's how neighbors and relationships are started. Of course some people are just $#@!'s. Other's are at their wit's end. *I'll not suffer an animal to be abused. I just won't*. No government needed on my part.



How would you stop it though? The use of force?

----------


## pessimist

> I set some mail order "seahorses" (I think they're really some sort of shrimp) free in our creek once and my brother called me a "dumb ass". I just thought they would be happier*.*



I believe that is what is commonly referred to as a "blonde moment"

----------


## pessimist

> As in my last post, if you're not willing to take on the responsibility of the animal, there's not much more you can do.  I dont condone it, and I cant say that it doesnt bother me, but there's pain all over this planet.  There's children that are abused in unimaginable ways.  There are animals who suffer greatly in the wild.  At some point you have to deal with it and simply pick your battles.


Yes, I am aware of the suffering in the world. However, if an individual is in a situation where they can intervene and "save the day"- should they?




> Life is a struggle for most.  Its fortunate that some have time to feel the pain and guilt of having a dog tied to a tree.


If they are your neighbor, it would be kind of hard not to see it. I mean, if you're seeing suffering in your environment and there is something that you can do to SAVE a living breathing creature, I think most people with the slightest bit of sympathy would.




> Bring over a longer chain, if you must.  Say, hey - this is really none of my business - its none of the cops business, or anyone else's but yours of course.  I think your dog might benefit from having a little more slack in their chain.  Not to make an awkward situation, but I want to give you this chain for your dog, if you'll take it....


Okay, let's change the hypothetical. What if the dog was barking nonstop driving the entire neighborhood crazy. The owners are never home, and they dismiss all complaints. 

Would it be anyone's business in that example?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You'd be surprised. I'm, honestly, the most peaceful individual you could ever meet. When it comes to physical interaction. I exhaust all options in most cases.


I believe it.  I don't believe that about the government.  Hence the point.




> That gig is yours and yours to decide your actions towards it. Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly sympathetic to that cause. RP nd these forums have swayed my view from "pro-choice." One of the things I love about this place.  However, I understand that it is still being worked within society as to how it will be handled. There will always be abortions. As there will be illegal drugs. I tell ya what.. Can we agree that if there is an infant, or an adult, chained in a yard with no water or food that both will intervene, at least neighborly way, on their behalf?


There will always be abortions, murders (but I repeat myself) theft, child abuse drug use, prostitution, gun ownership, whatever.  Those actions which are aggressive should be punishable even if some people will still do it, while the non-aggressive ones should be legal... the fact that its hard to catch people doing them may be a reason but it is not the primary reason, IMO.

If I saw any human being chained in a yard, food and water or not, I'd be inclined to shoot the person responsible if I knew who it was.  You're acutally probably more peaceable than me in general, if you're looking to intervene in a "neighborly way."

----------


## VIDEODROME

I go as far as local government involvement and say it falls under the discretion of a Sheriff to get involved or leave it alone.

----------


## idiom

If someone could explain why animals cannot homestead themselves without using arbitrary rules then I could give Rothbardian philosophy a bit more credence.

Reportedly even an artificial intelligence, self-aware and smarter than humans won't be able to homestead itself. Why not? Just because.

Back in reality nobody has any rights, especially absent a government.  All we really have is a culture of expecting certain qualities of treatment.

If an animal is being treated cruelly, you have every freedom to intervene, the same as if a child or other human was being treated cruelly.

Just make sure you bring enough guns to back up your opinion.

----------


## idiom

> If I saw any human being chained in a yard, food and water or not, I'd be inclined to shoot the person responsible if I knew who it was.  You're acutally probably more peaceable than me in general, if you're looking to intervene in a "neighborly way."


Going to just enforce your definition of property on someone? That doesn't sound aggressive at all. The beauty of calling ones own aggression 'Non-aggression'. Its pretty Orwellian actually.

----------


## acptulsa

As long as we're rehashing this, we might as well rehash it thoroughly...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...and-Capitalism

----------


## William Tell

Men over animals every time. Animals do not have rights, hunting animals, and raising them to harvest for food and pelts is perfectly moral. Domesticated animals are private property.

----------


## Uriah

Do no harm. I extend that to all of creation the best I can.

----------


## osan

> Is there room for animal protection laws? Or are they just deemed personal property?


The question implies a dichotomy which, in this case, is false.  It is not an either/or situation.

Animals can be property, _to a point_.  I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.  If you are going to kill them for some purpose, then all morality requires it be done quickly and as painlessly as possible.  I have no problem with hunting, for example.  I have a LOT of trouble with beating a dog, starving a cat, and so forth.  Anyone claiming before me the fundamental right to this would be faced with a monumental onus of proof because I hold endless confidence in my ability to demolish any argument presented me.

Animals are a special case of private property; likely the only special case.  They are alive, are self-aware, feel pain, and so forth.  They are analogues of ourselves and therefore merit equivalent respect, even when we are killing them.  Any argument to the contrary reeks either of blunt ignorance or vested self-interest in avoiding responsibility for having to do what needs doing in order to show proper respect.

Do recall that 150 years ago a black African was regarded as an empty-headed, soulless animal.  Before that, plenty believed in the flatness of the earth.  There have been all manner of beliefs, once taken as unassailable, that were eventually demonstrated to be pure, blithering nonsense.  Therefore, just because "everybody" agrees, it does not follow the belief in question is correct.

The anti-rights crowd are as wrong as the PETA crowd.  IMO both are wildly deluded.

----------


## William Tell

> The question implies a dichotomy which, in this case, is false.  It is not an either/or situation.
> 
> Animals can be property, _to a point_.  I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.  If you are going to kill them for some purpose, then all morality requires it be done quickly and as painlessly as possible.  I have no problem with hunting, for example.  I have a LOT of trouble with beating a dog, starving a cat, and so forth.  Anyone claiming before me the fundamental right to this would be faced with a monumental onus of proof because I hold endless confidence in my ability to demolish any argument presented me.
> 
> Animals are a special case of private property; likely the only special case.  They are alive, are self-aware, feel pain, and so forth.  They are analogues of ourselves and therefore merit equivalent respect, even when we are killing them.  Any argument to the contrary reeks either of blunt ignorance or vested self-interest in avoiding responsibility for having to do what needs doing in order to show proper respect.
> 
> Do recall that 150 years ago a black African was regarded as an empty-headed, soulless animal.  Before that, plenty believed in the flatness of the earth.  There have been all manner of beliefs, once taken as unassailable, that were eventually demonstrated to be pure, blithering nonsense.  Therefore, just because "everybody" agrees, it does not follow the belief in question is correct.
> 
> The anti-rights crowd are as wrong as the PETA crowd.  IMO both are wildly deluded.


The issue is not support of abuse and torture of animals, I certainly don't support such actions. Making laws about it is the issue. Any possible laws regarding animal cruelty are going to be inconsistent, if it remains legal to kill animals. I doubt anyone here would say its less evil to kill a man, than it is to cause him pain. I believe animals should be largely treated with respect, but I have no moral qualms about killing them.

Torture and abuse of animals is nasty. But I don't support laws giving animals rights, they are inconsistent and absurd in my opinion.

What specific laws, and penalties would be acceptable in the eyes of those here who support animal rights? I am anxious to hear.

----------


## tod evans

Animal rights....

Venison has the "right" to be cooked with or in lard..

Beef has the "right" to never be cooked more than medium rare.

Pork has the "right" to be smoked and barbecued.

----------


## Ronin Truth

People have rights, animals are food.

----------


## squarepusher

why don't animals have rights?

----------


## Lindsey

This thread makes me sad.

----------


## Dr.3D

> why don't animals have rights?


Mine do.

----------


## squarepusher

people who were slaves didn't have rights 200 years ago in America

----------


## William Tell

> why don't animals have rights?


What rights do you wish they had? the right to a trial? the right to not be detained on a leash without a warrant?

----------


## pessimist

> This thread makes me sad.




+1

----------


## phill4paul

> How would you stop it though? The use of force?


  If it came to that. After exhausting all peaceful means. Yes.

----------


## Dr.3D

> What rights do you wish they had? the right to a trial? the right to not be detained on a leash without a warrant?


The right not to be shot by a cop while doing nothing but being friendly.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, people don't even have that right anymore.

----------


## presence

> I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.



bullfighting?




> *Skewered: The bull  gores the matador as he crashes to the ground*
> 
>  The accident could have  had terrible consequences as the esophagus, the trachea or the larynx  could have been severed."
> 
> Luckily this did not happen  but it was very close.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

> The issue is not support of abuse and torture of animals, I certainly don't support such actions. Making laws about it is the issue. Any possible laws regarding animal cruelty are going to be inconsistent, if it remains legal to kill animals. I doubt anyone here would say its less evil to kill a man, than it is to cause him pain. I believe animals should be largely treated with respect, but I have no moral qualms about killing them.
> 
> Torture and abuse of animals is nasty. But I don't support laws giving animals rights, they are inconsistent and absurd in my opinion.
> 
> What specific laws, and penalties would be acceptable in the eyes of those here who support animal rights? I am anxious to hear.


  I'm not into laws and penalties. I'll relate a specific example that was just in the news and how I _might_ handle it. A woman had some horses. They were mal-nourished and underfed. Skin and bones. Eating bark from trees. Some had asked to take them off her hands. She refused. They were hers and she felt that an animal should be able to fend for itself. Two horses on less than an acre. So neighbors got government involved. Seems to me a neighbor might have just decided to snip the fence wire. After the horses went onto this neighbors property he should have claimed them as his own. Or at least held them until the owner payed a hefty grazing fee . One that she would be unable to afford. If it went to court then it seems to me that the jury might have seen the issue clearly and found that the neighbor that found the horses on his property was in the right.

----------


## presence

Practitioners of Santaria and Voodoo both have historical religious ties to animal torture and sacrifice.

Should we regulate their religion?

----------


## phill4paul

> Practitioners of Santaria and Voodoo both have historical religious ties to animal torture and sacrifice.
> 
> Should we regulate their religion?


No.

----------


## presence

People run over thousands of Deer, Rabbits, Squirrels on the way to work every morning... should they be required to stop, report the incident, and give first aid?


What about when collared animals are left maimed?

----------


## William Tell

> People run over thousands of Deer, Rabbits, Squirrels on the way to work every morning... should they be required to stop, report the incident, and give first aid?
> 
> 
> What about when collared animals are left maimed?


How 'bout charging them with Squirrelslaughter?

----------


## phill4paul

> People run over thousands of Deer, Rabbits, Squirrels on the way to work every morning... should they be required to stop, report the incident, and give first aid?
> 
> 
> What about when collared animals are left maimed?


  Nope.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Well, nobody said anything about shooting them. Good for you for at least having some fortitude, though.
> 
> Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. I try to generally avoid direct/personal questions like that around here.


All laws come down to bullets. What if they decide to defend themselves from cops who come to arrests them because of how they treat their dog? They get the crap kicked out of them at least, end up dead at worst. Dog probably dies as well. The point is that law is nothing but force, nothing but violence, and after all the smiles and lies are done, nothing but bullets in a gun. If you aren't ready to kill someone over it you shouldn't pass a law against it.

----------


## Brett85

I guess I'm probably not a pure libertarian on this issue either.  I'm certainly not an extreme animal rights supporter who wants to stop people from killing cows and force everyone to become a vegetarian, but I think there should be laws against abusing domesticated animals like dogs and cats.

----------


## PierzStyx

People get emotionally attached to animals. But no matter how much you love your cats, or think your dog is your bestfriend, the simple fact is that an animal is not a human being. Because of this it does not have inalienable rights. It lives and dies at the whim of humans. Even the extremist animal rights activists acknowledge this as they don't have a problem with mercy killing a sick and broken down animal, or one gone mad with rabies. Why? Because that animal's life does not belong to it. Unlike a human where it is wrong to kill a crazy or sick person, it is not to kill a crazed or sick animal. Does how someone treats animals tell you something about the quality of person they are? Absolutely. Do animals have rights that justify you breaking onto someone's property and beating them into submission, depriving them of liberty, property, and even life if they choose to resist? Absolutely not.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Animals can be property, _to a point_.  I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.


Non-human people? People are "human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. " (dictionary.com) So try this line of bullcrap again. Animals are not people. Thus they do not have rights and the comparison of animals to slaves is simply idiotic. Neither are they analogues of humans. Such a statement is nonsensical. Nothing else on Earth is like a human, if they were they would be humans. How animals are treated is left entirely up to their owner. Treating an animal cruelly may be immoral, but there is plenty of immorality that isn't and shouldn't be against the law.

----------


## brushfire

> Animals can be property, _to a point_.  I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.  If you are going to kill them for some purpose, then all morality requires it be done quickly and as painlessly as possible.


In India I came upon a market where they were selling flocks of sheep for sacrifice.   I was there during a few religious holidays and in one they were bleeding the animals, right there in the street, for all to see.

It seemed pretty cruel to me.  In my faith, Jesus's sacrifice made animal sacrifices unnecessary.  So I cant really relate to this practice...  I've killed animals, mostly for eating, but I've never deliberately done so in a manner to cause suffering and slow death.  It was one situation where I had no interest in "educating" anyone.  I was the one being educated, as a guest in their country.

So this is their religion, and this style of sacrifice is practiced by other religions too.  In those circumstances, where so called animal rights intersect with religious rights, what is deemed the prevailing right?  What is the moral stance on that?  I guess morality would be relative in those situations, no?

I probably have an unpopular opinion on this matter, but I look at animals as a resource.  Just like plants, fuel, steel...  I have a personal respect for animals, like all resources.  I dont wish to be cruel, but I accept that there is cruelty in the world - some bad sh!t happens.  My involvement generally ends at trying to reason or bring awareness to those who are being cruel.  I'm not going to beat anyone's a$$ over it, or drop the dime so someone else can do the a$$ beating.  If it helps my conscience, I may try talking some sense into someone, but I'm not going to go beyond that.

Simply put, nature can be pretty cruel - usually the farm cats that freeze to death or getting mangled by coyotes in the night.  My wife actually cried during one incident, it was pretty bad...  Man is no different, sometimes.

----------


## phill4paul

> People get emotionally attached to animals. But no matter how much you love your cats, or think your dog is your bestfriend, the simple fact is that an animal is not a human being. Because of this it does not have inalienable rights. It lives and dies at the whim of humans. Even the extremist animal rights activists acknowledge this as they don't have a problem with mercy killing a sick and broken down animal, or one gone mad with rabies. Why? Because that animal's life does not belong to it. Unlike a human where it is wrong to kill a crazy or sick person, it is not to kill a crazed or sick animal. Does how someone treats animals tell you something about the quality of person they are? Absolutely. Do animals have rights that justify you breaking onto someone's property and beating them into submission, depriving them of liberty, property, and even life if they choose to resist? Absolutely not.


  I'm sorry. If you erect a cross in your front yard and start crucifying your live pets to it.  I'm gonna put an end to it. I guess I'm just a bastard and anti-rights that way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm sorry. If you erect a cross in your front yard and start crucifying your live pets to it.  I'm gonna put an end to it. I guess I'm just a bastard and anti-rights that way.


I guess... I'm not sure how this works philosophically but... I'm not sure I'd mind so much if you or someone like you decided to single-handedly try to do something like that, but I would have a huge issue with SWAT teams coming in to deal with something like that.  Similarly, if I saw someone about the blow their own brains out and I had the opportunity I'd pull the gun away from them and try to talk them out of it, but I wouldn't want police involved.

----------


## phill4paul

> I guess... I'm not sure how this works philosophically but... I'm not sure I'd mind so much if you or someone like you decided to single-handedly try to do something like that, but I would have a huge issue with SWAT teams coming in to deal with something like that.  Similarly, if I saw someone about the blow their own brains out and I had the opportunity I'd pull the gun away from them and try to talk them out of it, but I wouldn't want police involved.


  Well, I suppose everything doesn't have to operate from a philosophical stand point. Because there are often contradictions. Sometimes you have to operate on your "gut." Your moral belief. I might try to save someone from suicide. My reasoning being that if they truly wanted to go through with it than they would do it in private. Suicide, or attempted suicide, in public is usually a call for help. So I believe you would be right in this instance.

----------


## idiom

Whats wrong with raising humans for food? What if you deliberately inhibited their mental development?

If rights come naturally from reason, then those humans would have no rights. Their pelts wouldn't need many seams either.

I can absolutely promise their would be a solid free market for, um, 'other uses' of those humans as well.

----------


## idiom

> Nothing else on Earth is like a human.


There is a sticky statement. And its only a decade or two away from advances in AI or genetic experiments that are going to make it a really sticky statement.

----------


## osan

> The issue is not support of abuse and torture of animals, I certainly don't support such actions. Making laws about it is the issue.


Fair enough, but then what does one do when morality says "no" and yet someone persists?  Morality means nothing in practical terms without the threat of force behind it.  If we shall adopt no law, then morality has no real purpose other than to serve as entertainment when we are bored.  That may even be correct, I cannot say for absolute certain, but is that the sort of world in which you want to live?  I can see the attraction, at least in some cases.  But in others, I am not so sure.

Image the attractive case.  I see a man beating his dog, am horrified, and I stop him.  Perhaps he resists and I kill him in response.  That I may find pretty satisfying, "knowing" in my mind I rid the world of a dog-beating scumbag.  How refreshing.  How invirograting.  How vindicating.  How freeing.

What, then, of the case where I walk down the street with my girl, a militant homosexual spies us, is genuinely and intensely offended by what he sees, demand we become gay, and upon our refusal begins warring upon us to the death?  All of a sudden that which was before charming to me has lost its shine.  The world has become a potential free-for-all.

I am not saying this would happen, for it has not happened to my knowledge in all the tribal anarchies that came before Empire.  But Empire is here, it dominates, and will not be gone from us any time soon, if ever.  That mostly means that Empire Mind is with us and we should all know how it twists the human spirit and mind into forms perhaps never intended by the Great Engineer.  It is this sense of twisting of mind that would worry me, were we to return to pure anarchy, a condition for which the greater part of me yearns.  Given the taint of Empire on the minds of men, would true anarchic freedom be possible?  I suspect yes, but it might take generations to wash to vile filth of Empire from our minds and spirits.  What to do in the meanwhile?

Add to that that there would always being those who would be trying to drag us back into Empire.

Our position is tenuous at best and possibly even untenable.  The true dichotomy here may be between doom and eternal slavery, all else equal.  This is why I believe that a reset event of monumental proportions may be the only hope we hold for the longer term future of the species because the conditions such an event would likely impose upon us would leave us so busy with issues of survival that we would have no more time to be musing over such inanities as who is in power and what form it shall take, and all the other nonsense that people come up with when they have too much time on their hands.




> Any _possible_ laws regarding animal cruelty are going to be _inconsistent_,


Firstly, your use of "possible" renders your statement solidly absolute; always a dangerous move.  Onus now rests with you do demonstrate the "always" that this implies.  Secondly, you do not define "inconsistency" here, nor give examples of such.  What does that even mean?  I can usually dope out some reasonable interpretation, but I find myself at a loss in this case.  What do you mean by "inconsistent"?




> I doubt anyone here would say its less evil to kill a man, than it is to cause him pain.


You presume too much.  I would say precisely that, gone beyond some threshold of "pain".  I would certainly consider it far and away more evil, for example, for one to physically dismember a living, breathing man, than to simply end his life in an instant with a bullet to the head, particularly if we ignore the reasons for which such acts were being committed.  My friend Jimmy was in Viet Nam.  He was in the $#@! with his best friend who, after getting his guts blown out in a booby trap, Jimmy shot him in the head, full auto.  There was no med-evac going to happen that day and the only option was to leave him to die over the course of hours.  Was killing his best friend evil?  No.  It was Divine Mercy itself that took the greatest courage to administer.  The evil would have been the coward's way, leaving the young man to his devices to die in slow agony.




> I believe animals should be largely treated with respect, but I have no moral qualms about killing them.


Nor I, in principle, as I believe I clearly indicated.  My trouble arises in torment, maiming, and improper killing.  Taking life away from ANYONE is always a big deal to me.  I kill fleas, ticks, mosquitoes all the time, and even their lives do I afford the respect of the consideration an of thought to wonder who it is I have removed from the book of life.  I don't make a big deal of it.  I do not wring my hands over it.  But I _DO_ give it the respect it deserves, however fleeting and seemingly insignificant.  I kill nothing without that sense in my conscious mind at all instances.  It is habit with me to the point I almost consider it reflexive.  I do not way I am right and others wrong on the point, but only that this is how I have sculpted myself for I consciously refuse to turn my back to the sense of responsibility I hold for ALL of my actions no matter how trivial.  Such refusal, I will add, does not necessitate a large personal drama every time one moves his eyeballs.  It is a way of being on a moment to moment basis and it works for me, though I confess at times it can be taxing.  So be it.  This is the path I have chosen for myself.  YMMV.




> Torture and abuse of animals is nasty.


It is far more than that; it s criminal.  Let there be no mistake on that point.  Clean killing <> inept killing, abuse, maiming.




> But I don't support laws giving animals rights, they are inconsistent and absurd in my opinion.


You will need to explain this in some detail in order to make it properly understandable.

I would also point out that if animals have rights analogous to those of humans, and there is no absolute and irreducible reason I can see to assume out of hand that they do not, then nobody is _giving_ them rights, but merely recognizing them.  Our Constitution grants no right, but merely recognizes them and pledges the guaranty and protection thereof.  Establishing the absence of such rights for animals, I assert, may prove quiet the task.  Are you up to the demonstration?  Anyone?




> What specific laws, and penalties would be acceptable in the eyes of those here who support animal rights? I am anxious to hear.


As would I.  I will open with laws against torture and maiming.  In my view, these are clearly righteous.  From there we can move into muddier waters, though.  What about keeping a dog on a chain?  I find the practice deplorable, but is it criminal?  I suspect yes, but perhaps not in all cases.  Gray areas all at once make life interesting and damnably impossible at times.

----------


## osan

> There is a sticky statement. And its only a decade or two away from advances in AI or genetic experiments that are going to make it a really sticky statement.


If you'd worked on what I have worked on, you would know that it is not a "decade or two away".  It is a decade and a half in our past.  It simply has not become public knowledge, yet.  The real question is whether it will ever be made publicly accessible.  Given what I have seen, it would not surprise me if this were kept water tight for a very long time to come.  But who knows?

----------


## osan

> Whats wrong with raising humans for food? What if you deliberately inhibited their mental development?
> 
> If rights come naturally from reason, then those humans would have no rights. Their pelts wouldn't need many seams either.
> 
> I can absolutely promise their would be a solid free market for, um, 'other uses' of those humans as well.


You speak a truth that will cause many even here to put their fingers in their ears while stomping up and down and shrieking "I can't hear you" over and over again.

More specifically to your point, imagine Monstanto bioengineers a fully programmable human form, say, for parts or whatever use.  Imagine it can be literally programmed in any fashion... warrior, sex slave, house maid, miner, _cop_.  Imagine that it could be programmed to have precisely the characteristics required for its intended role.  Pleasure models... long, leggy, able to suck a golf ball through a garden hose.  Cops... mindlessly vicious enforcers of law.  Soldiers, utterly fearless, clever as the devil in finding solutions to objective problems... and so on.

Are those human beings?  Have they no rights?

----------


## presence

> My trouble arises in torment, maiming





Cropping ears?




Docking tails?




Castration?




Ventriculocordectomy?




Shock Collars?



Rubber Ring Docking?


Veal?

----------


## anaconda

I would almost consider military intervention if it would stop the poaching of elephants and gorillas. I just watched the Netflix documentary "Virunga." Has anyone else seen this yet? I'm not sure what the libertarian solution is to rampant corruption, violence, and lawlessness. 

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/80009...FcRafgodpVsAZg

----------


## presence

> I would almost consider military intervention if it would stop the poaching of elephants
> 
> []
> 
> I just watched the Netflix documentary "Virunga." Has anyone else seen this yet?




Funny... I just watched a documentary on the sex life of elephants where there is an active government sanctioned sterilization of males to reduce herd size.

http://www.pbs.org/program/sex-wild/




> Evans travels with a group attempting to control the elephant population  (and learns how to produce a bull elephant sperm sample) while also  maintaining genetic diversity, through chemical birth control as  Botswana copes with increasing numbers of animals.

----------


## amy31416

Animals have the right to be delicious.

(Just kidding, I have rescued pets.)

----------


## Suzanimal



----------


## presence

> Animals have the right to be delicious.
> 
> (Just kidding, I have rescued pets.)




I've had a pet squirrel, a pet chicken, and a pet rabbit.  



I also have a few chickens, rabbits, and squirrels in the deep freeze.  Yum!

----------


## presence

I've killed a lot of chickens:


I've chopped heads off with a hatchet, holding legs, over a log.

I've slit throats with serrated and smooth cutting knives in road cones.

I've taken head shots with 16g shotgun, pellet gun, 22LR, and .45ACP.

I've hung birds by their legs to trees... held them by their combs while I slit their throat.

I've used a katana, civil war sword, and hatchet while they peck at corn.  

I captive bolted one once.

I've wrung necks.

One time I shot a chicken; only maimed... my dog picked it up and wrung its neck.

I took two roosters with a baseball bat to the skull; another with the back of shovel.  

I've rigged up an "electrified water bath" and dunked heads before wringing.  





Americans eat 60+ lbs of chicken a year each on average; 7 billion chickens are slaughtered every year in the USA alone.


 Most Americans have never killed one.

----------


## anaconda

> Funny... I just watched a documentary on the sex life of elephants where there is an active government sanctioned sterilization of males to reduce herd size.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/program/sex-wild/


Interesting. Good to hear there's lots of elephants. Sadly, there are apparently only about 800 mountain gorillas remaining.

----------


## William Tell

> Firstly, your use of "possible" renders your statement solidly absolute; always a dangerous move.  Onus now rests with you do demonstrate the "always" that this implies.  Secondly, you do not define "inconsistency" here, nor give examples of such.  What does that even mean?  I can usually dope out some reasonable interpretation, but I find myself at a loss in this case.  What do you mean by "inconsistent"?


I thought my point was clear. It is immoral to kill or harm a human. If you stop short of giving ALL animals equal status to humans, then your laws will be inconsistent. For example, will you outlaw killing a dog, except for by animal shelters? 
At the same time, will it remain legal to kill a dear by gun or bow?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've killed a lot of chickens:
> 
> 
> I've chopped heads off with a hatchet, holding legs, over a log.
> 
> I've slit throats with serrated and smooth cutting knives in road cones.
> 
> I've taken head shots with 16g shotgun, pellet gun, 22LR, and .45ACP.
> 
> ...


show-off. :P  ~hugs~

----------


## William Tell

> Fair enough, but then what does one do when morality says "no" and yet someone persists?  Morality means nothing in practical terms without the threat of force behind it.  If we shall adopt no law, then morality has no real purpose other than to serve as entertainment when we are bored.  That may even be correct, I cannot say for absolute certain, but is that the sort of world in which you want to live?  I can see the attraction, at least in some cases.  But in others, I am not so sure.


The life of 10,000 animals is not worth 1 human life in my opinion. We have enough problems with ourselves, some of us have to shoot pets when they kill our domestic animals such as chickens and goats. Having laws against causing pain to animals, is a very sticky situation.

----------


## William Tell

> What, then, of the case where I walk down the street with my girl, a militant homosexual spies us, is genuinely and intensely offended by what he sees, demand we become gay, and upon our refusal begins warring upon us to the death?  All of a sudden that which was before charming to me has lost its shine.  The world has become a potential free-for-all.
> 
> I am not saying this would happen, for it has not happened to my knowledge in all the tribal anarchies that came before Empire.  But Empire is here, it dominates, and will not be gone from us any time soon, if ever.  That mostly means that Empire Mind is with us and we should all know how it twists the human spirit and mind into forms perhaps never intended by the Great Engineer.  It is this sense of twisting of mind that would worry me, were we to return to pure anarchy, a condition for which the greater part of me yearns.  Given the taint of Empire on the minds of men, would true anarchic freedom be possible?  I suspect yes, but it might take generations to wash to vile filth of Empire from our minds and spirits.  What to do in the meanwhile?
> 
> Add to that that there would always being those who would be trying to drag us back into Empire.


I am not supporting anarchy. I am stating that animals do not, and should not have rights. Any and all pro animal laws would be selectively and hypocritically enforced. Moral laws among men is a different topic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

/in b4 the usual suspects bring bestiality into this thread...

----------


## William Tell

> It is far more than that; it s criminal.  Let there be no mistake on that point.  Clean killing <> inept killing, abuse, maiming.


No, I firmly disagree. A man can attempt to cleanly kill, and fail, and the animal my manage to hide and expire after many painful hours. So a law requiring clean killing is silly in my opinion. And will lead to grief for mankind, and I man is more valuable than any animal.

----------


## William Tell

> I would also point out that if animals have rights analogous to those of humans, and there is no absolute and irreducible reason I can see to assume out of hand that they do not, then nobody is _giving_ them rights, but merely recognizing them.  Our Constitution grants no right, but merely recognizes them and pledges the guaranty and protection thereof.  Establishing the absence of such rights for animals, I assert, may prove quiet the task.  Are you up to the demonstration?  Anyone?


God created man, God gave man dominion over all animals. Animals have no rights. I don't feel like being prosecuted for running over a rabbit with my truck.




> As would I.  I will open with laws against torture and maiming.  In my  view, these are clearly righteous.  From there we can move into muddier  waters, though.  What about keeping a dog on a chain?  I find the  practice deplorable, but is it criminal?  I suspect yes, but perhaps not  in all cases.  Gray areas all at once make life interesting and  damnably impossible at times.


No, I do not support such laws.  I don't think every kid who burns  ants with a magnifying glass, or pokes a bunny with a sharp stick should  be prosecuted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Really, in an odd sort of way, this comes down to religion for me.  Mind you, my faith would teach that its wrong to cause unnecessary harm to animals.  But, I still believe in human exceptionalism.  Humans are to have dominion over the earth.  It doesn't really bother me that some of you would intervene on behalf of an animal, but for me, I just don't think its worthwhile.  Human beings are made in God's image, animals are not, so the ONLY reason it is just to use violence on a human being is to prevent them from or in retaliation for violence against another human being.  And that applies for the whole "bestiality" issue to, disgusting though that is.

----------


## presence

> Really, in an odd sort of way, this comes down to religion for me.  Mind you, my faith would teach that its wrong to cause unnecessary harm to animals.  But, I still believe in human exceptionalism.


What of Mathew 25:30? 

Should a man who does not care for what is given to him have it taken?

----------


## Dianne

> Really, in an odd sort of way, this comes down to religion for me.  Mind you, my faith would teach that its wrong to cause unnecessary harm to animals.  But, I still believe in human exceptionalism.  Humans are to have dominion over the earth.  It doesn't really bother me that some of you would intervene on behalf of an animal, but for me, I just don't think its worthwhile.  Human beings are made in God's image, animals are not, so the ONLY reason it is just to use violence on a human being is to prevent them from or in retaliation for violence against another human being.  And that applies for the whole "bestiality" issue to, disgusting though that is.


But people who intentionally torture and abuse animals are not human beings.

----------


## William Tell

> But people who intentionally torture and abuse animals are not human beings.


Kind of like the terrorists?

----------


## osan

> In India I came upon a market where they were selling flocks of sheep for sacrifice.   I was there during a few religious holidays and in one they were bleeding the animals, right there in the street, for all to see.


Abominable, as far as I am concerned.  Generally speaking, people are fearful, greedy, nasty little $#@!s who choose to believe what they want not for the sake of truth, but to sate their fear, greed, and so forth.



> In my faith, Jesus's sacrifice made animal sacrifices unnecessary.


This implies they were once necessary.  I take issue with that.  IMO they were never necessary, save once again to satisfy men's abominable lusts for blood and the idiotic belief that they are appeasing the God(s).  The vile idiocy of the average human being is so shockingly extensive, limitless, and intense as to make intelligent men marvel at the fact that the species has managed not just survive, but thrive.  Probably means my view of things is badly gone wrong, I suppose.




> So I cant really relate to this practice...  I've killed animals, mostly for eating, but I've never deliberately done so in a manner to cause suffering and slow death.  It was one situation where I had no interest in "educating" anyone.  I was the one being educated, as a guest in their country.


We agree.  While I find these practices abhorrent, I see little basis for interference.  It is very difficult at times to keep it behind my zipper and I do believe there are cases where my interference is warranted, but I cannot claim a universal authority.  I do what I feel is correct in a given situation.  At times I feel vindicated.  At others, disgust and sadness.


This is the world in which we exist and there is nothing we can do to stamp out horrors.  Besides, there is nothing absolute about "horror".  Were we to wipe out all that we see as horror, tomorrow the new generation would see new horrors where we saw only delight, would wipe those out perhaps, the cycle repeating until breath itself was viewed as horror and the end to all humanity would soon ensue.

The world is what it is.  We take it on its terms or we do not.  But if not, we can never be quite sure of the consequences.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But people who intentionally torture and abuse animals are not human beings.


Actually, all human beings are human beings.  And all animals are _not_.*



Technology could conceivably create edge cases.



* OK, OK, it depends how you draw the Ven.  Humans could be put into the animal category, but "all non-human animals are not humans" is a bit stilted.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'd say its awful but it should be legal, yes.


As long as no one has a problem with me smashing the owner's face in with a bat, and then rescuing the dog, I don't care if it's "legal" or not.  Animals (most mammels) are sentient beings.  They need protection when they're being abused.  One way or another.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If someone could explain why animals cannot homestead themselves without using arbitrary rules then I could give Rothbardian philosophy a bit more credence.


 Well no one can explain such a thing.  Of course they _could_.  Nothing in Rothbardian philosophy says they can't or shouldn't.  It's up to them.




> Reportedly even an artificial intelligence, self-aware and smarter than humans won't be able to homestead itself. Why not? Just because.


 The reports you received were untrue.  This is not the case.  Obviously any such AI would be a full individual.  He would be entitled to his rights, and he would surely take steps to ensure that what he saw as his rights were protected, whether backwards others believed he had them or not.




> Back in reality nobody has any rights, especially absent a government.  All we really have is a culture of expecting certain qualities of treatment.


 Well, relying upon your "rights" will not, in a practical sense, probably bring you very much freedom.  So in that sense, I would agree that you are either correct that we have no rights, or that they have little practical value for an individual as he lives his life in the real world.  However, rights theory is interesting, and libertarian rights theory especially is well-fleshed-out, and empirically-backed.  That is, whether or not rights exist, societies which act as if they do experience success and prosperity.  Also, I find libertarian rights theory to be internally consistent and logically tight.  It makes sense and fits together.  It is one of the great achievements of the human mind, in my opinion.




> If an animal is being treated cruelly, you have every freedom to intervene, the same as if a child or other human was being treated cruelly.
> 
> Just make sure you bring enough guns to back up your opinion.


 In that same sense, you also have the freedom to intervene when a store sells a book you don't like, or a man says something you don't like, or even just holds an opinion you don't like.  You have the freedom to do anything.  Burn houses down.  Commit genocide.  If you bring enough guns to back up that freedom, you are free to do it.  But not justly.  And, whether rights and justice exist or not, when you have to bring guns along to force other people to do your will, it is rarely going to result in the outcome you were hoping for.  It is not going to result in a free and happy life for you.  *By trying to be the master of others* (whether by stopping them from torturing their animals, or from reading Huck Finn) *you end up enslaving yourself.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> As long as no one has a problem with me smashing the owner's face in with a bat


How do you think the owner will feel if you smash his face in with a bat?

----------


## Deborah K

> Funny... I just watched a documentary on the sex life of elephants where there is an active government sanctioned sterilization of males to reduce herd size.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/program/sex-wild/


There's an interesting fact about young elephant male behavior that parallels young human male behavior.  Elephants are highly emotional, and surprisingly intelligent.  Which makes it difficult for them to function when dealing with the encroachment of civilization.  There was an incident back several years in a national park in south Africa where the young bull elephants were becoming increasingly violent - mostly targeting and killing the white rhino. The game wardens narrowed it down to the fact that the depopulation program instituted to keep their numbers down was targeting the older male elephants, leaving the baby boys deprived of adult male contact.  Dominant older males keep the younger males in line and serve as role models for them.  In the absence of that influence, juvenile delinquents grow up to terrorize their neighbors.  

When you consider that prisons are populated primarily by men who were abandoned or rejected by their fathers you can deduce the importance of early supervision and discipline, not to mention the love needed to help a boy grow up to be a good man.  There was once a minister by the name of Bill Glass who visited prisoners for some twenty years, and he said that among the thousands of prisoners he met, not one of them genuinely loved his dad.

One time executives of a greeting card company decided to set up Mother's Day card booths in a federal prison.  The lines wrapped around the yard.  The success impelled them to do the same for Father's Day - not one prisoner felt the need to send a card to his dad.  Many had no idea who their fathers even were.  This is sobering.

----------


## Deborah K

> How do you think the owner will feel if you smash his face in with a bat?


uh, probably like $#@! cuz it would hurt pretty bad.

----------


## amy31416

> There's an interesting fact about young elephant male behavior that parallels young human male behavior.  Elephants are highly emotional, and surprisingly intelligent.  Which makes it difficult for them to function when dealing with the encroachment of civilization.  There was an incident back several years in a national park in south Africa where the young bull elephants were becoming increasingly violent - mostly targeting and killing the white rhino. The game wardens narrowed it down to the fact that the depopulation program instituted to keep their numbers down was targeting the older male elephants, leaving the baby boys deprived of adult male contact.  Dominant older males keep the younger males in line and serve as role models for them.  In the absence of that influence, juvenile delinquents grow up to terrorize their neighbors.  
> 
> When you consider that prisons are populated primarily by men who were abandoned or rejected by their fathers you can deduce the importance of early supervision and discipline, not to mention the love needed to help a boy grow up to be a good man.  There was once a minister by the name of Bill Glass who visited prisoners for some twenty years, and he said that among the thousands of prisoners he met, not one of them genuinely loved his dad.
> 
> One time executives of a greeting card company decided to set up Mother's Day card booths in a federal prison.  The lines wrapped around the yard.  The success impelled them to do the same for Father's Day - not one prisoner felt the need to send a card to his dad.  Many had no idea who their fathers even were.  This is sobering.


Wow. Interesting post--can't rep you again yet though. 

I'm sure the "quality" of fathering has to play a big part as well--if they stick around.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> uh, probably like $#@! cuz it would hurt pretty bad.


So, he would probably be very upset, very dissatisfied with your behavior, maybe even very angry with you, huh?

----------


## Deborah K

> Wow. Interesting post--can't rep you again yet though. 
> 
> I'm sure the "quality" of fathering has to play a big part as well--if they stick around.


Agreed.

----------


## Deborah K

> So, he would probably be very upset, very dissatisfied with your behavior, maybe even very angry with you, huh?


After he got out of the hospital, assuming the bastard lives.

----------


## Deborah K

HH, you do know how to recognize hyperbole when you read it, right?  By now, surely you know that I snark a LOT.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What of Mathew 25:30? 
> 
> Should a man who does not care for what is given to him have it taken?


That passage is about what God will do, not what government should do.  



> But people who intentionally torture and abuse animals are not human beings.


I tortured lizards when I was 6.  I feel bad about it now.  But I'm still a human being.  And I think it would have been wrong for a SWAT team to come to my house and lock me up, let alone light me up with bullets, for doing it.  Mind you, that may seem like a smaller scale than someone who starves his dog, but what all animals have in common is that they aren't human.  

Ultimately, politics always goes back to theology.  It just so happens that secular libertarians happen to agree with a lot of my conclusions.  But I don't think secular libertarianism can account for any ethical stance on animals at all.  Even less so than it can anything else.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> HH, you do know how to recognize hyperbole when you read it, right?  By now, surely you know that I snark a LOT.


Well, OK, yes I know you're not really going to go around smashing people in the face. 

But it does sound like (and maybe I'm wrong!, but this was just the impression I got) that you would like to somehow forcibly prevent people from treating animals in inhumane ways.  My point is that using force to try to make people live their lives in the way *you* want them to, and to behave according to *your* standards, is not a strategy that's effective.  It will make the person resent you, yes.  It will make them come up with ways to escape and slither out of your control, yes.  It might make them hate you, yes.  It might make them your enemy, make them plot revenge against you.  But will it really accomplish your own goals?  Will it make you free?  No, trying to control him will enslave you.

*By trying to be the master of others (whether by stopping them from torturing their animals, or from reading Huck Finn) you end up enslaving yourself.*

Because of this, I really must take the side of William Tell and the others: humans have rights.  Animal rights do not exist.  Should we force our neighbors to not be inhumane?  What one person will call inhumane, another person will not.  The best rule, my creed:

----------


## Indy Vidual

Animals have the right to try to defend themselves, and some people think they should be allowed to form trade unions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Animals have the right to try to defend themselves, and some people think they should be allowed to form trade unions.


They just can't throw rocks at "scabs."

----------


## Deborah K

HH, as an animal lover, I'm afraid I put their abuse right along side the abuse of a child or elderly person.  If I was witness to it,  I would no sooner tolerate it being done to animals as humans.

And yeah, in the bat-to-the-face scenario, if the prick survived, he might be pissed off and want to come after me, or maybe he would realize, that in this neck of the woods, abuse of animals is not tolerated.  And no, it isn't subjective, no one in their right mind thinks starving and chaining an animal up is the right thing by the animal.

It's my opinion, and I know its probably not the majority view, but it comes from my conscience.  I'm not an anarchist, however, in my world, anarchists have just as much of a right to live the way they see fit as I do, and I would never impose my $#@! on them - unless they're causing injury or damage.

----------


## squarepusher

> HH, as an animal lover, I'm afraid I put their abuse right along side the abuse of a child or elderly person.  If I was witness to it,  I would no sooner tolerate it being done to animals as humans.
> 
> And yeah, in the bat-to-the-face scenario, if the prick survived, he might be pissed off and want to come after me, or maybe he would realize, that in this neck of the woods, abuse of animals is not tolerated.  And no, it isn't subjective, no one in their right mind thinks starving and chaining an animal up is the right thing by the animal.
> 
> It's my opinion, and I know its probably not the majority view, but it comes from my conscience.  I'm not an anarchist, however, in my world, anarchists have just as much of a right to live the way they see fit as I do, and I would never impose my $#@! on them - unless they're causing injury or damage.


does this mean you are also a vegetarian?

----------


## Deborah K

> does this mean you are also a vegetarian?


No, I love meat.  And yes, I'm careful about who I buy it from.  I go in with 2 other families here and we buy a side of beef at a time from a farmer we know. I eat my own chickens and their eggs.  My chickens live good lives, and their deaths are quick. And when I see an injured animal on my property, if I know I can't save it, I mercifully put a bullet in the back of its head, if Mark isn't around to do it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> HH, as an animal lover, I'm afraid I put their abuse right along side the abuse of a child or elderly person.  If I was witness to it,  I would no sooner tolerate it being done to animals as humans.


Well as a practical matter, in the free society we want to create (or in any society) those who want to engage in highly unpopular activities such as this would never do it anywhere where you would witness it.  Even though technically not prohibited, they understand it will lead to nothing good for them for their neighbors and associates to know they do it.  They would do it in the privacy of their own property and you would never know about it.  So, no problem.

As I see it, though, this is a very fuzzy and subjective area.  Once upon a time, I was dating a girl who lived in a house with, oh, I think 6 dogs and a couple cats.  Those dogs were crazy.  They were very poorly-behaved.  The worst one (the little one) bit me a couple times.  I felt like the dogs were being kind of neglected, in a way.  The landlady wasn't taking the right care of them or they'd behave better.  She was just ignoring them mostly.  Well, she had to go to work and earn a living, so what could she do?  But one day I got particularly fed up with their out-of-control horribleness and I confronted the landlady, and told her that "people who can't take care of pets shouldn't have them!"  Well, what good did that do me?  Did she think she was not taking care of her pets?  No, she thought she was taking care of them just fine.  Adequately, anyway.  So, what do you do?  Smash her face in?  _These_ are the real-life humane/inhumane treatment dilemmas you're going to actually have in the real world.  People who put their cats in the microwave are extremely rare; you shouldn't even worry about them.  But mildly neglectful (maybe) owners with 6 dogs going crazy cooped up inside all day?  That is pretty common.  Somebody who yells at his dog?  What about those shock collars and invisible fences, are they humane?  Certain training methods?  Can you put your chicken in a cage, or must it be free-range?  What about your gerbil?  OK to leave that dog in the car?  People are going to have a wide variety of standards and feelings on these questions.

Better to try to Mind Your Own Business.

Edit: Of course, by suggesting to _you_ that minding your own business is a good thing, it could be said that _I'm_ not minding _mine!_  So, mind or don't, but I personally think it's a good principle to live by.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well as a practical matter, in the free society we want to create (or in any society) those who want to engage in highly unpopular activities such as this would never do it anywhere where you would witness it.  Even though technically not prohibited, they understand it will lead to nothing good for them for their neighbors and associates to know they do it.  They would do it in the privacy of their own property and you would never know about it.  So, no problem.
> 
> As I see it, though, this is a very fuzzy and subjective area.  Once upon a time, I was dating a girl who lived in a house with, oh, I think 6 dogs and a couple cats.  Those dogs were crazy.  They were very poorly-behaved.  The worst one (the little one) bit me a couple times.  I felt like the dogs were being kind of neglected, in a way.  The landlady wasn't taking the right care of them or they'd behave better.  She was just ignoring them mostly.  Well, she had to go to work and earn a living, so what could she do?  But one day I got particularly fed up with their out-of-control horribleness and I confronted the landlady, and told her that "people who can't take care of pets shouldn't have them!"  Well, what good did that do me?  Did she think she was not taking care of her pets?  No, she thought she was taking care of them just fine.  Adequately, anyway.  So, what do you do?  Smash her face in?  _These_ are the real-life humane/inhumane treatment dilemmas you're going to actually have in the real world.  People who put their cats in the microwave are extremely rare; you shouldn't even worry about them.  But mildly neglectful (maybe) owners with 6 dogs going crazy cooped up inside all day?  That is pretty common.  Somebody who yells at his dog?  What about those shock collars and invisible fences, are they humane?  Certain training methods?  Can you put your chicken in a cage, or must it be free-range?  What about your gerbil?  OK to leave that dog in the car?  People are going to have a wide variety of standards and feelings on these questions.
> 
> Better to try to Mind Your Own Business.
> 
> Of course, by suggesting to _you_ that minding your own business is a good thing, maybe _I'm_ not minding _mine!_  So, mind or don't, but I personally think it's a good principle to live by.


Do no harm, lest harm is done to you. 

Each community needs to determine for itself what is acceptable, and what is not.

In the case of the pent up, misbehaving dogs, some public pressure would probably suffice.  If enough neighbors and friends did an intervention on the owner, she might see more clearly that she is being unfair to those animals.  I wouldn't call that abuse though.

----------


## pessimist

> The life of 10,000 animals is not worth 1 human life in my opinion.



Why is one human life more valuable? Do you observe humanity? There are a bunch of sick, twisted, terrible, wretched, degenerate people out there.

If you had the option to save a 100 kittens from drowning or some sicko who broke into a house, tied up a family and raped their child in front of them, then burned down their house...what would you choose?

I think people need to realize that animals experience the same feelings humans do. Many domesticated animals become part of our families.  I don't know how anyone with a conscience can turn a blind eye to a person abusing/torturing a defenseless animal. I can’t fathom how people just see them as personal property to do as they please with.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I wouldn't call that abuse though.


But some would.  It is, as you say: "Each community needs to determine for itself what is acceptable, and what is not."  But each community must be voluntary, that's the key.  People like to feel like they're in control of their own lives.  They don't like it when other people tell them what to do.  Try offering some parenting advice to the mom yelling at her kid in the grocery line!   If you used force to _make_ her comply?  Disaster.

I think that communities can make rules about animal treatment, just as you say.  That's fine.  As long as they are voluntary communities.  Free exit.  Hey, such oluntary communities can make rules about drug use, hair style, whatever they want; they could even ban Huck Finn!  As long as it's voluntary, as long as you're _choosing_ to associate with those people and abide by their rules, everything is hunky-dory.

Acala talks about this in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ivisive-issues

Also I do in these posts:

Under Rothbardianism, even crazy Georgists can have their way by forming Georgist communities
Libertarian Approach to Flashing: All depends on where the flasher is standing
Stop Forcing Me to Leave You Alone!!!1!

*"Under libertarianism, a wide profusion of different systems and societies could flourish. As they used to say: "Let a thousand flowers bloom". The Amish, Hutterites, New Agers, religious orders of every sort, White Separatists, Black Separatists, technophiles, technophobes, gated cities with ubiquitous surveillance cameras, frontier towns where everyone does carry a pistol, open bazaars in a unending state of pandemonium where anything goes. Everyone would have their communities, left unharassed to follow their conscience. Some communities would be geographically-based, kind of like current governments (except for these would be legitimate), others would be distributed. If you want to set up a city or even a vast principality based on Victorian values where profanity and immodest dress is outlawed, no commerce can be conducted on Sunday, and you are the prince, have at it: just buy the land and build your castle. There is nothing unlibertarian about that, as long as you are the legitimate property owner of your royal domain and you have the unanimous consent of all your subjects, who can leave if they wish."*

You could set up a community where everyone must treat animals with respect, or even a community where cats are royalty.  No problem with that.  As long as I can subscribe or unsubscribe as I please.  Or, if it's geographically-based, as long as you actually own the land for which you make the rules.

----------


## squarepusher

> No, I love meat.  And yes, I'm careful about who I buy it from.  I go in with 2 other families here and we buy a side of beef at a time from a farmer we know. I eat my own chickens and their eggs.  My chickens live good lives, and their deaths are quick. And when I see an injured animal on my property, if I know I can't save it, I mercifully put a bullet in the back of its head, if Mark isn't around to do it.


So you love animals, are careful who you buy from and give them quick deaths.  Does this mean I could love a family member and kill them quickly to eat (and its ok)?  or does this mean you love to *eat* animals?

I see a lot animal lovers posting cute pictures of kittens on the net, treating their dog like a member of the family, rushing to defense of elephants/rhino's against poachers, getting enraged about some owner who treats their dog badly, but then enjoying some good bacon for breakfast and hamburgers for dinner.

Are pigs, cows and chickens less important species?   Can an animal be a sentient independent being and also food for humans?

I'm not picking on you Deb, im just bringing up some points that I think a lot of people don't think about.  No I am not a vegetarian either.

----------


## tod evans

I treat my dogs like family members, hell I'm nice to the food I raise too......Right up until I kill it.

I've eaten most mammals that live in these hills, same with most life forms that swim and crawl in the lakes and rivers..

I harvest wild food and slaughter domestic yet I don't view my actions as cruel in the least.

Pets and humans aren't food I'll eat, but there are plenty of humans I've met that would make dandy pet food.....

----------


## pessimist

> So you love animals, are careful who you buy from and give them quick deaths.  Does this mean I could love a family member and kill them quickly to eat (and its ok)?  or does this mean you love to *eat* animals?
> 
> I see a lot animal lovers posting cute pictures of kittens on the net, treating their dog like a member of the family, rushing to defense of elephants/rhino's against poachers, getting enraged about some owner who treats their dog badly, but then enjoying some good bacon for breakfast and hamburgers for dinner.
> 
> Are pigs, cows and chickens less important species?   Can an animal be a sentient independent being and also food for humans?
> 
> I'm not picking on you Deb, im just bringing up some points that I think a lot of people don't think about.  No I am not a vegetarian either.



We all have selective morality/ethics.

You can be a meat eater, but be opposed to the abuse and mistreatment of animals. I personally hate to witness suffering of any living being. I support euthanasia for both animals and people.

----------


## William Tell

> We all have selective morality/ethics.
> 
> You can be a meat eater, but be opposed to the abuse and mistreatment of animals. I personally hate to witness suffering of any living being. I support euthanasia for both animals and people.


Don't euthanize me, bro

----------


## pessimist

> Don't euthanize me, bro



A man is burnt from head to toe, he lives in agonizing misery every moment of his existence- the morphine being pumped into his veins around the clock cannot comfort him. He has lost all ability to speak, hear, and will never be able to walk again. He will need countless surgeries, and the medical expenses will be too much for his family to handle. 

He wants out. He no longer wants to live. He loves his wife, his children, but he just doesn't want to put them through the pain of watching him suffer.  Who the hell has the right to keep him alive if he wants to die?

----------


## pessimist

Why is a human life more valuable than an animal? Are they not also of God's creation? Do they not also experience pain, sadness, fleeting moments of joy? do they not feel? sense? play? Do they not nurture and care for their young?

If you observe any wild animal pack, you'll see how much in common they have with us humans.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I would feed and water the poor creature until it mysteriously broke free from it's shackles.


^Thread winner!




> Well, then you're a good person. I think a lot of people would do the same (I would), but many people wouldn't.


Many people wouldn't call the cops either.  Some people were reluctant to call the cops when Kitty Genovese (human woman) as being stabbed to death over a period of hours.  When someone did call the police never responded.  http://nypost.com/2014/02/16/book-re...novese-murder/   Had someone taken the initiative to get personally involved, instead of relying on the cops, she wouldn't have died that night.  One person yelling at her attacker scared the murderer away.  Other people could have let her inside their house.

----------


## Deborah K

> So you love animals, are careful who you buy from and give them quick deaths.  Does this mean I could love a family member and kill them quickly to eat (and its ok)?  or does this mean you love to *eat* animals?
> 
> I see a lot animal lovers posting cute pictures of kittens on the net, treating their dog like a member of the family, rushing to defense of elephants/rhino's against poachers, getting enraged about some owner who treats their dog badly, but then enjoying some good bacon for breakfast and hamburgers for dinner.
> 
> Are pigs, cows and chickens less important species?   Can an animal be a sentient independent being and also food for humans?
> 
> I'm not picking on you Deb, im just bringing up some points that I think a lot of people don't think about.  No I am not a vegetarian either.


Yes, I love animals and I love to eat certain ones.  I think animals can be sentient beings, and still be food for humans.   They're discovering that plant life communicates and reacts to violence. So, should we stop eating plants?  Hey, we have to eat, right?  Certain Indian tribes prayed over their kill and gave thanks for its nourishment.  We're meant to be omnivores.  

And no, I wouldn't eat a family member because I'm not a cannibal.  I don't think I could ever eat a dog or cat either, but I don't really know what I'd do if I were in the same situation the Russians were in during their famine in the 1920s.  But, that's a different issue. 

As far as becoming enraged over a dog being abused, and then going home and eating bacon....  does not compute.  There is huge difference between treating the animals you are going eat humanly, and abusing your pet by chaining him up, and starving him.

----------


## otherone

> Why is a human life more valuable than an animal? Are they not also of God's creation? Do they not also experience pain, sadness, fleeting moments of joy? do they not feel? sense? play? Do they not nurture and care for their young?
> 
> If you observe any wild animal pack, you'll see how much in common they have with us humans.


Rights are enforced with violence.  Get back to me when your chimp is packing heat.

----------


## Deborah K

> Rights are enforced with violence.


Only when they're being violated. Or at least, that's how it ought to be.

----------


## idiom

If you don't respect all life, you can very quickly get to a place where you don't respect all humans, because the boundaries are largely arbitrary.

Of course this suits a large contingent of our part of the political spectrum.

Plenty of humans are non-humans to them, based on the same fluid definitions of what is required to deserve 'rights'.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

My fantasy is the dissolving of all current nations, and such issues would be determined by "region" via a voluntary community code of conduct. If a person doesn't like they can't torture their animals, they won't live there. 

I'd only move to a "region" that had basic protections for animals. It's the TORTURE of animals that is disgusting, and is actually an indicator of sociopathy. Killing an animal quickly for food, is not the same thing. 

So, to debate on how animal rights should work in the US is useless, they are what they are, I have no say in this countries laws. I have almost no say at all in this big cluster$#@! of a country. My rights boil down to paying taxes, paying fines if a cop wants to tell me to, to mow my lawn often enough they don't fine me, etc...

----------


## anaconda

> Kind of like the terrorists?


One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

----------


## anaconda

> But people who intentionally torture and abuse animals are not human beings.


You have distinguished here between people and human beings.

----------


## squarepusher

Is it ok to have a slave if you treat them well?  Not to mention the massive impact meat consumption (the current US version) has on the environment and inefficient use of resources associated with it.

----------


## tod evans

> Is it ok to have a slave if you treat them well?  Not to mention the massive impact meat consumption (the current US version) has on the environment and inefficient use of resources associated with it.


I don't want a slave but I sure as hell enjoy my food..

I'll tell ya what....

You eat whatever the hell makes you feel good and I won't try to change your habits or beliefs on the matter...

How 'bout showing the same respect?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ^Thread winner!
> 
> 
> 
> Many people wouldn't call the cops either.  Some people were reluctant to call the cops when Kitty Genovese (human woman) as being stabbed to death over a period of hours.  When someone did call the police never responded.  http://nypost.com/2014/02/16/book-re...novese-murder/   Had someone taken the initiative to get personally involved, instead of relying on the cops, she wouldn't have died that night.  One person yelling at her attacker scared the murderer away.  Other people could have let her inside their house.


The only time I'd ever consider calling the police is if I thought there was a chance of saving a human life by doing so.  Even then I know the risks involved and I respect that AF, tod evans, and P4P would very, very likely be saying "told ya so" for my entire life afterwards (the odds of something going wrong is high.)  That's assuming I couldn't resolve the situation myself.

I wouldn't consider taking that kind of a risk (calling cops) for an animal.

----------


## fr33

> why don't animals have rights?


They don't recognize such a thing. There are many animals in your daily life that you likely don't even realize exist because you cannot see them... and you frequently kill them. Many of them do the same thing to other species (and even their own).

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Filthy lice shoot cow because the cow is doing what cows do.  Every state has laws against animal cruelty.  Lots of them are felony laws.  I don't see any of these pieces of garbage sitting in a jail cell.

And people wonder why Eric Freins exist.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Is there room for animal protection laws? Or are they just deemed personal property?


Your property is NOMB.  As soon as I make it my business I would have to afford you the same power.  You ain't getting that power.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Filthy lice shoot cow because the cow is doing what cows do.  Every state has laws against animal cruelty.  Lots of them are felony laws....


The cow clearly refused to obey, what do you expect the animals in blue to do?

----------


## osan

> Your property is NOMB.  As soon as I make it my business I would have to afford you the same power.  You ain't getting that power.


Your statement is agreeable, as far as it goes.  It does not, however, take into account the question of the nature of animals _as property_.  I submit that because they are alive and are sentient, they constitute the single special class of property for which certain exceptions apply.  I grant that this can get a little messy at times, but I stand by this opinion until it can be resolutely disproved.

We hold the fundamental right to dispose of property as we please.  If I were to buy San Simeon, it would be well within my rights to demolish it, destroying the vast cultural wealth represented there and no matter how it might piss you off, your opinions would be as so much fart gas in a hurricane.

But can the same be said for my dog?  Am I entitled to skin him alive and keep him that way for days or weeks?  If you believe "yes", then I would have no choice but to conclude that there was something terribly wrong with your mental disposition.  I am uncertain of a great raft of issues, but on this one my knowledge is ironclad.  Cruelty to any living thing is an abomination and should be stopped.   Consider how I despise the criminal Obama.  The man should pass the remainder of his life in a prison cell.  If he could be convicted of mass murder, I would volunteer for the one-man firing squad.  But as much as I revile that bag of subhuman refuse, I would not see him tortured. If death he merits, let it be swift.  I would say the same for the likes of even Hitler... though I confess that affording the same to Stalin and Mao would indeed test the truer mettle of my professed values.

Life is sacred no matter whose it is.  That does not mean we do not kill, for we must in order to live.  Even were we carrion eaters we would still have to kill because there is not enough to support our numbers.  Therefore, killing is a necessity but it should not be one in which we revel, save for the sustenance it affords, and the protection.  But the torment and torture of living beings... no sir, I am so sorry, but that I will not abide and one would have to do an impossible hat dance to sway me otherwise.  I would abide this as much as I would a parent beating a child, for the two are very similar.  I WOULD interfere and I have as I watched a huge woman beat a tiny toddler on a NYC subway car once.

The notion of property as it applies to other living things is NOT the precise same as with inanimate objects.  To suggest otherwise cannot be supported, save with the the acceptance of criminal perversions so foul as to make the mind recoil in horror.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Am I entitled to skin my dog alive and keep him that way for days or weeks?  If you believe "yes", then I would have no choice but to conclude that there was something terribly wrong with your mental disposition.


I believe "yes."

Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession.  Sapience is.




> Life is sacred no matter whose it is.


 Trees have life.  They don't have rights.

Now rights may or may not "exist."  Not all of us believe in rights.  But it should be very clear to all of us that there are at least a few highly important and immanently observable aspects in which humans are extremely differentiated from all other life.  Humans are very different than even the higher animals such as dogs and cats.

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe "yes."
> 
> Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession.  Sapience is.
> 
>  Trees have life.  They don't have rights.
> 
> Now rights may or may not "exist."  Not all of us believe in rights.  But it should be very clear to all of us that there are at least a few highly important and immanently observable aspects in which humans are extremely differentiated from all other life.  Humans are very different than even the higher animals such as dogs and cats.



Skinning an animal alive is torture.  You think you have the right to torture your animals?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Skinning an animal alive is torture.  You think you the right to torture your animals?


Yes, I absolutely do.  Just as everyone has the right to torture their ants and rats.

----------


## osan

> I believe "yes."
> 
> Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession.  Sapience is.


Well, believe as you wish, but were I to catch anyone in such an act, they would be lucky to survive.  I would interfere without the lest equivocation and would be fully confident that my actions were rightful.




> Trees have life.  They don't have rights.


This is a blind and unsupported assertion. I'd call that a FAIL.  It is not even a sensibly complete expression.  I am afraid you would have to do far better than that.




> Now rights may or may not "exist."  Not all of us believe in rights.  But it should be very clear to all of us that there are at least a few highly important and immanently observable aspects in which humans are extremely differentiated from all other life.  Humans are very different than even the higher animals such as dogs and cats.


Granting for conversation's sake, so what?  You speak in vagaries and innuendo.  We need far more than this as proof.  It doesn't exist, but please do make the effort.  I am interested to see how impressive a show you are able to make of your gymnastics.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well, believe as you wish, but were I to catch anyone in such an act, they would be lucky to survive.  I would interfere without the lest equivocation and would be fully confident that my actions were rightful.


 People who seek to impose their own will on others are always certain of their absolute rectitude.  At least they often are.




> This is a blind and unsupported assertion.


 If you assert that trees do have rights, that assertion is, thus far, equally unsupported.  Feel free to support it.





> Granting for conversation's sake, so what?  You speak in vagaries and innuendo.  We need far more than this as proof.  It doesn't exist, but please do make the effort.  I am interested to see how impressive a show you are able to make of your gymnastics.


 Proof of what?  What doesn't exist?  What show do you seek to see?  What would make it impressive to you?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Humans are very different than even the higher animals such as dogs and cats.


My dogs agree, they think humans can be pretty arrogant about themselves and wish they would be more sympathetic of other living creatures.

----------


## Deborah K

It seems to me that some people take their political philosophies to an absurd extreme.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It seems to me that some people take their political philosophies to an absurd extreme.


This is perhaps one of the best one liners that I've ever seen shared on the forums. And, really, it is a daisy of an epitaph for some of our friends who seem content upon political suicide.

----------


## robert68

> I believe "yes."
> 
> Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession.  Sapience is.
> ...


Skinning a pet alive and keeping it that way for weeks isn't evidence of sapience.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It seems to me that some people take their political philosophies to an absurd extreme.


Any political opinion can and will seem absurd to the listener/reader, provided they hold the contrary opinion and hold it very strongly.  That is what makes a political opinion "absurd" -- the one who thinks it is absurd strongly holds the contrary view.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Skinning a pet alive and keeping it that way for weeks isn't evidence of sapience.


Oh?  What if you had to do that, repeatedly, in order to cure AIDS?

If a human being is doing something, they have a purpose for doing it.  That you do not happen to agree with his action or purpose does not make him a non-human.

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh?  What if you had to do that, repeatedly, in order to cure AIDS?
> 
> If a human being is doing something, they have a purpose for doing it.  That you do not happen to agree with his action or purpose does not make him a non-human.


So, you don't think there are sadists, or malevolence out there?  Everyone is benevolent?  Everyone means well?  Everyone has their reasons?

----------


## Deborah K

> Any political opinion can and will seem absurd to the listener/reader, provided they hold the contrary opinion and hold it very strongly.  That is what makes a political opinion "absurd" -- the one who thinks it is absurd strongly holds the contrary view.


HH, pull yourself out of the philosophical realm for a moment.  There are universal truths.  One is that torturing, neglecting, and abusing animals is wrong.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> HH, pull yourself out of the philosophical realm for a moment.  There are universal truths.  One is that torturing, neglecting, and abusing animals is wrong.


There are universal truths.  One is that you don't come and threaten to kill my family.  You don't kill 3,000 in New York.  If you do, then be prepared for massive retaliation.

Peaceniks like Lew Rockwell and Harry Browne and Ron Paul are absolutely absurd and loony for not wanting to go and kill our enemies in Iraq.  It's just ludicris.  it's like they're not even living on the same planet as the rest of us.  Hello?  He-llo, guys?  Want to come back from Fantasy World and join us here in in reality?  There are evil people in the world.  If you don't blow up their countries, they will blow _you_ up.  Al-Quieda is not going to leave you alone just because you leave them alone.  They will just keep coming at you because they hate, absolutely loathe, everything about America and they would be very happy to have an insane person like Lew or Ron or Harry in charge who will allow them to get stronger and stronger and stronger, unmolested.  I mean, this is just loony tunes.  It's beyond absurd.

Right?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> There are universal truths.  One is that you don't come and threaten to kill my family.  You don't kill 3,000 in New York.  If you do, then be prepared for massive retaliation.
> 
> Peaceniks like Lew Rockwell and Harry Browne and Ron Paul are absolutely absurd and loony for not wanting to go and kill our enemies in Iraq.  It's just ludicris.  it's like they're not even living on the same planet as the rest of us.  Hello?  He-llo, guys?  Want to come back from Fantasy World and join us here in in reality?  There are evil people in the world.  If you don't blow up their countries, they will blow _you_ up.  Al-Quieda is not going to leave you alone just because you leave them alone.  They will just keep coming at you because they hate, absolutely loathe, everything about America and they would be very happy to have an insane person like Lew or Ron or Harry in charge who will allow them to get stronger and stronger and stronger, unmolested.  I mean, this is just loony tunes.  It's beyond absurd.
> 
> Right?


Your outlook here reminds me of the what's in your pockets thread, hulmuth. Do you remember that one? Every time I see you post something I think of that thread. That was the funniest list of junk in my pockets that I've ever read. Was just reminded of it again. Seems like yer always ready fer battle. Heh...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Your outlook here reminds me of the what's in your pockets thread, hulmuth. Do you remember that one? Every time I see you post something I think of that thread. That was the funniest list of junk in my pockets that I've ever read. Was just reminded of it again. Seems like yer always ready fer battle. Heh...


Yes, I remember that.  At the time, it seemed to confirm your opinion that I was a lunatic.

Hey, what can I say?  Be Prepared.  If you think I'm crazy, you'd really think these guys are nuts:

http://everydaycarry.com/

There's a whole "everyday carry" culture or lifestyle or whatever.  They take it to the, what's that again?  Oh yes: the "absurd extreme."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So, you don't think there are sadists, or malevolence out there?  Everyone is benevolent?  Everyone means well?  Everyone has their reasons?


Everyone does have their reasons.  Sometimes they might be malevolent, for sure.  Sometimes twisted.  But unless they first aggress upon me, or upon another human being, I am not justified in using violence against them.

I understand you expand this to say that you're justified if they're aggressing upon another living thing.  I understand the analogical thinking, but I don't think that it's possible to make this work or be logical and consistent.  Rats are very intelligent.  Many seem just as intelligent as cats, as far as we can tell.  Yet many of us think nothing of massacring them.  And not just killing, but poisoning them in a very long, painful, inhumane way.  Why?  Because it's cheap and effective.  Is it a *Universal Truth* that this is wrong?  Certainly it falls under the category of "torturing, neglecting, and abusing animals."  But if it is a Universal Truth that torturing rats is wrong, the vast majority of humanity has failed to tune in to that universal.

----------


## pessimist

What if a guy wants to torture his mentally challenged son?  The son is retarded, he can't comprehend "rights"- he can't support himself. So what if the father concluded that his son is not an actual human being, but instead his personal property do as he pleases with?

Does his son have any rights. If so, why?

If a community believed in slavery, should that be allowed? If not, why? What if they believe another tribe or ethnicity is nonhuman? Who has the "right" to tell them they can't own slaves in their own communities?

Where is the line? Is there a line?

----------


## amy31416

> There are universal truths.  One is that you don't come and threaten to kill my family.  You don't kill 3,000 in New York.  If you do, then be prepared for massive retaliation.
> 
> Peaceniks like Lew Rockwell and Harry Browne and Ron Paul are absolutely absurd and loony for not wanting to go and kill our enemies in Iraq.  It's just ludicris.  it's like they're not even living on the same planet as the rest of us.  Hello?  He-llo, guys?  Want to come back from Fantasy World and join us here in in reality?  There are evil people in the world.  If you don't blow up their countries, they will blow _you_ up.  Al-Quieda is not going to leave you alone just because you leave them alone.  They will just keep coming at you because they hate, absolutely loathe, everything about America and they would be very happy to have an insane person like Lew or Ron or Harry in charge who will allow them to get stronger and stronger and stronger, unmolested.  I mean, this is just loony tunes.  It's beyond absurd.
> 
> Right?


Oh. So you're fine with torturing and killing humans as well?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh. So you're fine with torturing and killing humans as well?


I detect a strawman.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> At the time, it seemed to confirm your opinion that I was a lunatic.
> 
> Hey, what can I say?  Be Prepared.  If you think I'm crazy, you'd really think these guys are nuts


Oh, I didn't think that you were crazy, helmuth. Was just mentioning that I remembered.

----------


## amy31416

> I detect a strawman.


Read his words.

"Going after our enemies" means that we kill, torture and indefinitely imprison many innocents, alongside the guilty. We don't make much distinction, do we? (By "we" I mean the gov't we fund.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Read his words.
> 
> "Going after our enemies" means that we kill, torture and indefinitely imprison many innocents, alongside the guilty. We don't make much distinction, do we? (By "we" I mean the gov't we fund.)


I can't believe you think he's being serious.  He was being sarcastic.  I have freaking Aspergers and even I was able to see that he was being sarcastic....

----------


## amy31416

> I can't believe you think he's being serious.  He was being sarcastic.  I have freaking Aspergers and even I was able to see that he was being sarcastic....


Huh. My bad if that's the case. I'm generally good at detecting it, but he's better at doing it. I am humbled.

----------


## osan

> People who seek to impose their own will on others are always certain of their absolute rectitude.  At least they often are.


Prove it.  That's a very big and bold statement, claiming to know the hearts of others.  Onus rest squarely with you to prove the assertion.  Until you do, it is nothing more than pure bull$#@!.




> If you assert that trees do have rights, that assertion is, thus far, equally unsupported.  Feel free to support it.


I made no such assertion.  You appear to be on a jag of grossly failed logic.  I am surprised.




> Proof of what?  What doesn't exist?  What show do you seek to see?  What would make it impressive to you?


Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other snetient beings; that sentience is not the arbiter of constraint upon human action, but only "sapience".  Big assertions used in support of your thesis that a human being is morally free to engage in the most profoundly perverted acts of depravity conceivable demand big proof.

The fact that other beings feel pain and display clear love of their own existence strongly supports my belief that they are not mere objects to be trifled with in any manner one's mood might dictate.  If you really believe what you assert, then all I can say is you are not the sort I would want at my back in a foxhole.  I'd rather take my chances on my own.

----------


## mczerone

> What if a guy wants to torture his mentally challenged son?  The son is retarded, he can't comprehend "rights"- he can't support himself. So what if the father concluded that his son is not an actual human being, but instead his personal property do as he pleases with?
> 
> Does his son have any rights. If so, why?
> 
> If a community believed in slavery, should that be allowed? If not, why? What if they believe another tribe or ethnicity is nonhuman? Who has the "right" to tell them they can't own slaves in their own communities?
> 
> Where is the line? Is there a line?


Do you have a line? How do you propose enforcing that line?

----------


## pessimist

> Do you have a line? How do you propose enforcing that line?


should there be a line?

----------


## fr33

Y'all should have started this topic in the summer. I could have posted a pic of the grasshopper guts spread across my front bumper. It was a friggin genocide on my truck.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Prove it.  That's a very big and bold statement, claiming to know the hearts of others.  Onus rest squarely with you to prove the assertion.


 You want me to _prove_ that it is arrogant and conceited to presume to know better than others how they should live and to forcibly shove your opinions down their throats? Ummm...... 

How about you prove that it's _not_. 




> I made no such assertion.


 So you do not assert that trees have rights.  Terrific.  Then when I say something like, "Trees have life. They don't have rights," rather than contradicting me by writing, "blind...unsupported...I'd call that a FAIL," instead you should agree with me by writing something like, "Yes, I also don't assert that trees have rights."

Unless of course I've misunderstood you and you wish to contest my blind, unsupported assertion that trees have life.  

Feel free to clear this all up and contest both, or either, assertion.  Or agree with both, or either.




> Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other sentient beings;


 Ahh, Osan-san, this is the root of your misunderstanding of me.  In the heat of your emotion, you have failed to notice that I never made such an assertion.  If I had made such an assertion, rest assured I would have probably draped it in the hair of some kind of line of reasoning attempting to anchor its moral origins on metaphysical bedrock (just as you did with your opposite moral assertion), not just left it bald and naked.  Such an attempt would undoubtedly be specious and not hold up to any very hard scrutiny.

No, torturing animals may very well be immoral, or at least usually immoral, when not done for some practical purpose like curing cancer or testing lipstick or stopping them from spreading plagues.  But I was not addressing morality.  I was addressing _political_ morality.  Libertarianism at root asks one question: "When can humans justifiably use force against other humans?"  And it gives one answer: "Only in defense against or response to the initiation of force by another human."  Since the animal-torturer is not initiating any force against any other human, libertarianism prohibits anyone from using any force against him, for such a use of force would be an initiation.

Torturing animals may be immoral.  Becoming hopelessly addicted to opiates may be immoral.  Clearcutting rainforests may be immoral.  Burning the Quaran, or the Bible, may be immoral.  But all of these things are done with one's own property and thus the immoral actors cannot justly be forced to stop.




> Big assertions used in support of your thesis that a human being is morally free to engage in the most profoundly perverted acts of depravity conceivable demand big proof.


 They are not.  If behavior is depraved, then by definition it is not moral.  But that does not mean it can be stomped out by rapid-response Anti-Depravity SWAT Teams.  Libertarianism prohibits the initiation of force -- even against those whom you see as depraved.  Even against those whom you hate.  _Especially_ against those whom you hate.  It's just like free speech:

"We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say very controversial things." -Ron Paul 

It's easy to grant freedom of speech to those we agree with.  The real test is granting that freedom to those with opinions we absolutely despise.




> The fact that other beings feel pain and display clear love of their own existence strongly supports my belief that they are not mere objects to be trifled with in any manner one's mood might dictate.


 Bacteria display a clear love for their own existence (via their drive to perpetuate that existence).  Some research suggests that trees can feel pain.  To make a rule that it is OK to initiate force upon anyone whom you think is causing any other lifeform pain or suffering or death, is to make a horrible rule.  In my opinion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm generally good at detecting it, but he's better at doing it. I am humbled.


 LOL, thanks Amy.  Yes, FreedomFanatic is right, I was just using that as an example of how easy and common it is for people (in this case neo-cons) to think that views that contradict their own (in this case, non-interventionism and peace) are absurd, and that the people who hold those views must be loony nutcases.  Kooks, as we so often heard Ron Paul called.

Most of Ron Paul's views, in fact, are seen by many/most people as exactly, precisely what Deb said: the result of a political philosophy taken to the absurd extreme.  But that's not an argument against his views.  Not at all.  It's just a round-about way of saying that they disagree with Ron's views, and in fact disagree so strongly that they probably are not even capable of comprehending those views in the slightest.  They just tune them out as "kooky."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What if a guy wants to torture his mentally challenged son?


I don't know, probably the son doesn't even exist, right?  And neither does the guy.  And neither do you.  So what's the problem?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable [individuals] we see the growing spread of chaos...  

-- Vladamir Putin
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137

----------


## Deborah K

> Most of Ron Paul's views, in fact, are seen by many/most people as exactly, precisely what Deb said: the result of a political philosophy taken to the absurd extreme.  But that's not an argument against his views.  Not at all.  It's just a round-about way of saying that they disagree with Ron's views, and in fact disagree so strongly that they probably are not even capable of comprehending those views in the slightest.  They just tune them out as "kooky."


You're leaping when trying to compare Ron's educated and experienced views on foreign policy and economics with someone's right to torture their animals.  Just because the masses aren't educated enough to understand Ron's political philosophy doesn't mean his views are absurdly extreme.  

You really can't bring your views on a person's right to torture their animals to a logical conclusion, because there is none.

----------


## pessimist

> I don't know, probably the son doesn't even exist, right?  And neither does the guy.  And neither do you.  So what's the problem?



Uh, no. Sadly, that guy does exist, and so does his son, and so do I. You do too. In fact, existence is an uncomfortable part of this 'life' thing, but we are here, right? So we might try to value and respect other living creatures. The truth is, there are people out there who would skin others alive purely for their own amusement.

The question I am asking is where is the line one draws? How long before a certain race or ethnicity or people with undesirable physical traits become "subhuman" and "personal property"?

You can spare me your sarcasm and professorial schtick. Just answer the question in plain English.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You're leaping when trying to compare Ron's educated and experienced views on foreign policy and economics with someone's right to torture their animals.


 I could compare _any_ political view with _any_ other.  It's all the same.  Those who disagree, and disagree strongly enough, will simply dismiss the view they disagree with as absurd and extreme.  There's nothing special about animal rights.  Those who are strongly opposed to animal rights will find your own view on it absurd and extreme.

*Calling something "absurd and extreme" just means you do not want to go to the mental effort required to understand it.*

I mean, this is my own view regarding animal rights (the lack thereof).  Obviously _I_ do not think that it's absurd and extreme.  Now you can just discount my view and decide you're smarter than me and I'm too stupid for words, and that you get to decide what's absurd and extreme and that I do not.  But that's kind of a lazy way out.




> You really can't bring your views on a person's right to torture their animals to a logical conclusion, because there is none.


 I have explained the logical position, as I see it.  Let me do it again:

When can we use force?
Only in response to force.
Has someone torturing animals which he owns initiated force?
No.
Thus, we cannot use force against him.  Any force use would be _aggressive_ and _contrary to liberty._

Instead, we can mind our own business.  Or, if we simply cannot help our inner busybodiness, we can attempt to pressure, persuade, or cajole him via peaceful, non-aggressive means.  Shunning comes to mind.  If it is a very important issue to us, we can make sure to subscribe to a legal system which prohibits such behavior, as I described earlier in the thread.  There are ways to go about opposing misbehavior towards animals in a libertarian way.  A million ways, limited only by your creativity. * Using force just isn't one of them.*

----------


## Deborah K

HH, please.  You're not being real with me.  You know that there are absolutes in this world.

----------


## Deborah K

And btw, never would I call you stupid.  I'm not trying to be flippant here.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Uh, no. Sadly, that guy does exist, and so does his son, and so do I. You do too. In fact, existence is an uncomfortable part of this 'life' thing, but we are here, right? 
> 
> You can spare me your sarcasm and professorial schtick. Just answer the question in plain English.


 Hey, it was _your_ thread!  "What if we don't even exist?"  I was just making a joke, not trying to be "professorial," LOL!




> Does his son have any rights. If so, why?


Yes, because he is a _potential_ human being.  He is a human being by species.  _At this time_, he is not able to demonstrate many of the key characteristics that define humanity, but that could change.

This is the same reason that infants and fetuses have rights.  They do not exhibit very much human behavior.  Adult chimpanzees seem generally more intelligent than one-month-old humans.  But the infant is a potential human being, and that makes all the difference.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> HH, please.  You're not being real with me.  You know that there are absolutes in this world.


I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying.  Look, I think that you, and also osan and pessimist (and probably also many others who have either left the thread already or never came, but would post the same thing if they wanted to bother) are looking at it this way:

Torturing animals is obviously wrong.

And.....

There we go, that's it.  That's the argument.  And I think you perceive me as contradicting you, and so that I must be saying:

Torturing animals is _not_ obviously wrong.

*But that's not the main thing I'm saying.*  I'm mainly saying: *We can't be initiating force.*  That's all I'm saying.

I can agree with you that intentionally torturing a cat or dog purely for twisted, sadistic purposes would be very wrong and at the same time hold that we must not initiate force against that particular wrongdoer.

That's one of the hardest lessons of libertarianism; one of the hardest things to come to grips with: *just because something is wrong doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit it.*

_"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."_

— L. Neil Smith  http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The question implies a dichotomy which, in this case, is false.  It is not an either/or situation.
> 
> Animals can be property, _to a point_.  I see no moral basis for claiming the right to torture and abuse non-human people.  If you are going to kill them for some purpose, then all morality requires it be done quickly and as painlessly as possible.  I have no problem with hunting, for example.  I have a LOT of trouble with beating a dog, starving a cat, and so forth.  Anyone claiming before me the fundamental right to this would be faced with a monumental onus of proof because I hold endless confidence in my ability to demolish any argument presented me.
> 
> Animals are a special case of private property; likely the only special case.  They are alive, are self-aware, feel pain, and so forth.  They are analogues of ourselves and therefore merit equivalent respect, even when we are killing them.  Any argument to the contrary reeks either of blunt ignorance or vested self-interest in avoiding responsibility for having to do what needs doing in order to show proper respect.
> 
> Do recall that 150 years ago a black African was regarded as an empty-headed, soulless animal.  Before that, plenty believed in the flatness of the earth.  There have been all manner of beliefs, once taken as unassailable, that were eventually demonstrated to be pure, blithering nonsense.  Therefore, just because "everybody" agrees, it does not follow the belief in question is correct.
> 
> The anti-rights crowd are as wrong as the PETA crowd.  IMO both are wildly deluded.


Exactly this ^.

I would like to add that with every right comes an equivalent responsibility. What I think we need is probably another word to discuss the issue, though I can't suggest one. On the one hand, "property" relegates animals to mere inanimate objects, like chairs, cars, books, houses, etc. Of course these objects have no "rights" as they are not living, and no one could reasonably object to how anyone disposed of those objects. Likewise, the use of the word "rights" conveys too much which is strictly human. Of course animals don't have rights in the same way that humanity does. No one gives cows or chickens a trial or hearing before we eat them (nor should we, but they should be killed humanely), speeding tickets, freedom of speech, etc. - such things don't make sense; hence I think our use of the terms "property" and "rights" obscures much of the actual subject matter and polarizes the issue.

While animals don't have _human_-rights, humanity has the responsibility to see to it that animals (conscious, self-aware beings) which are under the control of other members of our community are respected as the living beings they are. Animals feel pain, fear, and suffer stress the same way humans do. Chairs don't. The issue isn't binary - it is part of a continuum. Where the issue stands in our society, is in all honesty, probably where it should stand: those members who disrespect life, are cruel, or neglect those animals who they _consciously assume_ responsibility for should be appropriately penalized for doing so.

There's a great passage in the book 2001: A Space Odyssey in which a primitive ape looks upon his father: He did not know that the Old One was his father, for such a relationship was utterly beyond his understanding, but as he looked at the emaciated body he felt a dim disquiet that was the ancestor of sadness. The story is fictional, but humans exist as part of a continuum of life, and the rights we have derive from that same structure. No, animals don't have the same rights as humans - humans have a responsibility to ensure that those animals in their care are properly treated, which means that humans don't have the right to torture, neglect, or unjustly harm them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> On the one hand, "property" relegates animals to mere inanimate objects, like chairs, cars, books, houses, etc.


Few indeed are the useful inanimate objects which did _not_ come about through the killing of many living things.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Helmuth, lookit what I found.

5-foot-tall ‘Robocops’ start patrolling Silicon Valley

So, now the gig is up. You know that it's only going to be a matter of time before these servants begin to patrol helmuthville. How are you going to hide all of those trinkets in yer pockets? _Jiiiiminy_ crickets.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Few indeed are the useful inanimate objects which did _not_ come about through the killing of many living things.


Won't disagree with you there; however, no part of generating something useful from something living necessitates cruelty.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Won't disagree with you there; however, no part of generating something useful from something living necessitates cruelty.


Killing is the ultimate injury, though.  Dying may in fact be very painful.  I do not know.  But it is definitely the most serious, and most permanent, abuse we can inflict on another living being.

Cruelty... does the tree or rat care if we're being cruel?  Probably not, doesn't have concepts for that.  Is sad about pain, is happy when/if it stops.

I think "cruelty" has the biggest effect on the soul of the perpetrator.  The animal does not really care about our motives and inner thoughts.  It just wants to stay alive, and secondarily to avoid pain, but mostly to stay alive.  The cow at the slaughterhouse cannot accomplish that primary goal, and so whether it is massacred "humanely" or not is really only relevant to us, not the cow.  The cow is dead.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Killing is the ultimate injury, though.  Dying may in fact be very painful.  I do not know.  But it is definitely the most serious, and most permanent, abuse we can inflict on another living being.
> 
> Cruelty... does the tree or rat care if we're being cruel?  Probably not, doesn't have concepts for that.  Is sad about pain, is happy when/if it stops.
> 
> I think "cruelty" has the biggest effect on the soul of the perpetrator.  The animal does not really care about our motives and inner thoughts.  It just wants to stay alive, and secondarily to avoid pain, but mostly to stay alive.  The cow at the slaughterhouse cannot accomplish that primary goal, and so whether it is massacred "humanely" or not is really only relevant to us, not the cow.  The cow is dead.


Generally agreed...the position I take is that killing cruelly is a function of time - the longer it takes, the crueler it is...if you kill so swiftly that the animal is never aware of what hit them, cruelty = 0 - which is what should be striven for.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Generally agreed...the position I take is that killing cruelly is a function of time - the longer it takes, the crueler it is...if you kill so swiftly that the animal is never aware of what hit them, cruelty = 0 - which is what should be striven for.


Yes, and I generally agree with your points, as well.  Especially what you say about it being a continuum.  (I still have seen no sympathy for rats!  Where are the rat-defenders on this thread?)  This is a very fuzzy, questionable area.  I think Deb would probably generally agree with you, too.  So then, the confusion will be: hey, wait, HH and I both agree with Mr. T., so where's the disagreement?  And that's what I've been trying to explain: The morality of how we should treat and relate to animals is one thing, the *permissible political actions* to take against people who treat animals not in accordance with our (continuumal, fuzzy, non-rigidly-definable) standards.

*Just because something is wrong doesn't mean we can ban it.*

----------


## Mr Tansill

(x2 post...)

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yes, and I generally agree with your points, as well.  Especially what you say about it being a continuum.  (I still have seen no sympathy for rats!  Where are the rat-defenders on this thread?)  This is a very fuzzy, questionable area.  I think Deb would probably generally agree with you, too.  So then, the confusion will be: hey, wait, HH and I both agree with Mr. T., so where's the disagreement?  And that's what I've been trying to explain: The morality of how we should treat and relate to animals is one thing, the *permissible political actions* to take against people who treat animals not in accordance with our (continuumal, fuzzy, non-rigidly-definable) standards.
> 
> *Just because something is wrong doesn't mean we can ban it.*


Now that is an interesting subject...there is that famous saying out there: "you can't legislate morality." Which I generally take to mean that you can't force people to be good through legislation (which is true). Many things are double-edged, however, and I think that saying is often misinterpreted to mean that moral precepts shouldn't be the basis for laws (_not_ at all saying that's what you're implying...). I take the alternate position, however, and find that it is _only_, and _exclusively_ only, those things which are _morally wrong_, that should be outlawed. IMO, this is the core of the libertarian philosophy - live and let live. Those acts which don't cause harm to consensual parties should have no law banning them (drugs...); whereas, those (and _only_ those) acts which harm others (murder, etc.) should be the subject of our legal system.

*Because something is wrong is precisely why we can ban it.*

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by osan
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *helmuth_hubener*People who seek to impose their own will on others are *always* certain of their absolute rectitude. At least they often are.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. That's a very big and bold statement, claiming to know the hearts of others. Onus rest squarely with you to prove the assertion. Until you do, it is nothing more than pure bull$#@!.
> 
> ...


Are you being intentionally obtuse?  Is this dishonesty?  Is this a reading comprehension problem?  You are drawing inferences that are grossly non-sequitur.  You began with a universal assertion about the states of mind of those who impose their own wills upon others (note the bolded, italic text).  The assertion was of the universal and absolute confidence such people have.  I pointed out that it was a very bold statement and that onus rest squarely with you to demonstrate its truth.  You responded with an astonishing non-sequitur that has absolutely ZERO connection to that which I wrote.  I'm sorry pal, but that demands either a sensible explanation, an explicit concession that you reasoned in gross error, or a serious blow to your credibility.




> How about you prove that it's _not_.


Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic rule of debate.  You, having made the initial assertion, are saddled with the onus of proving it.  I made no assertion counter to yours.  I merely asked for proof of yours.  Such a request in no plausible way implies an assertion to the contrary.  It remains perfectly neutral as a skeptic's challenge and nothing more.




> So you do not assert that trees have rights.  Terrific.  Then when I say something like, "Trees have life. They don't have rights," rather than contradicting me by writing, "blind...unsupported...I'd call that a FAIL," instead you should agree with me by writing something like, "Yes, I also don't assert that trees have rights."


Once again your logic and reasoning fails most impressively.  Not asserting that trees have rights, it does not follow that they do not.  I have, as I am often wont, remained neutral on the issue.  What I did do, however, was call into question your positive assertion that they do not.  I am neutral on the issue and you are not.  You make the positive statement; therefore you are saddled with the burden of proof of your philosophical thesis.  We could discuss this in very painful metaphysical detail and demonstrate how the question may resolve either way, depending completely upon the more fundamental assumptions that underpin the higher-level philosophical discussion.  Depending upon the premises one chooses to accept at true, he may accept that trees have no rights, or precisely the opposite.  I for one claim no such vast knowledge of as to which premises are true and which not.  I am therefore constrained to remain skeptical.  You, on the other hand, have openly stated your opinion, which may or may not be correct.  We will not know until such time as you present your logical argument in proof of your stated belief.

I'm not the one on the hot-seat here.  I try to be smarter than to place my buns on that particular throne. 





> Ahh, Osan-san, this is the root of your misunderstanding of me.  In the heat of your emotion,


And therein lies your misunderstanding of me: there was no emotion worthy of mention there, hot or cold - though mine tends to run cold on such matter when it is present.




> Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other sentient beings;


Actually, you did.  To wit:




> Originally Posted by *osan* 
> Am I entitled to skin my dog alive and keep him that way for days or weeks? If you believe "yes", then I would have no choice but to conclude that there was something terribly wrong with your mental disposition.
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe "yes."*
> 
> Sentience is not the litmus test for rights possession. Sapience is.



Now, before you claim that you were not making the statement in the context of "morality", I will shut that right down, right here.  Splitting semantic hairs will not save you, so I would recommend you simply concede this point because I've got you dead to logical rights here.  But do proceed if you feel up for the sport of it.  The assertion I claim you to have made is the direct and unavoidable implication of your written response, as captioned above.  If you are going to attempt to evade the touché by claiming that the original issue I raised, flaying my dog alive, is not one of morals, I believe you will reduce any shred of credibility you may have here with your fellows to fly-ash.  But give it a whirl if you wish.





> If I had made such an assertion, rest assured I would have *probably* draped it in the hair of some kind of line of reasoning attempting to anchor its moral origins on metaphysical bedrock (just as you did with your opposite moral assertion), not just left it bald and naked.  Such an attempt would undoubtedly be specious and not hold up to any very hard scrutiny.


But you _did_ make the assertion and you did _not_ so drape.  But kudos for structuring your response with some minor cleverness.




> No, torturing animals *may very well be* immoral,


Does this mean you also feel it "may very well" be moral?




> or at least usually immoral, when not done for some practical purpose like curing cancer


Ends justifying the means, no matter how foul?  How provincially parochial.




> But I was not addressing morality.


Ah!  This is either the poor dodge against which I warn you, just above, or a demonstration of your error in that I was addressing morality from the very beginning.  The context was morality itself and you are here evading the context.  That is a very significant error, albeit forgivable so long as you acknowledge it, thereby coming to the rescue of your own reputation as an honest man. 




> I was addressing _political_ morality.


Now this you will need to explain, as I am not seeing a distinction.  How does "political morality" separate itself conceptually from the less constrained term?




> Libertarianism at root asks one question: "When can humans justifiably use force against other humans?"  And it gives one answer: "Only in defense against or response to the initiation of force by another human."  Since the animal-torturer is not initiating any force against any other human, libertarianism prohibits anyone from using any force against him, for such a use of force would be an initiation.


I will afford you the benefit of doubt here that this was an honest misapprehension of context or reasoning on your part, and rest you assured that at the very best it is an error.  I was speaking in terms of human rights in asking the question whether a man holds the moral authority to torment and maim an animal.  I would add that just because your understanding of "libertarianism" does not address the issue in question here, it does not follow that the issue is not valid, nor that there does not exist an understanding more perfect than your own.  Here, my use of "perfect" is strictly proper - i.e. not meaning "without flaw" but rather "complete" or "full developed".




> Torturing animals may be immoral.  Becoming hopelessly addicted to opiates may be immoral.


The moral evaluation of these two considerations stand as apples and oranges.  The latter relates to actions one takes upon himself, the former upon another.  Mr. Night, meet Mr. Day.




> Clearcutting rainforests may be immoral.  Burning the Quaran, or the Bible, may be immoral.  But all of these things are done with one's own property and thus the immoral actors cannot justly be forced to stop.


Dead wrong.  The animal's life belongs to the animal, though his body may belong to you.  You are confusing moral authority with that of raw material power.  That is a rankly amateurish failure that I find most surprising, coming from you.  I'm not trying to beat on you here, but simply pointing out that somewhere along this path your thinking got seriously hosed up.




> They are not.  If behavior is depraved, then by definition it is not moral.  But that does not mean it can be stomped out by rapid-response Anti-Depravity SWAT Teams.


Actually, it means exactly that.  What you are doing here is making a grand, if very weak and indeed incoherent, attempt at moral equivocation.  You are SO afraid of violating the rights of others that you are essentially saying "it's all good" in screaming contradiction of your own position on non-aggression.  This speaks highly of you in terms of your desire not to violate the rights of others, but it also reveals your weak understanding in this particular and_ very special case_ of private property.  I mentioned this characteristic of animal ownership right up front.

Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive?  I will assume your answer is an unequivocal "*NO $#@!ING WAY!!!*"  Assuming this, do you feel that were I to do the same with your dog or cat, that they would feel otherwise; that they would welcome such treatment?  If yes, then on what basis do you make the assumption?  If no, then upon what basis do you claim I hold the moral authorioty to proceed?  The only other possibility is to assert that the animal has no opinion on the matter, a claim that I firmly believe practical experience in observation rules out with vanishing doubt.




> Libertarianism prohibits the initiation of force -- even against those whom you see as depraved.


Not quite.  Depravity is not the predicate of the go/nogo decision.  Criminality is.  My self-destruction via methamphetamine usage may be validly looked upon as "depraved", but it cannot be reasonably assessed as _criminal_.  My killing of a man attempting to rape a small child may be validly viewed by some as depraved, but it cannot be assessed as criminal.  Skinning a living, non-human being, however, is indeed criminal.  We may claim the right to take animal life, whether in defense or to eat.  We can claim this right for what I hope we can agree are obvious reasons so that we don't get mired in yet more philosophical debate.  To live is to kill - I trust this is fairly obvious?  It may be regrettable, but it cannot be avoided so long as one wishes himself to retain his name in the book of the living.  But taking life is likely never a casual act in moral terms.  If that be the case, then it would appear to follow rather intuitively that such acts should abound with swift mercy.  Nobody wants to feel pain and the _anguish_ of having their beautiful life taken from them.  Of this assertion I am confident as my nearly 57 years of observation support the notion without exception in examples.  In this, humans and other animals hold their respective analogs and it is precisely because we observe this analog and the fact that we cannot know for absolutely sure the precise nature of their subjective experiences, reason coupled with our moral foundations thereby behoove us to assume in favor of the greatest advantage to the animal that does not dictate our suicide.  In other words, based on the combination of  observed evidence and our sense of moral decency, the safest assumption to make is that we are morally required to afford animals every mercy within our power and to leave them free of agony and misery not only in death, but in life.

The very same is the basis of Law against murder and torture of other humans.  Because of the moral stricture against criminal action, we are indeed authorized to interfere in the criminal deeds of others.  You appear to be arguiing against this, which of course falls down because the position has no legs whatsoever upon which to stand.





> Even against those whom you hate.  _Especially_ against those whom you hate.  It's just like free speech:
> 
> "We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say very controversial things." -Ron Paul 
> 
> It's easy to grant freedom of speech to those we agree with.  The real test is granting that freedom to those with opinions we absolutely despise.


Agreed, but once again you have switched contexts invalidly.  We are not entitled to interfere in non-criminal action, but we sure are in all other cases.




> Bacteria display a clear love for their own existence (via their drive to perpetuate that existence).  Some research suggests that trees can feel pain.  To make a rule that it is OK to initiate force upon anyone whom you think is causing any other lifeform pain or suffering or death, is to make a horrible rule.  In my opinion.


I cannot be 100% certain that YOU feel pain - that is metaphysical FACT.  I may 99.9999999(bar) certain, but that is still not 100%.  Given this, do you feel I am entitled to skin you alive based on an argument that you cannot prove to me that you feel pain?  You realize, I hope, that you cannot by ANY MEANS prove to me that you feel pain.  All your screaming and pleading with me proves nothing.  That I choose to believe you has nothing to do with absolute proof, but merely of sufficient belief on my part.  But if I wanted to press the issue, grab you, truss you, and begin flaying, why do you believe that I should not prevail in court, or that I should even be called to a court in the first place? Whatever your argument might be, rest you assured that with equal force I can contrive an argument in favor of your pet hamster whom I personally believe is thanking me in his heart of hearts.  I do not torment animals because in my heart of hearts I KNOW they feel pain, love their lives, and do not want to be piecemeal destroyed in freakish agony.  Do you believe otherwise?  I cannot prove it, just as I cannot prove the same belief I hold toward you.  I do not need absolute proof, forgetting even that such probably does not exist for anything.

At some point the rubber needs to meet the road or else you spend your life on jackstands, spinning wildly away your days and your life, going nowhere.

Doe trees feel pain?  I don't know.  I have no way to judge the subjective experience of a tree.  But I can judge on the outward manifestations.  They do not run away - indeed they cannot.  They do not scream when being cut or trimmed.  They do not flail at one when cutting then down.  Does any of that absolutely establish that they feel no pain?  No.  Perhaps I hid behind the lack of screaming and flailing to justify my belief that they fell nothing, reducing my own status to that of a corrupt and filthy little coward.  But I am just a man, limited by his senses with which he was born and by those means do I make my way through this perplexing life as best I am able.  My best tells me that to gratuitously injure, torment, and maim non-humans is an act of evil - a criminal act - and by that virtue I am indeed morally authorized to interfere with such acts.  When I am proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be wrong on that point, I will alter my position.  But until then, I am staid.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I cannot be 100% certain that YOU feel pain - that is metaphysical FACT.  I may 99.9999999(bar) certain, but that is still not 100%.


Actually, to be mathematically precise, 99.9999% (bar) is exactly 100%, and not one epsilon less....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE

----------


## mczerone

Should there be a line?

To answer there there _should_ be something, anything, is to make a normative judgment. In this case it would be a subjective determination about how to personally react to one person "mistreating" another. I can see at least three lines: Do nothing /line 1/ gossip about the misbehavior /line 2/ boycott/excommunicate the person who misbehaved /line 3/ take action to intervene in the mistreatment.

Assuming that we are only discussing the last line, I don't know that I could pin-point which actions always lie on one side of the line or the other; while some things are clearly okay, and others are over the line, there is a small area where multiple factors compete for dominance. These include: the action taken, the status of the potential victim, the relationship of the actors, etc.

So, then, for each _exact_ situation, is there some objective line? I would say no. Going back to my first paragraph, the line you ask about is normative, subjective, and honestly arguable based on the factors listed in the second paragraph. 

If you take action to intervene in mistreatment, you then open yourself up to judgment by others: is what you did "over the line"? 

Which opens up a second line of inquiry: where is your line for allowing others to intervene without yourself intervening in that intervention?

This, again, is a subjective determination.

So, if you're asking "Is there _a_ line" - I'd say no. There are many lines, each residing in our own heads.

If you're asking "how do we agree on a line" - I'd say in any way that doesn't cross the line.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Why is it that if I go into the store with my dog that I have more rights than anyone else who cannot? Who has the rights? Me or the dog? 

Like one time I took my dog to the circus. One of those ones that come through town. What I did was I told him to sit there and wait for me and that I'd be back in a minute. Which he did because he's a good boy. People went apecrap. There were literally hundreds of people walking by him, many of them kids flinging toys around and eating circus food like corndogs and popcorn and all of that good stuff that dogs like along with rides going and music playing but he just sat there and did as he was asked to do. 

Now, the people walking by him didn't have a problem with him. It was the owners and workers. When I got back they said "you need to get that dog out of here". And so I said, no, I don't . He can stay. We're going to walk around the carnival. Have a good evening."

And so they called the police. Ha! that was great because then the police showed up and went the same route. And so I told them the same thing. I said "no...he's going to stay and we're going to walk around the carnival and play games. Maybe grab a corndog." And so then the police must have had a light bulb go off and asked if I had a permit. And so I said, "sure. Here you go." And then they said  "Well why didn't you say so in the first place?" And so I said, "nobody asked."  And so then pooch and i enjoyed the carnival the rest of the evening. It was a hoot.

You see? I can take him any place I want and without asking permission. Well...within reason. Some places I _wouldn't_ do that although, technically, I could. Now I can do that without permission from the owner of the business.  But nobody ever asks for papers please. They just call the police because, by default, many just assume that the dog doesn't have a right to be there. And they're wrong.

----------


## mczerone

> Now that is an interesting subject...there is that famous saying out there: "you can't legislate morality." Which I generally take to mean that you can't force people to be good through legislation (which is true). Many things are double-edged, however, and I think that saying is often misinterpreted to mean that moral precepts shouldn't be the basis for laws (_not_ at all saying that's what you're implying...). I take the alternate position, however, and find that it is _only_, and _exclusively_ only, those things which are _morally wrong_, that should be outlawed. IMO, this is the core of the libertarian philosophy - live and let live. Those acts which don't cause harm to consensual parties should have no law banning them (drugs...); whereas,* those (and only those) acts which harm others (murder, etc.) should be the subject of our legal system.*
> 
> Because something is wrong is precisely why we _can_ ban it.


So (1) what is "our" legal system? Can I opt out of it and remain in my location, with my home, and my own protection? And (2) who defines what "harm" is?

----------


## osan

> Should there be a line?
> 
> To answer there there _should_ be something, anything, is to make a normative judgment. In this case it would be a subjective determination about how to personally react to one person "mistreating" another. I can see at least three lines: Do nothing /line 1/ gossip about the misbehavior /line 2/ boycott/excommunicate the person who misbehaved /line 3/ take action to intervene in the mistreatment.
> 
> Assuming that we are only discussing the last line, I don't know that I could pin-point which actions always lie on one side of the line or the other; while some things are clearly okay, and others are over the line, there is a small area where multiple factors compete for dominance. These include: the action taken, the status of the potential victim, the relationship of the actors, etc.
> 
> So, then, for each _exact_ situation, is there some objective line? I would say no. Going back to my first paragraph, the line you ask about is normative, subjective, and honestly arguable based on the factors listed in the second paragraph. 
> 
> If you take action to intervene in mistreatment, you then open yourself up to judgment by others: is what you did "over the line"? 
> ...


Commendable analysis, repworthy.

However, we live in a world of statistical distributions - a world of _the mean_.  The mean dominates nearly everything in our practical daily lives.  In fact, I am not sure I can offhand think of anything where it does not.  Be that as it may, because the mean is the vastly, if not consummately, dominating characteristic of circumstance, the brands of philosophically entertaining extremity of which you make adept illustration is of little practical significance in daily living.  This is not, however, to say that it is of no value in terms of human awareness.  Quite the opposite.  I firmly believe that cognizance of such conceptual traps is indeed endlessly valuable to our awareness, as it contributes to the fund of potentially practical knowledge for some future date in the same way that Boolean algebra did when George Boole invented/discovered it.  In that day, there was basically zero practical value in the concepts of his algebra.  Without it, however, little of today's internet world would exist.  Nor would me have ever walked the moon (assuming they actually did    ). Manufacturing would be nothing of what it is now, as would research in virtually any field you care to name that is of a technical nature, and some even philosophical.  We would not be having this exchange without the "useless" discoveries and inventions of men like Boole and Alan Turing.  Therefore, I must not be taken as disparaging your theoretical construct.  Far from it.  Tomorrow men may make a discovery wherein that which you have here outlined suddenly assumes a position of ultimate practical utility.  One never know, do one. 

But today, there appear to be objective bases upon which to construct a rule that says "no cruelty to animals".  It is objective in the precise same way that the rules of proper human relations are objective.  That is, they are objective on the virtually universal standard of life itself.  Which living thing which is sentiently capable of understanding life v. death (animal behavior clearly indicates this with force and eloquence equal to that of any human being, albeit using superficially differing language)  chooses death for itself under "normal" circumstances?  I am very comfortable in assuming zero here.  It is the safe and reasonable assumption.  In cases of the readily countable and freakish occurrences to the contrary... well, we will leave those to resolve themselves as they may, and even in those cases resolution may be reached without torture and prolonged agony.

Therefore, while I appreciate the value of your valid points as both intellectual exercise and as a back-store item for some future rainy day, I do not see the issues it validly raises as being of immediate practical significance in the "here and now", which is to say that I don't worry too much about such problem as they are not very likely to arise even under the most extreme circumstance.  This world is not populated by philosophers, but rather by those who choose the path of the simpleton.  In practical terms, this may actually be a blessing because if everyone were like us, nothing would ever get done.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying.  Look, I think that you, and also osan and pessimist (and probably also many others who have either left the thread already or never came, but would post the same thing if they wanted to bother) are looking at it this way:
> 
> Torturing animals is obviously wrong.
> 
> And.....
> 
> There we go, that's it.  That's the argument.  And I think you perceive me as contradicting you, and so that I must be saying:
> 
> Torturing animals is _not_ obviously wrong.
> ...


I will _defend_ myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I.  And, if push comes to shove, I suspect that you will too.  I highly doubt you would just stand by and try to reason with someone who is in the process of obviously abusing and/or torturing another living being. And it's not a matter of being a "busy body", as you put it earlier. Most of us instinctively react to such an atrocity, even if we lack the courage to do something about it.

Edit:  And fwiw, rats are intelligent, loving parents, and great pets.  The fathers are just as attentive to the babies as the mothers are.  I noticed you were wondering if people had any regard for them.

----------


## amy31416

> I will _defend_ myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I.  And, if push comes to shove, I suspect that you will too.  I highly doubt you would just stand by and try to reason with someone who is in the process of obviously abusing and/or torturing another living being. And it's not a matter of being a "busy body", as you put it earlier. Most of us instinctively react to such an atrocity, even if we lack the courage to do something about it.
> 
> Edit:  And fwiw, rats are intelligent, loving parents, and great pets.  The fathers are just as attentive to the babies as the mothers are.  I noticed you were wondering if people had any regard for them.


One of my oldest friends is really into animals, she had pet rats, while her sister had various types of lizards. The rats were actually very interesting, very friendly and yes, intelligent. Her family practically had a zoo in their house--dogs, cats, lizards and rats, when I slept over I felt like I was about to cough up a hairball by the time I left.  But her family of humans and pets was a lot of fun.

----------


## Deborah K

> One of my oldest friends is really into animals, she had pet rats, while her sister had various types of lizards. The rats were actually very interesting, very friendly and yes, intelligent. Her family practically had a zoo in their house--dogs, cats, lizards and rats, when I slept over I felt like I was about to cough up a hairball by the time I left.  But her family of humans and pets was a lot of fun.


My kids raised rats when they were younger.  We also had a 7ft Columbian Red Tail Boa constrictor who we got at 5 weeks old and only the size of a pencil, and who lived 15 years.  The kids got her for me for Mother's Day one year.  Her name was Noa the Boa.  She's out in the pet cemetery now.   And that is how we ended up with rats - some were pets - some were feed.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Are you being intentionally obtuse?  Is this dishonesty?  Is this a reading comprehension problem?  You are drawing inferences that are grossly non-sequitur.  You began with a universal assertion about the states of mind of those who impose their own wills upon others (note the bolded, italic text).  The assertion was of the universal and absolute confidence such people have.  I pointed out that it was a very bold statement and that onus rest squarely with you to demonstrate its truth.  You responded with an astonishing non-sequitur that has absolutely ZERO connection to that which I wrote.


 It has 100% connection to what I wrote.  Tyrants force their will on others because they think they know best.  People who violate others' rights do so because they think it is the right thing to do.  That was my point, that is still my point, it's an easy to understand point, and you don't even have a point at all.




> Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic rule of debate.  You, having made the initial assertion, are saddled with the onus of proving it.  I made no assertion counter to yours.  I merely asked for proof of yours.  Such a request in no plausible way implies an assertion to the contrary.  It remains perfectly neutral as a skeptic's challenge and nothing more.


 So you are just trying to win some wort of childish debating game, rather than actually increasing mutual understanding?  OK.  Now I know.




> Once again your logic and reasoning fails most impressively.


 Oh, good.  Glad to impress you.  Hopefully this is the "impressive show" you were pining for. 




> Not asserting that trees have rights, it does not follow that they do not.  I have, as I am often wont, remained neutral on the issue.  What I did do, however, was call into question your positive assertion that they do not.  I am neutral on the issue and you are not.  You make the positive statement; therefore you are saddled with the burden of proof of your philosophical thesis.  We could discuss this in very painful metaphysical detail and demonstrate how the question may resolve either way, depending completely upon the more fundamental assumptions that underpin the higher-level philosophical discussion.  Depending upon the premises one chooses to accept at true, he may accept that trees have no rights, or precisely the opposite.  I for one claim no such vast knowledge of as to which premises are true and which not.  I am therefore constrained to remain skeptical.  You, on the other hand, have openly stated your opinion, which may or may not be correct.  We will not know until such time as you present your logical argument in proof of your stated belief.


 Excellent!  Then you could have saved a lot of time and wordiness by just saying "I remain neutral on the matter," or not even commented at all since you find it too uninteresting and unimportant to take any position on it.




> I'm not the one on the hot-seat here.


 Oh dear!  The pressure's on!




> Now, before you claim that you were not making the statement in the context of "morality", I will shut that right down, right here.


 Well by all means, prohibit me from expressing my real and sincere thoughts.  We wouldn't want to risk any actual understanding to come in the way of your ridiculous debating game:

Splitting semantic hairs will not save you
concede this point
If you are going to attempt to evade 
you will reduce any shred of credibility you may have here with your fellows to fly-ash.  But give it a whirl if you wish.
how foul
How provincially parochial.
poor dodge
a demonstration of your error
you are here evading the context.  
That is a very significant error,
rescue of your own reputation as an honest man.
at the very best it is an error
Dead wrong. 
You are confusing
That is a rankly amateurish failure
somewhere along this path your thinking got seriously hosed up.
What you are doing here is making a grand, if very weak and indeed incoherent, attempt at moral equivocation.  
You are SO afraid 
in screaming contradiction of your own position
reveals your weak understanding
You appear to be arguing against this, which of course falls down because the position has no legs whatsoever upon which to stand.
once again you have switched contexts invalidly

Reliving your middle school debate team glory days, I see.  Some gratuitous alliteration!  I especially like the accusations of dishonesty and threats of lost credibility.  Nice touches.

Let me rescue you from your own wordiness and reply to one and only one question you raised, and maybe you can think about my answer and what it means.  




> Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive?


 Answer: I would very much prefer your doing this and leaving me alive to your killing me humanely.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I will _defend_ myself, my family, and others (including animals) using violence, if necessary - as long as I am NOT the one initiating the force on others - iow, the one who is doing the torturing is the initiator, not I.


 The torturer will disagree.  He will say:

"Look, I have a serious rat problem.  We're swimming in rats, here.  I know that rats are cute and loving and intelligent, but something's got to give!  So yes, I am slowly torturing these cute, innocent rats to death with poison that will gradually and extremely painfully eat them from the inside out.  And you can't stop me."

And you will say: "Oh yes I can!  You are initiating force against those poor, helpless mammals who are not so different from us humans.  And so I am entitled to grab that rat trap out of your hands and prevent you from cruelly torturing these living beings.  What you're doing is evil.  I am here on behalf of Goodness and Light to stop your sadistic madness."

And so you do.  A few weeks later his kids all have bubos.

The End

The moral of the story is in the form of a question: Who here was in the right?

----------


## Deborah K

> The torturer will disagree.  He will say:
> 
> "Look, I have a serious rat problem.  We're swimming in rats, here.  I know that rats are cute and loving and intelligent, but something's got to give!  So yes, I am slowly torturing these cute, innocent rats to death with poison that will gradually and extremely painfully eat them from the inside out.  And you can't stop me."
> 
> And you will say: "Oh yes I can!  You are initiating force against those poor, helpless mammals who are not so different from us humans.  And so I am entitled to grab that rat trap out of your hands and prevent you from cruelly torturing these living beings.  What you're doing is evil.  I am here on behalf of Goodness and Light to stop your sadistic madness."
> 
> And so you do.  A few weeks later his kids all have bubos.
> 
> The End
> ...


The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house.  However if, for example,  there were packs of wild dogs roaming and killing people, I would have a different view of how to deal with them, although torture wouldn't be an option. But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison.  But that isn't the hill I want to die on.

----------


## otherone

> But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison.  But that isn't the hill I want to die on.


Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.


Well, I don't like the sticky traps.  Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.

----------


## amy31416

> Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.


I also do NOT recommend the glue traps for rodents. I had an issue with them once, and I felt like the $#@!tiest person in the world when I saw the mouse struggling to breathe and move after it got stuck. I actually took about two hours with a bottle of oil to dissolve the glue--I'm sure it didn't survive long after that, but at least I got him free prior to him buying it.

Glue traps are great for bugs though--$#@! bugs that come into your house and bite/sting your kid or creep up on you. Had one crawl up my sleeve while I was doing work on the computer. At least mice will generally stay off of people--freaking bugs.

----------


## otherone

> Well, I don't like the sticky traps.  Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.


Most rodents die from asphyxiation when stuck to glue traps...they try to chew themselves off.  Other times they escape but are maimed.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I have a mouse in my shop, he hides under the woodstove when I come in if it's not hot.  I feed him part of my pretzels or gram-crackers.

----------


## phill4paul

Once upon a time other humans were deemed an "animal" and "property." I did not live in those time. I live in my time. For your own sake do not abuse a human or an animal in my presence.  Neither will gain you the power you think you are entitled to.

----------


## navy-vet

> Most rodents die from asphyxiation when stuck to glue traps...they try to chew themselves off.  Other times they escape but are maimed.


I don't care for mice in the house or shop as they carry disease and can cause fires by chewing on electrical wires and can actually create a significant amount of structural damage. I would never use glue traps, and I never kill anything I don't have to, but when I do, I do it in what I believe is a humane manner. I've caught them in the humane traps and released them outside, once I forgot to check one and later found it all shriveled up, which made me feel rather bad. I have also used the spring kill types which kill quickly. My cat Merlin has caught several and brings them to me alive for disposal. I take em outside and chuck em into the woods. I might have chucked the same one more than once. Most have looked alike and were the same size... I might start marking them with a magic marker and if they come back I'll waste em.

----------


## navy-vet

> I don't care for mice in the house or shop as they carry disease and can cause fires by chewing on electrical wires and can actually create a significant amount of structural damage. I would never use glue traps, and I never kill anything I don't have to, but when I do, I do it in what I believe is a humane manner. I've caught them in the humane traps and released them outside, once I forgot to check one and later found it all shriveled up, which made me feel rather bad. I have also used the spring kill types which kill quickly. My cat Merlin has caught several and brings them to me alive for disposal. I take em outside and chuck em into the woods. I might have chucked the same one more than once. Most have looked alike and were the same size... I might start marking them with a magic marker and if they come back I'll waste em.


Naw I won't do that. Can't fault em for trying to come home....I will just keep chuckin em into the woods....maybe go deeper

----------


## libertarianinternational

'Animal rights' is an oxymoron.

Next.

----------


## navy-vet

*Rights* are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]

----------


## pessimist



----------


## Dianne

We are all animals, so don't understand this thread.    All animals should be treated humanely.   Whether we eat each other or not, all animals should be treated humanely.  I laugh at you idiots who believe you are superior to an animal, stating god gave you infinite wisdom to kill .... as you stand behind your big gun and ammo...   Come tell me how strong you are when you fight a bear on your own without a sub machine gun ....lmao ...    God gave you the intelligence to use a weapon, he did not give you the right to kill outside of your survival.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> So (1) what is "our" legal system? Can I opt out of it and remain in my location, with my home, and my own protection? And (2) who defines what "harm" is?


(1) I suppose I was referring to the legal system (set of laws, statues, etc.) of the United States, but more accurately, I was referring to what the "ideal" legals system should look like. My choice to use the term "legal system" was perhaps poor - what I meant was "codified societal norms." Yes, you can opt out of it to the extent you opt out of society. If you mean can you sit in your house and never pay taxes, then no, you can't opt out of it, nor should you be able to.

(2) People do, through philosophical investigation and using their own personal experience to make logical inferences and then abstracting rules from those results. Apply (test) them and see what the result is. If good, continue, if not, go back to the drawing board, gather more data, or check your logic.

Bottom line I was trying to make was on the subject of what "rules" people should make up - my position is that only those things which cause direct harm to other entities should be formally "forbidden" in our society. Such a society would be one which I think would maximize the freedom of all individuals, while still providing basic respect and rights for everyone.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We are all animals, so don't understand this thread.


 Usually when people say "animals" they are excluding humans.  The mental correction is generally done automatically and so there is no problem.  In the same way, you likely auto-corrected my first sentence in this post.  As a matter of fact, the sentence should say "Usually when English-speakers say 'animals'" to be technically correct.   




> All animals should be treated humanely.


 This may or may not be true.  Even the hardest-core animal-lovers like Deb are not so sure about rats.  So there are apparently some exceptions.  I would dare say: _many_ exceptions!  But even if you want to go Jainist and stop stepping on bugs, that doesn't address a very different question:

May we *force* other people to treat animals humanely, _at gunpoint if necessary?_

I answer that question no.  And frankly I do not think that all animals should always be treated humanely either, but that is a different issue.  Even if I could agree with your statement that all animals should be treated humanely, as a libertarian I would still have to say that we are not entitled to use force and violence against those threating animals differently than you and I think they should be treated.




> Whether we eat each other or not, all animals should be treated humanely.


 To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another.  At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me.  I really, really, don't want you to kill me.  I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house.


 What is the moral difference?  Is the dog more intelligent than the rat?  More aware or sentient?

There are certain absolutes, right!  That's what you told me.

It seems perhaps my own absolutes are more absolute than yours.




> But that isn't the hill I want to die on.


 Why not?  It's an _absolute!_  Right?

It appears to be an absolute with dogs, but not with rats.  Some mammals are more equal than others.

In any case, whether your moral stand is consistent or not, what matters to me as a libertarian is just this: *Don't use aggressive force to make me follow that stand.*  That's it!  Believe what you want.  As long as you are not going to *force* me to treat animals according to your own esoteric standards -- *at gun-point if necessary* -- then I'm happy and we can coexist nicely.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive?
> 			
> 		
> 
>  Answer: I would very much prefer your doing this and leaving me alive to your killing me humanely.


What'chu think, osan?  Aren't you coming back to further cream and demolish me?  You wouldn't want to _lose_ the junior high debate, would you?

----------


## Deborah K

> This may or may not be true.  Even the hardest-core animal-lovers like Deb are not so sure about rats.  So there are apparently some exceptions.


This is misleading.  I think I've made myself quite clear that treating any animal inhumanely is unacceptable - even in the case of a rat infestation.




> May we *force* other people to treat animals humanely, _at gunpoint if necessary?_


May we force other people to treat other humans humanely?  And if the answer is yes, then why doesn't it apply to other sentient beings?  Because they're property?  And if that is your answer, then would you have the same argument if slavery were still legal?





> I answer that question no.  And frankly I do not think that all animals should always be treated humanely either, but that is a different issue.  Even if I could agree with your statement that all animals should be treated humanely, as a libertarian I would still have to say that we are not entitled to use force and violence against those threating animals differently than you and I think they should be treated.


A one-size-fits-all point of view never works in real life.  And let's be clear here, this isn't about "treating animals differently..." - that implies much more than torture.  We are talking about accepting people into our communities who brutalize their pets; livestock; etc..





> To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another.


In order for a human to eat - something has to die.  Not ALL killing is inhumane. As I mentioned before, there are studies now on plant responses to being cut and killed, and there is evidence that they communicate.  




> At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me.  I really, really, don't want you to kill me.  I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan


My guess is, that  after being skinned alive, you would be in such horrific pain that you would beg him to put you out of your misery.  But I digress.

----------


## Deborah K

> What is the moral difference?  Is the dog more intelligent than the rat?  More aware or sentient?
> 
> There are certain absolutes, right!  That's what you told me.
> 
> It seems perhaps my own absolutes are more absolute than yours.
> 
>  Why not?  It's an _absolute!_  Right?
> 
> It appears to be an absolute with dogs, but not with rats.  Some mammals are more equal than others.
> ...


Again, it's quite clear that even in the case of a rat infestation, eliminating them should be done humanely.  You think you have the moral high ground because you think that, no matter what the circumstance, people should be allowed to brutalize their animals.  Period.  That's what you think.  You try to couch it as non-aggression toward people and their property, but as I suggested before, one-size-fits-all philosophies don't always pan out in the real world.  

HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails.  What would you do?  The truth.

----------


## Deborah K

> Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.


How so?  Poison causes excruciating pain.  Snap traps break their necks and kill them instantly.  At least that is my understanding.  At any rate, as I stated, I'm not inclined to argue about rat infestations and how to eliminate them. I rather think it is a straw man with the intent to move the goal posts.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, I don't like the sticky traps.  Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.


Agreed.  That is a form of torture, imo.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Again, it's quite clear that even in the case of a rat infestation, eliminating them should be done humanely.


 Perhaps it should be; perhaps it shouldn't be.  Sincere, normal, decent people will differ on this question.  And even you, as you say, it is not a hill you choose to die on.  Why not?  Why die on the hill for dogs, but not rats?  All I can come up with is that clearly it's just societal norms.  There's no moral, metaphysical reason.  Dogs and rats aren't that different.  One is just cuter.

So, far from being "quite clear," to me it instead seems quite fuzzy.




> You think you have the moral high ground


 Nope.  I just think that I am giving what is the logical answer as to when it is permissible to pull out guns and start shooting people.  When it's OK to use force.  The answer: only defensively.  Having that answer doesn't make me superior to anyone.  I'm not even the one who came up with this philosophy -- I'm just parroting Rothbard and other clear-thinking giants.

I do not think of myself as superior to you in any way.  I'm just a guy.  And I happen to like logical consistency.  And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.




> HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails.  What would you do?  The truth.


Do I know the guy?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I rather think it is a straw man with the intent to move the goal posts.


Well are we talking about animal rights, or are we only willing to talk about cuddly dog and cat rights?

----------


## Deborah K

> Well are we talking about animal rights, or are we only willing to talk about cuddly dog and cat rights?


Animal rights as it pertains to whether or not a community should accept as a neighbor, a person who abuses his animals.  Read the very first post I wrote, that you responded to. Put the debate back in that context.

----------


## Deborah K

> Perhaps it should be; perhaps it shouldn't be.  Sincere, normal, decent people will differ on this question.  And even you, as you say, it is not a hill you choose to die on.  Why not?  Why die on the hill for dogs, but not rats?  All I can come up with is that clearly it's just societal norms.  There's no moral, metaphysical reason.  Dogs and rats aren't that different.  One is just cuter.
> 
> So, far from being "quite clear," to me it instead seems quite fuzzy.
> 
>  Nope.  I just think that I am giving what is the logical answer as to when it is permissible to pull out guns and start shooting people.  When it's OK to use force.  The answer: only defensively.  Having that answer doesn't make me superior to anyone.  I'm not even the one who came up with this philosophy -- I'm just parroting Rothbard and other clear-thinking giants.
> 
> I do not think of myself as superior to you in any way.  I'm just a guy.  And I happen to like logical consistency.  And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.
> 
> 
> Do I know the guy?


First, when I state that you think you have the moral high ground, it doesn't mean that I believe you think you are better than I am, I don't.  It means I think you believe that _you_ have the better moral argument based on your one-size-fits-all philosophy.  You have turned the debate on its head with comments like: "to pull out guns and start shooting people. When it's OK to use force." So now I need clarity.  Are you talking about laws that favor animals, or are you talking about people who won't tolerate animal abuse in their community? Even if it means knocking some $#@! on his ass for it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My guess is, that  after being skinned alive, you would be in such horrific pain that you would beg him to put you out of your misery.  But I digress.


It's not a digression.  I prefer life.  The only time it's generally considered "humane" to end a human life is when there is no hope for recovery and continued life.

If it's A-OK to kill -- the worst, most serious, most permanent harm you can inflict upon an animal -- then it is *extremely morally problematic* to claim that it's _not_ OK to inflict less serious harms such as torture or abuse.  I don't know if you realize just how morally problematic that is.  I encourage everyone to really think about it.  As Siggy says in _What About Bob?_: "Im going to die. You are going to die... What else is there to be afraid of...?"




> May we force other people to treat animals humanely, at gunpoint if necessary?
> 			
> 		
> 
> May we force other people to treat other humans humanely?


 There we go!  This is what I want to discuss!  If by "treat humanely" you mean "not initiate force against" then yes!  Unequivocally yes!  



> And if the answer is yes,


 It is!



> then why doesn't it apply to other sentient beings?


 Well that's the question, isn't it?  Here's my question: why _would_ it?  Why _would_ a intra-species rule for humans apply to animals?  Will a rule suited perfectly for human nature be equally suited for dog nature, or for rat nature?  I don't think it will be.




> A one-size-fits-all point of view never works in real life.





> You know that there are absolutes in this world.


Which statement should I pick?  Which one do you really believe?  Which one is true?




> We are talking about accepting people into our communities who brutalize their pets; livestock; etc.


  My cousin's nickname is "kicker of the cows."  Have you ever worked with cows?  You might kick them, too.  Is my cousin -- a known and admitted brutalizer of livestock -- a horrible person?  I don't think so, but maybe you do.  Even if you don't, someone else does.  Millions of people in India think we're all wrong for not properly treating the cows as sacred.  What's the solution?

I already stated my own preferred solution: free communities.  Freedom means that all are free to organize their communities however they choose.  *You can kick the brutalizers out of your community!*  You really can!  It's not that hard.  You just have to do it in a voluntary way.  It takes only a small amount of effort, planning, and mutual respect to do it the right way, vs. the wrong way.

Does that make sense?  No one on the thread really addressed this idea I presented.  You can ban animal torture under libertarianism.  You can ban nudism, you can ban racism, you can ban landlordism, you can ban music piratism, you can ban whatever your heart desires to ban!  You just have to do it the right way.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Animal rights as it pertains to whether or not a community should accept as a neighbor, a person who abuses his animals.


Including his rats.  Right.

----------


## presence

> HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails.  What would you do?  The truth.


I'm not sure what you propose to do about it... should we swat raid every veterinarian's office that does the deed?  Federal dock and crop licensing programs?  


I see it as a freedom of religion issue.  I might suggest a method or practice *I personally perceive* as more humane... otherwise I'd leave the guy alone, they're his dogs.  

If the noise was persistent and impeded my enjoyment of my property, I might seek a cease and desist order to control the noise pollution; perhaps a civil suit if I accrued damages to my business.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So now I need clarity.


 Thank you a million times over for keeping this a real conversation and actually seeking understanding (unlike _some_ people...).  That happens too rarely.  Thanks.  

I will be glad to clarify and amplify.



> Are you talking about laws that favor animals, or are you talking about people who won't tolerate animal abuse in their community? Even if it means knocking some $#@! on his ass for it.


* Thou shalt not initiate force.**  It doesn't matter whether the person initiating the force has a badge and a clipboard or not.  The police officer enforcing some fiat made-up legislation decreeing animal treatment is in the wrong, and the vigilante knock-down-artist neighbor is in the wrong also.  In a libertarian world, you will be liable for your attack on him and any damage caused.  You can be forced to make restitution.

That is, _if_ there is no contract stating otherwise.  In many communities there probably will be.  If you are right and not wanting animals abused is an important universal and absolute value that all humans share, then virtually _all_ communities will have such a contract.   And so in that case, both the security guard and the vigilante neighbor could be in the _right_, just enforcing the just and voluntary rules to which everyone -- including the animal torturer -- already agreed!

*** There are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc.  More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences.  Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.

----------


## Deborah K

> If it's A-OK to kill -- the worst, most serious, most permanent harm you can inflict upon an animal -- then it is *extremely morally problematic* to claim that it's _not_ OK to inflict less serious harms such as torture or abuse.  I don't know if you realize just how morally problematic that is.  I encourage everyone to really think about it.


What I find problematic, is that you believe that killing is worse than torture or abuse.  I'm not including murder here.  I'm talking about ending the life of animal in a humane way for food.  You think that is worse than the act of killing them?  I really don't know what to say about that.  




> As Siggy says in _What About Bob?_: "Im going to die. You are going to die... What else is there to be afraid of...?"


Dying because you were tortured to death?    I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of dying while in excruciating pain inflicted upon me by someone or something else.  That would make me afraid to die.  Other than that, I don't think I'm afraid to die.




> There we go!  This is what I want to discuss!  If by "treat humanely" you mean "not initiate force against" then yes!  Unequivocally yes!  
>   It is!
>  Well that's the question, isn't it?  Here's my question: why _would_ it?  Why _would_ a intra-species rule for humans apply to animals?  Will a rule suited perfectly for human nature be equally suited for dog nature, or for rat nature?  I don't think it will be.


I don't believe you have to jump to that conclusion in order to believe that animals should be treated humanely.





> Which statement should I pick?  Which one do you really believe?  Which one is true?


You are equating a point of view with an absolute.  




> My cousin's nickname is "kicker of the cows."  Have you ever worked with cows?  You might kick them, too.  Is my cousin -- a known and admitted brutalizer of livestock -- a horrible person?  I don't think so, but maybe you do.  Even if you don't, someone else does.  Millions of people in India think we're all wrong for not properly treating the cows as sacred.  *What's the solution*?


What's the problem?  Kicking a cow does not equate to brutality unless you're stomping on a calf right after it's born, or something like that.  As far as I'm concerned, your cousin is disciplining his cows.  I smack my dogs and horses occasionally, when they act up. It doesn't hurt them, it just gets their attention, and they know I mean business and to stop the nonsense. 

Cows are sacred in India, horses are eaten in France, dogs are eaten in VN.  Another argument I'm not inclined to get into.




> You can kick the brutalizers out of your community! You really can! It's not that hard. You just have to do it in a voluntary way. It takes only a small amount of effort, planning, and mutual respect to do it the right way, vs. the wrong way.


And what if they refuse to leave, and refuse to stop torturing their animals?  




> Does that make sense?  No one on the thread really addressed this idea I presented.  You can ban animal torture under libertarianism.  You can ban nudism, you can ban racism, you can ban landlordism, you can ban music piratism, you can ban whatever your heart desires to ban!  You just have to do it the right way.


Provided the perp complies with your "right way".




> Do I know the guy?


What difference should that make?  Give me both scenarios.




> And I happen to like logical consistency. And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.


And I happen to like it as well.  So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand?  The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals.  I would like to see their take on it.

----------


## Deborah K

> Thank you a million times over for keeping this a real conversation and actually seeking understanding (unlike _some_ people...).  That happens too rarely.  Thanks.  
> 
> I will be glad to clarify and amplify.
> * Thou shalt not initiate force.**  It doesn't matter whether the person initiating the force has a badge and a clipboard or not.  The police officer enforcing some fiat made-up legislation decreeing animal treatment is in the wrong, and the vigilante knock-down-artist neighbor is in the wrong also.  In a libertarian world, you will be liable for your attack on him and any damage caused.  You can be forced to make restitution.
> 
> That is, _if_ there is no contract stating otherwise.  In many communities there probably will be.  If you are right and not wanting animals abused is an important universal and absolute value that all humans share, then virtually _all_ communities will have such a contract.   And so in that case, both the security guard and the vigilante neighbor could be in the _right_, just enforcing the just and voluntary rules to which everyone -- including the animal torturer -- already agreed!
> 
> *** There are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc.  More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences.  Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.


Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with.  But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What I find problematic, is that you believe that killing is worse than torture or abuse.


 Killing is much more permanent.  It may even be more painful.  Not having died, none of us are authorities.




> I'm not including murder here.  I'm talking about ending the life of animal in a humane way for food.  You think that is worse than the act of killing them?  I really don't know what to say about that.


 You mean do I think that killing them is worse than torturing them, I presume.  I can only speak for me.  I would rather be tortured than killed.  I have been tortured, and I have never been killed so I don't know much about it, but I know that were I killed my body would no longer be alive, and I would far prefer it to be in pain and alive.




> I don't believe you have to jump to that conclusion in order to believe that animals should be treated humanely.


 You ask why _wouldn't_ our human-to-human rules apply to animals, I ask why _would_ they?  Both are equally "jumping to a conclusion."  There's no reason to believe either way, in the absence of more information.




> You are equating a point of view with an absolute.


 Very well.  I guess maybe you see a difference.  I just figured an _absolute_ was something that applied to _everybody_ -- that is, something that's "one-size-fits-all."




> What's the problem?  Kicking a cow does not equate to brutality unless you're stomping on a calf right after it's born, or something like that.  As far as I'm concerned, your cousin is disciplining his cows.  I smack my dogs and horses occasionally, when they act up. It doesn't hurt them, it just gets their attention, and they know I mean business and to stop the nonsense.


 Well I agree, and you agree, but not everyone would agree.  Some people would say that kicking a cow is brutalizing him.  What do we do, just tell him he's wrong?  Why is he wrong and we're right?  What makes us so special to decide?  Can we read cow's minds?

In a free society, here's the solution: everybody gets to choose for himself!  The guy who is against cow-kicking can live in a community with that forbidden in its bylaws, or subscribe to a distributed legal system that prohibits it.  The ones who are fine with or at least willing to tolerate their neighbors kicking cows and poisoning rats, but not microwaving cats, they can join communities or legal systems under that standard.  The whole range, the whole spectrum of opinion, can each have their own happy place.




> And what if they refuse to leave, and refuse to stop torturing their animals?


 *Then you hold a gun to their heads and you force them* to stop or leave.  It's in the contract.  You have the perfect right to do so (or to do whatever it is the contract says you're entitled to do in response to the violation).




> Provided the perp complies with your "right way".


 No, it is not assumed that everyone will comply.  The standards are _enforced_, just as a mall or condo community today will enforce their standards.  As long as it's contractual, it's on the up-and-up.




> What difference should that make?  Give me both scenarios.


 I don't know.  If I know him and am surprised by his behavior based on my knowledge of him, I might stop and talk to him, ask what's going on.  If I know him and know he's a little bit messed up like that, I might probably just ignore it.  If it's just a random stranger I'll never meet again, maybe I'll ignore it (especially if I'm in a foreign country and many others are doing the same kind of thing), maybe I'll question him.  Maybe if I'm in a particularly strange or foul mood I'd hassle him about it, but I would hope I wouldn't.  You only live once.  I have only so much outrage to go around.  There are far more important things for me to devote energy towards.




> And I happen to like it as well.  So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand?  The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals.  I would like to see their take on it.


 I'll see what I can find.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with.  But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)


I understand, and I think that's a common and normal attitude.  That's one reason why I think that very few people brutally abuse animals in public, and I do not see any reason to suspect this would change in a libertarian society.  It's a very tiny, very marginal set of people who would do this.  It's not a problem today.  It's not a problem for libertarianism.  It's an extreme scenario, an edge case.

----------


## presence

> Agreed.  That is a form of torture, imo.


What about flies?

I set a sticky trap for flies in my laundry room and I caught a bat.  Should I go to jail?  Be fined?  Thumped?

----------


## Deborah K

> What about flies?
> 
> I set a sticky trap for flies in my laundry room and I caught a bat.  Should I go to jail?  Be fined?  Thumped?


This is an example of why one-size-fits-all points of view don't work.  There's no use in trying to set traps for me for believing that torturing animals is wrong. 

If I were to answer "yes", you could turn my own quote against me, and rightfully so:




> Some people take their philosophies to absurd extremes.


But no, I wouldn't agree that you should be fined, thumped or jailed.  Especially since it was not your intent to torture the poor bat.

----------


## Dianne

> Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with.  But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)


Same here, don't torture any animal anywhere around me without expecting to leave with a load of buckshot up your arse.   That's my libertarian point of view.    I co-founded the humane society back in the 1980's with a lady named Patty Lewis.    I had to get out of it, because of my fear I would kill someone.    I still have the visions, the same PTSD from the experience.   I have seen horrific abuse and torture.    And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.

----------


## JK/SEA

Years ago, i was a member of Sea Shepherd. I got very involved in stopping the Makah Tribe from killing whales even though their Treaty with the United States said they could.

I now look back on that episode in my life with mixed emotions. I ended up in front of a Judge over this.... my case was dismissed.

I use glue traps for rodents. I have a 60 grand muscle car in my garage. Glue traps in all 4 corners. I keep my home free of any random food sources in and out.

I also swat flies and mosquitoes, and kill hornets that have started a hive on my house.

There. Confessions are good for the soul.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Same here, don't torture any animal anywhere around me without expecting to leave with a load of buckshot up your arse.   That's my libertarian point of view.    I co-founded the humane society back in the 1980's with a lady named Patty Lewis.    I had to get out of it, because of my fear I would kill someone.    I still have the visions, the same PTSD from the experience.   I have seen horrific abuse and torture.    And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.


i don't recall seeing ANY Humane Society folks at any  Makah whaling protests...were you there?

----------


## osan

> The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house.  However if, for example,  there were packs of wild dogs roaming and killing people, I would have a different view of how to deal with them, although torture wouldn't be an option. But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison.  But that isn't the hill I want to die on.


Do not expect honest discussion from this one.  I was quite surprised to find this to be the case.  Learn something new every day, I suppose.

----------


## osan

> To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another.  At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me.  I really, really, don't want you to kill me.  I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.


You apparently do not even know yourself that well to understand that were someone to begin flaying you in earnest, before they were 10% finished in the task you would be begging them to kill you.

Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb?  If not, then I would submit that you have no idea of what you speak.  Agony is an interesting thing; a powerful thing.  It can change your perspective on living profoundly.  I know to be aware that, given enough of that good old-fashioned agony, I would be eager to leave this life.  So would you.

Besides, you cannot seriously think for a moment that you would survive being flayed.  You would die no matter what.  Given that, better quickly than slowly. YMMV, I suppose.

----------


## navy-vet

geesh.... I always thought "flaying" was beating someone with a whip....I just googled it and read it was skinning them and if they were alive when skinned or flayed, they could suffer unbelievable agony for hours or days....how utterly disgusting humans can be.

----------


## jj-

Obviously, animals have no rights.

----------


## jj-

> Should it be legal for a dog to be chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food or water?


Yes.

Some people want to make a distinction about "cruelty", but if you're going to control and kill living beings, "cruelty" is in the eye of the beholder. Saying that it should be illegal, logically implies that humans should starve. Once animals are given rights, plants will soon follow.

----------


## jj-

> Wouldn't you feel the need to intervene?


I wouldn't intervene with force, it's his private property. Those who violate property rights to intervene should go to jail.

----------


## navy-vet

> I wouldn't intervene with force, it's his private property. Those who violate property rights to intervene should go to jail.


I would intervene and risk going to jail.

----------


## jj-

> I would intervene and risk going to jail.


Your choice of course. Just knowing you put animals over humans, my choice in life would be to disassociate from that kind of person.

----------


## navy-vet

IMO, there are things worth risking ones life for, and that's one on my list. I would probably start by sending a message followed by reporting them to the proper authority, anonymously, to avoid becoming a suspect, should it be necessary to escalate the process.

----------


## navy-vet

> Your choice of course. Just knowing you put animals over humans, my choice in life would be to disassociate from that kind of person.


That would be prudent.

----------


## jj-

> IMO, there are things worth risking ones life for, and that's one on my list.


My impression is that you value your life very little and are just looking for an excuse to die. Or maybe an excuse to attack other human beings.

----------


## navy-vet

I wouldn't say that I put animals over humans though. I would say it's more like, a reluctance to tolerate bad behavior from a foul human.

----------


## navy-vet

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "life". I wouldn't kill the low life over it, if he insisted on torturing the beast, out of indifference or resentment. I might end the suffering of an animal through other actions though.... There are many variables in the scenario you presented.
Hopefully I never have to deal with anything like that.
The whole thing is rather mute though, since it is illegal to mistreat an animal like that where I live, and the authorities will intervene.

----------


## jj-

> I wouldn't say that I put animals over humans though. I would say it's more like, a reluctance to tolerate bad behavior from a foul human.


I think that's like trying to use force to silence someone for preaching communism. It's pretty bad, but freedom of speech is important.

Similarly, I also think torturing animals is bad, but having the legal ability to consume animals is pretty important, so one shouldn't open the door to banning our use of animals as food. If torturing is cruel, eating is clearly cruel too, as dying is pretty bad.

----------


## navy-vet

> I think that's like trying to use force to silence someone for spreading communism. It's pretty bad, but freedom of speech is important.
> 
> Similarly, I also think torturing animals is bad, but having the legal ability to consume animals is pretty important, so one shouldn't open the door to banning our use of animals as food. If torturing is cruel, eating is clearly cruel too, as dying is pretty bad.


The slaughter of an animal for food, verses tying a dog to a tree without food or water in 100 degree heat? Is that the premise here?

----------


## jj-

> The slaughter of an animal for food, verses tying a dog to a tree without food or water in 100 degree heat? Is that the premise here?


Once that's accepted, it will be easier for vegetarians to make eating animals illegal. Many are willing to do that but don't have the power, but if the deterioration of society continues, that could be next.

----------


## navy-vet

> Once that's accepted, it will be easier for vegetarians to make eating animals illegal. Many are willing to do that but don't have the power, but if the deterioration of society continues, that could be next.


Once what's accepted?

----------


## navy-vet

Animal rights or animal cruelty as described by the dog tethered to the tree scenario?

----------


## navy-vet

this discussion reminds me of a comedy my wife and I started watching on Netflix last night. The last episode we watched was about artificial meat grown in a petri dish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLExLUvfqW0

----------


## navy-vet

> this discussion reminds me of a comedy my wife and I started watching on Netflix last night. The last episode we watched was about artificial meat grown in a petri dish.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLExLUvfqW0


Anyway, ends up being successful but costing ten thousand dollars a pound to produce...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Obviously, animals have no rights.



link?

----------


## Deborah K

> Years ago, i was a member of Sea Shepherd. I got very involved in stopping the Makah Tribe from killing whales even though their Treaty with the United States said they could.
> 
> I now look back on that episode in my life with mixed emotions. I ended up in front of a Judge over this.... my case was dismissed.
> 
> I use glue traps for rodents. I have a 60 grand muscle car in my garage. Glue traps in all 4 corners. I keep my home free of any random food sources in and out.
> 
> I also swat flies and mosquitoes, and kill hornets that have started a hive on my house.
> 
> There. Confessions are good for the soul.


I have barn cats.  They keep the vermin population under control by going after their young.  It's sad. If it happens around me, and I think I can save the baby, I will.   It creates a dichotomy for me, for sure.  But it's so rare now because the cats have been successful at driving the vermin away, they don't even attempt to nest on our land anymore.  The dogs go after the vermin as well, and from time to time it becomes necessary to put the animal out of its misery.

I used to think you could torture insects, but I've since learned that they don't have pain receptors, so they don't feel anything.  Even so, we don't want our grandchildren (who love to catch anything and everything), to ever think it's acceptable to torture any living creature, including pulling the legs and wings off of insects, even though it does not hurt them. We don't even let them keep the lizards and frogs, and crickets, and so on, for longer than a day.  

My grandkids spend every Friday night with us, and we take that time to teach them everything we can, and they know that they have to take up the mantle when they become young men and women.  My oldest grandson who is seven, is already very politically aware and interested in the cause of freedom.  We've taught them how to garden, and raise chickens, archery, and how to shoot weapons.  Anyway, Greg (my 7 yr old grandson) feels he is ready to watch us butcher the chickens.  His Mother, my youngest daughter, is NOT ready for him to see it.  It's her call, of course.  But, the time is coming when he'll be hunting rabbits, and he's going to need to know what to do.

My apologies for the tangent.  I guess I just wanted to show that you can be an animal lover, and still kill them humanely.  They can be a rich source of nourishment, and yet also be a pest.  Either way, they can be dealt with humanely.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You apparently do not even know yourself that well to understand that were someone to begin flaying you in earnest, before they were 10% finished in the task you would be begging them to kill you. ... I would be eager to leave this life.  So would you.


 You could be right.  I will readily admit that, in the heat of the moment, I may very well have second thoughts.  How many women determined to have "natural births" decide at the last minute: "Enough!  Give me the epidural!"?

However, does it not seem the least bit arrogant and conceited to you to be telling me what exactly I will do and think, to assert that you know me better than I know myself, and to come to the conclusion that (surprise, surprise!) my decisions will be the same as your own?

How could I have missed it, right?  Obviously I am going to be the same and act the same and think the same as osan!  Because, after all, osan is the center of this universe.

Osan, could you tell me more about myself, my inner turmoils, what decisions I will inevitably make in the future?  I have always wanted to know.  Now at last I have access to someone wise and omniscient enough to patiently correct me about what I really think and feel.




> Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb?


 Wait, are you asking _questions_, now?  I thought you already had all the answers.  Why waste time asking questions when you already have the answers?

Non potest dici aliquid ad **** qui scit omnia.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb?
> 			
> 		
> ...


But it's an appropriate question for someone who has said:



> I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.


I was wondering it as well. Could you answer it?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.


And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society!  Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.




> Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with.  But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)


And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society!  Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.




> I would intervene and risk going to jail.


And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society!  Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.  

And it sounds like you _are!_ You are saying here that you are aware of the just consequence -- that you are aggressing against the person and that you open yourself to retaliation, such as jail (or in the libertarian society, more likely restitution).  It's OK to make a decision to violate the Non-Aggression Principle like that.  Or, actually, let me rephrase: it may or may not be OK; libertarianism doesn't actually know.  It doesn't have any idea.  It doesn't take a position on whether actions are right or wrong, it just states that certain actions can be retaliated against with force.  Libertarianism is fundamentally a _retaliation_ theory.  It doesn't say XYZ is right or wrong.  Even if XYZ is right and good and clearly a wonderful thing to do, it may still be retaliable!

We've talked about this before here on RPF.  Here is one of my brilliant posts () on the matter:




> Obviously morality and concepts of right and wrong play into any theory addressing what humans should and should not do.  And the NAP certainly does make claims as to what humans should and should not do.  Let us say, then, that it is a subset of morality, dealing with a very limited sphere (think of a Ven diagram with a little circle -- libertarianism -- inside a much bigger circle -- morality).  But it is not a _general_ moral code.  It deals only with the question: when is it OK to use force and violence to punish people?  Libertarianism, as Walter Block says, is fundamentally a punishment theory.  Whether the action was right or wrong in light of other considerations _outside the scope_ of libertarianism does not play into it.  If it was an aggression according to the rules of libertarianism, then it is punishable.  That aggression may have been "right" in the judgment of the aggressor (and perhaps in the judgment of many).  But that doesn't really matter.


Here is Walter explaining it himself, especially 24:12 - 28:30:

----------


## helmuth_hubener

It's as I said in this post a couple pages back:




> * Thou shalt not initiate force, but there are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc.  More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences.  Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

It's also as Danan said in a _truly_ brilliant post in another thread on this topic:

Yes, it is sadistic and morally wrong to torture a living being. I guess that's not a very shocking statement. But not everything that's wrong should be illegal. In fact, most immoral things are and should be legal. Libertarianism is a political philosophy mainly concerned with the legality of things, or whether an action constitutes initial aggression against property or not. It's main goal is to give a consistent framework on how to evaluate such problems, imho.
-- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4866836

In fact, it's so good, let's just quote the whole thing:

What I said was that if you agree that animals are not property, but rather property owners of their own bodies, exactly like human beings (because only then you could make the claim that causing them pain should be illegal), it would also follow that enslaving them and especially killing them would be a crime too. If you agree that animals are not owners of their bodies but property of a human being (or unowned if they are wild), then you still have to make the case why usual property rights don't apply here. Just because they feel pain is not a good argument. You'd have to make the case that an animal has a right not to be tortured but no right not to be killed. And personally I'd rather be tortured from time to time than being held as livestock on a farm and killed to eventually become food. So I don't really buy your argument that torturing animals is worse than killing them.

I have more respect for PETA people who take their ridiculous axiom that animals are full property owners of their bodies to the absurd conclusions. I don't agree with their axioms, but I respect their logical consistency. As long as nobody is able to make a good case for animal rights as a basis for arguments about legality, I'll stick with publically condemning animal cruelty and using my own property to hurt those $#@!s without violating their property.




> WEll, okay I guess I can see how it's consistent, but clearly the reasonable view is the one that doesn't reduce the animal to property just because it's been domesticated to the point of having to rely on humans.


I don't know, some people made the same arguments in regards to human slavery. "They couldn't survive on their own, they are not like us!" Cats can most certainly survive on their own. Dogs too, I've seen them successfully hunting deer in groups. And even if they couldn't, it wouldn't make a difference. You'd have no right to "imprison" them, if they'd own themselves.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And I happen to like it as well. So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand? The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals. I would like to see their take on it.
> 			
> 		
> 
>  I'll see what I can find.


Here is *Murray Rothbard* from _The Ethics of Liberty_ (recently taken down from the Mises site in the renovation, hopefully soon-to-be-returned!, but in the meantime this section readable here: http://mises.org/library/rights-animals )

It has lately become a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible  i.e., that no man has the right  to kill or eat them.

There are, of course, many difficulties with this position, including arriving at some criterion of which animals or living beings to include in the sphere of rights and which to leave out.

(There are not many theorists, for example, who would go so far as Albert Schweitzer and deny the right of anyone to step on a cockroach. And, if the theory were extended further from conscious living beings to all living beings, such as bacteria or plants, the human race would rather quickly die out.)

But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching. For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, but for the species man alone. The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was "given"  or, in natural law, we may say "has"  dominion over all the species of the earth. Natural law is necessarily species-bound.

That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is "evil" because he exists by devouring and "aggressing against" lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who "aggresses against" other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men "aggress against" cows and wolves as to say that wolves "aggress against" sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an "evil aggressor" or that the wolf was being "punished" for his "crime." And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

What of the "Martian" problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical "Martians" were like human beings  conscious, rational, able to communicate with us and participate in the division of labor  then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to "earthbound" humans.

But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I don't immediately find a statement from Ayn Rand on the subject, but here is a particularly good essay on it from the Atlas Society:

http://www.atlassociety.org/animal_rights

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But it's an appropriate question for someone who has said:
> 
> 
> I was wondering it as well. Could you answer it?


I could.  And since you asked nicely, I will: yes, I have.

There, do I suddenly have credibility now?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Ludwig von Mises* in _Human Action_:

The Work of Animals and of Slaves

*For man, animals are a material factor of production.* It may be that one day a change in moral sentiments will induce people to treat animals more gently. Yet, as far as men do not leave the animals alone and let them go their way, they will always deal with them as mere objects of their own acting. *Social cooperation can exist only between human beings because only these are able to attain insight into the meaning and the advantages of the division of labor and of peaceful cooperation.*

Man subdues the animal and integrates it into his scheme of action as a material thing. In taming, domesticating, and training animals man often displays appreciation for the creature’s psychological peculiarities; he appeals, as it were, to its soul. But even then *the gulf that separates man from animal remains unbridgeable.* An animal can never get anything else than satisfaction of its appetites for food and sex and adequate protection against injury resulting from environmental factors. Animals are bestial and inhuman precisely because they are such as the iron law of wages imagined workers to be. As human civilization would never have emerged if men were exclusively dedicated to feeding and mating, so animals can neither consort in social bonds nor participate in human society.

People have tried to look upon fellow men as they look upon animals and to deal with them accordingly. They have used whips to compel galley slaves and barge haulers to work like capstan-horses. However, experience has shown that *these methods* of unbridled brutalization *render very unsatisfactory results*. Even the crudest and dullest people achieve more when working of their own accord than under the fear of the whip.

Primitive man makes no distinction between his property in women, children, and slaves on the one hand and his property in cattle and inanimate things on the other. But as soon as he begins to expect from his slaves services other than such as can also be rendered by draft and pack animals, he is forced to loosen their chains. He must try to substitute the incentive of self-interest for the incentive of mere fear; he must try to bind the slave to himself by human feelings. If the slave is no longer prevented from fleeing exclusively by being chained and watched and no longer forced to work exclusively under the threat of being whipped, the relation between master and slave is transformed into a social nexus. The slave may, especially if the memory of happier days of freedom is still fresh, bemoan his misfortune and hanker after liberation. But he puts up with what seems to be an inevitable state of affairs and accommodates himself to his fate in such a way as to make it as bearable as possible. The slave becomes intent upon satisfying his master through application and carrying out the tasks entrusted to him; the master becomes intent upon rousing the slave’s zeal and loyalty through reasonable treatment. There develop between lord and drudge familiar relations which can properly be called friendship.

Perhaps the eulogists of slavery were not entirely wrong when they asserted that many slaves were satisfied with their station and did not aim at changing it. There are perhaps individuals, groups of individuals, and even whole peoples and races who enjoy the safety and security provided by bondage; who, insensible of humiliation and mortification, are glad to pay with a moderate amount of labor for the privilege of sharing in the amenities of a well-to-do household; and in whose eyes subjection to the whims and bad tempers of a master is only a minor evil or no evil at all.

Of course, the conditions under which the servile workers toiled in big farms and plantations, in mines, in workshops, and galleys were very different from the idyllically described gay life of domestic valets, chambermaids, cooks, and nurses and from the conditions of unfree laborers, dairymaids, herdsmen, and shepherds of small farming. No apologist of slavery was bold enough to glorify the lot of the Roman [630] agricultural slaves, chained and crammed together in their quarters, the ergastulum, or of the Negroes of the American cotton and sugar plantations.19

The abolition of slavery and serfdom is to be attributed neither to the teachings of theologians and moralists nor to weakness or generosity on the part of the masters. There were among the teachers of religion and ethics as many eloquent defenders of bondage as opponents.20 Servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy.

The price paid for the purchase of a slave is determined by the net yield expected from his employment (both as a worker and as a progenitor of other slaves) just as the price paid for a cow is determined by the net yield expected from its utilization. The owner of a slave does not pocket a specific revenue. For him there is no “exploitation” boon derived from the fact that the slave’s work is not remunerated and that the potential market price of the services he renders is possibly greater than the cost of feeding, sheltering, and guarding him. He who buys a slave must in the price paid make good for these economies as far as they may be expected; he pays for them in full, due allowance being made for time preference. Whether the proprietor employs the slave in his own household or enterprise or rents his services to other people, he does not enjoy any specific advantage from the existence of the institution of slavery. The specific boon goes totally to the slave-hunter, i.e., the man who deprives free men of their liberty and transforms them into slaves. But, of course, the profitability of the slave-hunter’s business depends upon the height of the prices buyers are ready to pay for the acquisition of slaves. If these prices drop below the operation and transportation costs incurred in the business of slave-hunting, the business no longer pays and must be discontinued.

Now, at no time and at no place was it possible for enterprises employing servile labor to compete on the market with enterprises employing free labor. Servile labor could always be utilized only where it did not have to meet the competition of free labor.

If one treats men like cattle, one cannot squeeze out of them more than cattle-like performances. But it then becomes significant that man is physically weaker than oxen and horses, and that feeding and guarding a slave is, in proportion to the performance to be reaped, more expensive than feeding and guarding cattle. When treated as a chattel, man [631] renders a smaller yield per unit of cost expended for current sustenance and guarding than domestic animals. If one asks from an unfree laborer human performances, one must provide him with specifically human inducements. If the employer aims at obtaining products which in quality and quantity excel those whose production can be extorted by the whip, he must interest the toiler in the yield of his contribution. Instead of punishing laziness and sloth, he must reward diligence, skill, and eagerness. But whatever he may try in this respect, he will never obtain from a bonded worker, i.e., a worker who does not reap the full market price of his contribution, a performance equal to that rendered by a freeman, i.e., a man hired on the unhampered labor market. The upper limit beyond which it is impossible to lift the quality and quantity of the products and services rendered by slave and serf labor is far below the standards of free labor. In the production of articles of superior quality an enterprise employing the apparently cheap labor of unfree workers can never stand the competition of enterprises employing free labor. It is this fact that has made all systems of compulsory labor disappear.

Social institutions once made whole areas or branches of production reservations exclusively kept for the occupation of unfree labor and sheltered against any competition on the part of entrepreneurs employing free men. Slavery and serfdom thus became essential features of a rigid caste system that could be neither removed nor modified by the actions of individuals. Wherever conditions were different, the slave owners themselves resorted to measures which were bound to abolish, step by step, the whole system of unfree labor. It was not humanitarian feelings and clemency that induced the callous and pitiless slaveholders of ancient Rome to loosen the fetters of their slaves, but the urge to derive the best possible gain from their property. They abandoned the system of centralized big-scale management of their vast landholdings, the latifundia, and transformed the slaves into virtual tenants cultivating their tenements on their own account and owing to the landlord merely either a lease or a share of the yield. In the processing trades and in commerce the slaves became entrepreneurs and their funds, the peculium, their legal quasi-property. Slaves were manumitted in large numbers because the freedman rendered to the former owner, the patronus, services more valuable than those to be expected from a slave. For the manumission was not an act of grace and a gratuitous gift on the part of the owner. It was a credit operation, a purchase of freedom on the installment plan, as it were. The freedman was bound to render the former owner for many years or even for a lifetime definite payments and services. The patronus moreover had special rights of inheritance to the estate of the deceased freedman.21

[632]
With the disappearance of the plants and farms employing unfree laborers, bondage ceased to be a system of production and became a political privilege of an aristocratic caste. The overlords were entitled to definite tributes in kind or money and to definite services on the part of their subordinates; moreover their serfs’ children were obliged to serve them as servants or military retinue for a definite length of time. But the underprivileged peasants and artisans operated their farms and shops on their own account and peril. Only when their processes of production were accomplished did the lord step in and claim a part of the proceeds.

Later, from the sixteenth century on, people again began to employ unfree workers in agricultural and even sometimes in industrial big-scale production. In the American colonies Negro slavery became the standard method of the plantations. In Eastern Europe—in northeastern Germany, in Bohemia and its annexes Moravia and Silesia, in Poland, in the Baltic countries, in Russia, and also in Hungary and its annexes—big-scale farming was built upon the unpaid statute labor of serfs. Both these systems of unfree labor were sheltered by political institutions against the competition of enterprises employing free workers. In the plantation colonies the high costs of immigration and the lack of sufficient legal and judicial protection of the individual against the arbitrariness of government officers and the planter aristocracy prevented the emergence of a sufficient supply of free labor and the development of a class of independent farmers. In Eastern Europe the caste system made it impossible for outsiders to enter the field of agricultural production. Big-scale farming was reserved to members of the nobility. Small holdings were reserved to unfree bondsmen. Yet the fact that the enterprises employing unfree labor would not be able to stand the competition of enterprises employing free labor was not contested by anybody. On this point the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century authors on agricultural management were no less unanimous than the writers of ancient Rome on farm problems. But the abolition of slavery and serfdom could not be effected by the free play of the market system, as political institutions had withdrawn the estates of the nobility and the plantations from the supremacy of the market. Slavery and serfdom were abolished by political action dictated by the spirit of the much-abused laissez faire, laissez passer ideology.

Today mankind is again faced with endeavors to substitute compulsory labor for the labor of the freeman selling his capacity to work as a “commodity” on the market. Of course, people believe that there is an essential difference between the tasks incumbent upon the comrades of the socialist commonwealth and those incumbent upon slaves or serfs. The slaves and serfs, they say, toiled for the benefit of an exploiting lord. But in a socialist system the produce of labor goes to society of which the toiler himself is a part; here the worker works for himself, [633] as it were. What this reasoning overlooks is that the identification of the individual comrades and the totality of all comrades with the collective entity pocketing the produce of all work is merely fictitious. Whether the ends which the community’s officeholders are aiming at agree or disagree with the wishes and desires of the various comrades is of minor importance. The main thing is that the individual’s contribution to the collective entity’s wealth is not required in the shape of wages determined by the market. A socialist commonwealth lacks any method of economic calculation; it cannot determine separately what quotas of the total amount of goods produced are to be assigned to the various complementary factors of production. As it cannot ascertain the magnitude of the contribution society owes to the various individuals’ efforts, it cannot remunerate the workers according to the value of their performance.

In order to distinguish free labor from compulsory labor no metaphysical subtleties concerning the essence of freedom and compulsion are required. We may call free labor that kind of extroversive, not immediately gratifying labor that a man performs either for the direct satisfaction of his own wants or for their indirect satisfaction to be reaped by expending the price earned by its sale on the market. Compulsory labor is labor performed under the pressure of other incentives. If somebody were to take umbrage at this terminology because the employment of words like freedom and compulsion may arouse an association of ideas injurious to a dispassionate treatment of the problems involved, one could as well choose other terms. We may substitute the expression F labor for the term free labor and the term C labor for the term compulsory labor. The crucial problem cannot be affected by the choice of the terms. What alone matters is this: What kind of inducement can spur a man to submit to the disutility of labor if his own want-satisfaction neither directly nor—to any appreciable extent—indirectly depends on the quantity and quality of his performance?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that many workers, perhaps even most of them, will of their own accord dutifully take pains for the best possible fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them by their superiors. (We may disregard the fact that the determination of the task to be imposed upon the various individuals would confront a socialist commonwealth with insoluble problems.) But how to deal with those sluggish and careless in the discharge of the imposed duties? There is no other way left than to punish them. In their superiors must be vested the authority to establish the offense, to give judgment on its subjective reasons, and to mete out punishment accordingly. A hegemonic bond is substituted for the contractual bond. The worker becomes subject to the discretionary power of his superiors, he is personally subordinate to his chief’s disciplinary power.

In the market economy the worker sells his services as other people [634] sell their commodities. The employer is not the employee’s lord. He is simply the buyer of services which he must purchase at their market price. Of course, like every other buyer an employer too can take liberties. But if he resorts to arbitrariness in hiring or discharging workers, he must foot the bill. An employer or an employee entrusted with the management of a department of an enterprise is free to discriminate in hiring workers, to fire them arbitrarily, or to cut down their wages below the market rate. But in indulging in such arbitrary acts he jeopardizes the profitability of his enterprise or his department and thereby impairs his own income and his position in the economic system. In the market economy such whims bring their own punishment. The only real and effective protection of the wage earner in the market economy is provided by the play of the factors determining the formation of prices. The market makes the worker independent of arbitrary discretion on the part of the employer and his aides. The workers are subject only to the supremacy of the consumers as their employers are too. In determining, by buying or abstention from buying, the prices of products and the employment of factors of production, consumers assign to each kind of labor its market price.

What makes the worker a free man is precisely the fact that the employer, under the pressure of the market’s price structure, considers labor a commodity, an instrument of earning profits. The employee is in the eyes of the employer merely a man who for a consideration in money helps him to make money. The employer pays for services rendered and the employee performs in order to earn wages. There is in this relation between employer and employee no question of favor or disfavor. The hired man does not owe the employer gratitude; he owes him a definite quantity of work of a definite kind and quality.

That is why in the market economy the employer can do without the power to punish the employee. All nonmarket systems of production must give to those in control the power to spur on the slow worker to more zeal and application. As imprisonment withdraws the worker from his job or at least reduces considerably the value of his contribution, corporal punishment has always been the classical means of keeping slaves and serfs to their work. With the abolition of unfree labor one could dispense with the whip as a stimulus. Flogging was the symbol of bond labor. Members of a market society consider corporal punishment inhuman and humiliating to such a degree that it has been abolished also in the schools, in the penal code, and in military discipline.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Hans-Hermann Hoppe* in the introduction to _The Ethics of Liberty_:

Animals are incapable of engaging in propositional exchange with humans. Indeed, it is this inability which defines them as non-rational and distinguishes them categorically from men as rational animals. Unable to communicate, and without rationality, animals are by their very nature incapable of recognizing or possessing any rights.

Rather than rightful moral agents, animals are objects of possible human control and appropriation. Thus Rothbard confirmed the biblical pronouncement that man had been given dominion over every living thing, in the sea, on earth, and in the sky.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Stephan Kinsella*:

Given that animals don’t have rights (is it the crime of “murder” when a tiger kills a gazelle? when a spider kills a fly?), this is not a defect or “limit” of libertarianism. To recognize animal rights would, in fact, invade the rights of humans. Animals rights laws result in aggression (see the discussion of positive rights above).

-- http://www.stephankinsella.com/2014/...ssenting-view/

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*L. Neil Smith*, _Animals Are Property_:

 Animal rights is just one more way that socialism pursues its obsolete, discredited agenda. 

         In my experience, those who profess to believe in animal rights don't believe in human rights. That's the point, after all. It's also proof that the Left comprehends the mechanism of inflation perfectly. Inflation is the process by which the value of a currency (gold, silver, or whatever) is systematically diluted by the creation of additional, unbacked currency. If anyone but government were doing it, we'd call it counterfeiting, and that's exactly what it is, no matter who's responsible. 

         Likewise, human liberty is being diluted by a process of moral inflation (similar to that by which emotionalism, in our culture, is displacing reason), in which absurd, unsupportable assertions about "rights" -- to state education, to government healthcare, to a clean litterbox -- are used to render valueless the rights that really do exist. Where does it stop and on what principle? Is vegetarianism enough or must we wear masks, as some do in India, to avoid inhaling insects and killing them? Are we morally obliged to keep those frozen laboratory vials that are all that remains of the once deadly scourge of smallpox -- or even to let it out again? 

         If you take nothing else from this essay, take this: the sillier the situation created by the other side's claims, the better they like it. Their goal is not to uphold the rights of animals (animals have no rights; nobody knows that better than the Left) but to render absurd -- and destroy -- the very concept of rights itself. 

         What are rights? Lions have teeth, giraffes have long necks, birds have wings, humans have rights. They are our primary -- if not only -- means of survival. They arise from a quality unique to human beings (though it's politically incorrect to say so), a difference between people and animals so profound that the ramparts of the Himalayas are no more than a ripple in the linoleum by comparison. That difference -- the wellspring of human rights -- is sapience. 

         Note that I don't follow Star Trek's lexicon by saying "sentience". Sentience is awareness, which all animals possess to some degree. Sapience is awareness of that awareness. Some animals (cats and dogs) clearly think. Only humans think about thinking. 

         I'm not saying anything new here. Pretending you can't see a difference between people and animals (a difference any three year old can easily discern) is not just an outworn, phony tactic -- comparable to psychologists who pretend the human mind doesn't exist -- it's a confession that you're stupid. 

         Animals are genetically programmed like computers. Although a few near the pinnacle of the evolutionary pyramid (there, I said it, and I'm glad) are capable of learning, they make no choices about what to do with their lives. Humans, by contrast, employ their sapience to assess what they see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, then act on that assessment, not just to insure survival, but to enhance its quality. The freedom to see, hear, smell, taste, feel, assess, and act -- without any impediment other than those imposed by the nature of reality -- is what we refer to when we say "rights". 

         More to the point in this context, purpose, another product of sapience, is a phenomenon as unique to humanity as rights. People are the only thing in the universe with purpose. And purpose -- regarding themselves or anything else they lay their hands on in the environment they dominate -- is whatever people say it is. 

         Philosopher Robert LeFevre observed that, in moral terms, there are just two kinds of entity in the universe, people and property. Animals are not people. Some -- wild animals -- are unclaimed property that would be better off with owners. (My plain-spoken brother says, "America's wildlife -- kill it, eat it, wear it!") Animals are groceries. They're leather and fur coats. They're for medical experiments and galloping to hounds. That's their purpose. 

         I, a human being, declare it. 

         Do what you like with your animals. 

         If species are going extinct by the thousands -- a claim which, judging by the Left's historic disregard for the truth, we've no reason to believe -- it's for the same reason the Soviets collapsed and there's never a cop around when you need one. Socialism has been in charge of them, and it doesn't work. 

          Not in any venue.

-- http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le961106.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The token minarchist, *Tibor Machan*, who wrote a whole book about it: _Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite_:

"The most fundamental objection to the notion that animals have rights is that only human beings have the requisite moral nature for ascribing to them basic rights. However closely humans and lower animals resemble each other, human beings alone possess the capacity for free choice and the responsibility to act ethically"

http://www.amazon.com/Putting-Humans.../dp/074253345X

----------


## navy-vet

> *L. Neil Smith*, _Animals Are Property_:
> 
>  Animal rights is just one more way that socialism pursues its obsolete, discredited agenda. 
> 
>          In my experience, those who profess to believe in animal rights don't believe in human rights. That's the point, after all. It's also proof that the Left comprehends the mechanism of inflation perfectly. Inflation is the process by which the value of a currency (gold, silver, or whatever) is systematically diluted by the creation of additional, unbacked currency. If anyone but government were doing it, we'd call it counterfeiting, and that's exactly what it is, no matter who's responsible. 
> 
>          Likewise, human liberty is being diluted by a process of moral inflation (similar to that by which emotionalism, in our culture, is displacing reason), in which absurd, unsupportable assertions about "rights" -- to state education, to government healthcare, to a clean litterbox -- are used to render valueless the rights that really do exist. Where does it stop and on what principle? Is vegetarianism enough or must we wear masks, as some do in India, to avoid inhaling insects and killing them? Are we morally obliged to keep those frozen laboratory vials that are all that remains of the once deadly scourge of smallpox -- or even to let it out again? 
> 
>          If you take nothing else from this essay, take this: the sillier the situation created by the other side's claims, the better they like it. Their goal is not to uphold the rights of animals (animals have no rights; nobody knows that better than the Left) but to render absurd -- and destroy -- the very concept of rights itself. 
> ...


Very interesting thank you.

----------


## navy-vet

Sooo having heard many of the arguments for and against this animal rights issue, this libertarian, believes that, animals don't have rights. But, humans have moral obligations regarding the welfare of the animals of which we are the stewards.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Sooo having heard many of the arguments for and against this animal rights issue, this libertarian, believes that, animals don't have rights. But, humans have moral obligations regarding the welfare of the animals of which we are the stewards.


I fully subscribe to your opinion. 

For what it's worth, I like to create, not to destroy. The world is a beautiful place, I accept that people have different opinions but when someone is abusing animals I don't keep my mouth shut. If you plan on eating it, kill it, if you don't then show some respect. Thats my opinion basically.

Edit, it is our morality that separates us from beasts if anything does...

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'd say its awful but it should be legal, yes.


Why would coercion of such an obvious nature, when so completely unnecessary and detached from any livestock, pet, etc. purposes, or any defensive purpose, be considered moral according to voluntaryist principles? Are humans the only ones capable of pain, fear, or autonomy/rights? I think not. I've read and watched dozens of intellectuals in libertarianism try to explain to me why animals have no rights/autonomy. I find it decidedly logically inconsistent. It is an arbitrary line to draw when we only include humans in the rights/autonomy discussion. It's not a matter of principle, but of degree (humans are a type of animal, hence the matter of degree and not principle). It isn't chromosome count (or Down Syndrome kids aren't humans), it isn't intelligence (or humans with a sufficiently low IQ could be non-human), etc...it's some undefinable nonsense line they draw as to what makes us human or not. I say the line at human is the wrong place to draw it to begin with. If you claim to not want to coerce the innocent for no good reason (like defense), then why don't you apply that to animals? If you have a cat for keeping pests away or because you rescued it from a shelter before being put down, or a dog for security or pet from shelter, then that's not a violation of the NAP. Leaving it in the backyard to die IS ONE. Those who deny this really need to rethink this theory used to assess morality, OR re-assess how they think it is applied with logical consistency. No matter how many so-called intellectuals in our movement tell you such coercion isn't coercion because it isn't happening to a human, it won't make it so.

I also find more agreement to what I just said from NAP-adherents from the utilitarian side, as opposed to the Natural Rights/Law side. Religious people tend to refuse to let go of the idea animals are here strictly as our property (ignoring they predate us here, and they actually serve a much more important function left to the wild than when domesticated, with notable exceptions used as livestock in a worldwide widespread manner). The people who can remove any religious belief from their philosophy, for even just a moment of lucidity to see what the other side is thinking, tend to see at a higher rate (but not a majority due to the kind of cult of popularity we have with intellectuals in our movement) the logical inconsistency in saying rights/autonomy magically stop at whatever they define as "human". Ironic, given Natural Law is essentially the Do No Harm principle, and obviously you can do totally unnecessary harm to animals. 

We eat them in self defense (fending off the coercion of nature via starvation). We originally domesticated them in self defense (fending off the higher starvation of hunter-gatherer economics vs agrarian economics - which livestock helped us with - and fending off invaders who raped, stole, and murdered - which the dogs warned you about early and fought along side you to stop - and the pests that gave us disease - which the cat took care of). We forget that, and then for some reason come to believe they are just property, and nothing more. They can certainly be property, and in some cases should be...but not without any rights/autonomy. Children don't have the exact level of rights/autonomy as adults...should they be seen strictly as property and incest and child beating be seen as moral, and legal therefore? Species of the victim isn't anymore sufficient to ethically justify an act, and therefore legalize the act, than their sex is. Individual rights/autonomy are only human-exclusive if you buy into some religious/mythological notion...or have some leftovers from when you did. There is no reason to take the NAP or any other moral theory (or lack thereof) and just stop applying it arbitrarily. It should apply to everything (in this case, all animals, not just human animals), or the theory is flawed (or its application is). 

_Rothbard shows how a man can never truly sell himself into slavery because in the future his future mind may change because he changes or the conditions change. This is why contracts have term limits and aren't eternal suicide pacts (except the Constitution, of course...and all other "social contracts"). This is why slaves can still runaway...their body might be in bondage, but their mind can never be if they don't allow it. Once they have that wall of defense against slavery in the mind, they can act on it when able...like breaking tools, faking ill, and running away. That is pure unadulterated evidence of the presence, even in slavery, of individual rights/autonomy. The same thing that makes human slavery of a voluntary nature impossible and paradoxical (if it is slavery, it cannot be voluntary, and insofar as it is voluntary, it cannot be slavery - as slavery is forced labor) is the same thing that makes "moral"/legal animal abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc. impossible. The animal tries to run away....and that is evidence of autonomy. That is inalienable to them; their will and preferences. You can't simply beat it out of them or train it out of them...each animal is an individual, not simply copies of the others. They have their own memories and personality (hugely shaped by youth experiences, much like human children).  It is inarguable that animals like dogs, cats, and cattle aren't individuals. Are they persons? No. That's a separate legal distinction...but corporations and governments aren't people either....they are collectives claiming to be individuals (made up by persons, but itself not a person - hence, you can't put a corporation or govt in jail, and often can't blame the individual members for what they individually did wrong because of this magic shield of the govt or corp as an individual person capable of liability that is deflected from the individual's responsible). But not being a person doesn't mean you are without individuality, and as a consequence rights/autonomy (which is provable, as I already explained)._ 

*As long as ANY BEING has a will to defy, and you defy that will when it isn't for defensive reasons (to beat hunger, a disease, or likely intruders, etc,), you are coercing that being without necessity, and ARE in fact acting in an immoral manner. If voluntaryist morality was reflected in law, as it once was before the state existed (and probably to a lesser degree than today's tech would allow for us in the present), then surely it would be illegal to inject such coercion into a non-coercive situation, and totally ignore the absolute truth that an individual will was violated for no reason whatsoever. 
*

_You do not have a "right" to abuse animals._ That's like the Hobbesean and Lockean claims that society and civilization only came about when men gave up their mutual "rights" to murder, rape, and steal from one another...which history and anthropology shows was not true. Life isn't a "war of all against all" without a ruling class of legalized initiated coercion. You can't give up a right you never had to begin with...and for the same reasons humans have never had any "right" to murder, rape, and steal, are the same reasons they have no "right" to give up or be infringed upon when they are restrained from unnecessarily coercing (abusing, abandoning, neglecting, etc.) an animal. You have no property right (an alienable right, NOT an inalienable right) that overrules a BEING's right (or individual autonomy) to not be coerced out of its will for no good reason (and that will is INALIENABLE). In libertarian thought, REAL libertarian thought, the individual is the standard, and all coercive acts MUST be justified to be called moral/legal. The burden of proof for coercion is on the coercer...not the coerced. The animal need not be able to state their case for their abuse to be defined, identified, and stopped. These animals ARE inarguably individuals (non-persons, but individuals) with a will (otherwise how do they disobey your authority and run away? And if you remark "instinct", then why not argue pure determinism with humans and say we only act on "instinct"? Use interspecies empathy to see the equivalency), and as such they have a will of their own and can be coerced, and dislike the coercion (even if they don't understand why). To justify seeing such beings as nothing more than property is to me illogical...and furthermore, any argument used to say animals are just property can be used to say children are just property...minus the arbitrary "humans only" argument, with its never-defined-the-same-twice meaning of "human".

I am a big believer in private property and using it to make herds of animals private property to save them from extinction (as is being done for some now in Africa and India) or endangerment, defeating the problem of tragedy of the commons. I DO see that animals in some cases (like food, personal defense, health benefits) can be morally coerced...in the same way I can coerce when I need to defend myself from nature or other humans. All bets are off when survival is on the line...we all should know that by now. But to sadistically harm or imminently endanger an animal for no real reason, be it a human animal (WE ARE ANIMALS, so we already believe in animal rights...we just ignore that fact to create a wall of "we're better" on this principle, turning it unfortunately from a matter of principle to a matter of arbitrary degree) or another species of animal, is WRONG. You kill pests because of health reasons...that's fine. You keep pets for safety and health benefits...that's fine. You eat animals as part of your diet...even that's fine (although I can think of some cases where it might be excessive...but that hurts your health, so you kind of reap that one)...that's fine. But abuse, neglect, and abandonment of something with a will all its own? I $#@!ing think not. _Where is the consideration for the liberty and justice for the animal with a will all its own? Where is the acknowledgement that where you have a will, you have an individual, and logically you also therefore have rights/autonomy (what level of rights/autonomy is dependent of many factors, as we already know looking at children and the severely mentally disturbed or handicapped, and self defensive situations, whether vs man or vs nature)?_

----------


## ProIndividual

> I fully subscribe to your opinion. 
> 
> For what it's worth, I like to create, not to destroy. The world is a beautiful place, I accept that people have different opinions but when someone is abusing animals I don't keep my mouth shut. If you plan on eating it, kill it, if you don't then show some respect. Thats my opinion basically.
> 
> Edit, *it is our morality that separates us from beasts if anything does*...


Then we must apply it to beasts or remain beasts ourselves.

----------


## ProIndividual

> *Hans-Hermann Hoppe* in the introduction to _The Ethics of Liberty_:
> 
> Animals are incapable of engaging in propositional exchange with humans. Indeed, it is this inability which defines them as non-rational and distinguishes them categorically from men as rational animals. Unable to communicate, and without rationality, animals are by their very nature incapable of recognizing or possessing any rights.
> 
> Rather than rightful moral agents, animals are objects of possible human control and appropriation. Thus Rothbard confirmed the biblical pronouncement that man had been given dominion over every living thing, in the sea, on earth, and in the sky.


My pet dog wasn't incapable of recognizing property or rights/autonomy. He understood territory and therefore where our property started and ended very well, and knew certain coercions were wrong. "Wrong" according to what? According to the same way children are taught morality...a bit of instinct inherent in the species, and a bit of being taught. Empathy is a taught behavior...it is not inherited. Without empathy, morality doesn't exist. So, dogs are like small children in intellect and grasp of property and morals...but there is a grasp. 

And rights/autonomy isn't dependent on grasping them anyways. If so, then the severely mentally disturbed or handicapped incapable of grasping property or morals would have NO rights. In fact, they have rights...just less so than people who are capable of consent. Children, severely mentally disturbed or handicapped, and all OTHER animals (humans ARE animals factually, so the principle is we as libertarians already believe in animal rights...our intellectuals are just drawing very arbitrary lines as to which animals we'll cover under the definition of "human" - which is anything but a uniform meaning among them and their arguments).

Individual rights/autonomy is ONLY dependent on one thing: The presence of an individual. The individual will to resist coercion, and many other psychological and biological factors that are less important, evidences an individual existing. Without an individual will, separate from some hive-mind like the Borg from Star Trek, then no individual exists. You can be an individual, but not a person, both legally and logically. If an individual will exists, then individuality exists, and if an individual exists then they are entitled to the same rights/autonomy as anyone else of equal standing (obviously children and the mentally disturbed/handicapped, or even animals, aren't of equal standing to normal adults of our species with a full ability to consent by way of age and lack of severe mental issues). If a dog can choose to runaway when another dog refuses to run, then you have an individual. Not a person, but an individual. The will to defy authority is the proof (the same proof Rothbard uses to show "voluntary slavery" is an oxymoron - the slave's will to disobey, separate from any other slave's will to disobey or obey, proves individual autonomy, and therefore entitles them to the individual rights Rothbard's belief in natural law entails). Since these kinds of animals are individuals, they must also then have some modicum of the rights/autonomy afforded to individuals according to individualist philosophy. Anything else violates the principle for some arbitrary degree (of what animals we'll claim have rights just by being individuals, of what animals have individual autonomy by way of species, not provable criteria like individual will, etc.).

The religious part is fitting, given that isn't affirmed via logic, but upheld via leftover submission to such an archaic and immoral mythology. Men raised in such a way, who even become atheists, can have leftover crap like that running through their belief systems. It's hard to get all the mythology out of your philosophy when that's how you're raised. I'm not an atheist, but I admit belief in a Deity isn't logically valid (can't be proven once the affirmative claim that their is a god is made), and therefore needs to stay completely out of my philosophy where logic is required for discernment of truth. They didn't affirm jack...they rationalized to fit the already established belief. We all have done it at one time or the other. 

Hoppe is a great man, but is wrong here and on immigration as well. He is as incorrect to think you can valuate immigrants' addition to our economy in the present (the children of poor immigrants start new businesses at a far higher rate that middle class and rich natives' children - see Google as an example of a company America wouldn't have if we used Hoppe's ideas on valuating individuals based on how their collective families arrive here), and thereby justifiably limit immigration beyond market conditions of a voluntary nature, as he is incorrect about animal rights (outside of the human animal). 

And Rothbard is who I used to explain the impossibility of "voluntary slavery". Those same principles I expounded upon in my long post above to show, when applied consistently, no animal (human or otherwise) of sufficient intelligence can be deprived of their individual will, and therefore their individuality. It's hard to say we get our rights/autonomy from our existence as individuals, but then to deny individuals in other species those same consistent application of rights/autonomy in our PRINCIPLES (not matters of arbitrary degree).

Like minarchists, who try and rely on the smarts and achievements of long dead geniuses, I contend too many anarchists (voluntaryists) try and rely on smarts and achievements of our long dead or aging intellectuals. At some point we have to further the ideas, and by doing so call out our heroes on their small amounts (relative to other philosophers of other philosophies) of bull$#@!. All human philosophy works this way...it advances over time. Taoist anarchism from 6th century BC doesn't resemble ours as much as 19th century anarchist philosophy...and Rothbard is more reflective than Diogenes of Sinope. It always advances via better and better and refined arguments. We MUST find disagreement with them or stagnate and die. Like Taoists resemble us more than statists, whether past or present, we will always resemble Rothbard and the 19th century anarchists that inspired him. But we do him and others a disservice to look at their ideas as dogma...one day I HOPE that future libertarians look back at what I write as flawed and in need of improvement to better advance us toward liberty and justice. That means the movement is alive and well, and the philosophy is adapting and overcoming, instead of dying or being co-opted. It's how the Founders were great for their time for establishing liberalism over monarchism, but we wish to go further and take those ideas to their logical conclusion (as anarchists). In centuries to come our ideas will be laughed at by our successors...but nonetheless we will have paved the way for those future libertarians. In reality those future people should look at out ideas as the Founders ideas appear to us...good, but not good enough.


Tradition and majority opinion, even among intellectuals, isn't a sufficient argument to persuade me on this topic. They are, after all, informal logical fallacies. Hoppe and Rothbard can be wrong, and have been in the past. They aren't prophets, and their words aren't gospel.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Sooo having heard many of the arguments for and against this animal rights issue, this libertarian, believes that, animals don't have rights. But, humans have moral obligations regarding the welfare of the animals of which we are the stewards.


If they have no rights, where does your moral obligation come from, since libertarianism derives what is moral or not from where one's exercise of his rights infringes upon (overlaps coercively) with the rights of others?

DO you see why you admit rights the moment you admit ethical obligation?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If they have no rights, where does your moral obligation come from, since libertarianism derives what is moral or not from where one's exercise of his rights infringes upon (overlaps coercively) with the rights of others?


 Morality is bigger than libertarianism.  It's immoral to sleep around with prostitutes (at least most people would say it is, and I would agree).  But it's not unlibertarian.




> Do you see why you admit rights the moment you admit ethical obligation?


 Actually, you don't.  You may feel any number of ethical obligations to any number of persons or even objects, and you will not likely be able to provide a rigorous, ironclad proof of why everyone everywhere ought to or must feel those same ethical obligations.  The specious, mushy-headed reasons you _can_ come up with may or may not be couched in the language of "rights."  There's certainly no necessity that they be.  They could be based on any rationale you like.

----------


## William Tell

> If they have no rights, where does your moral obligation come from, since libertarianism derives what is moral or not from where one's exercise of his rights infringes upon (overlaps coercively) with the rights of others?
> 
> DO you see why you admit rights the moment you admit ethical obligation?


Many of us do not subscribe to libertarianism as a religion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Here is how I would sum up your posts, ProIndividual:

Libertarians generally argue that NAP only applies to humans, because humans generally have a free will and a self-conscious and rational mind, as well as a moral understanding. Most humans can therefore understand NAP and can be held accountable for their actions. Some critics (that's you!) claim that although these abilities are common they are not universal characteristics of the species. Young children and mentally handicapped persons may not have them (e.g. a person in a coma). When the NAP applies to them as well as to normal people, as supporters of NAP agree, critics state that logically NAP should apply to all life forms with similar characteristics (see the _Argument from Marginal Cases_). This stance would lead to similar rights for sufficiently intelligent animals.
*Your entire argument amounts to an argument from marginal cases.*  As do, of course, the arguments of nearly all animal rights supporters, especially when interfacing with rights-based libertarianism.  Let me quote from the nice Atlas Society article I referenced earlier:


*The Marginal-Humans Argument*
Like almost every other defender of animal rights, Regan and Singer depend on the so-called marginal-humans argument, which begins with the following observation: There are normal paradigmatic humans; they have the features and capacities that we think of when we think of humans: reasoning ability, normal emotional responses, and so forth. Then there are those outside of that paradigm--marginal humans--that lack some or all of these capacities. These include infants, young children, the severely mentally retarded, the permanently comatose, and probably the senile.

The argument goes something like this: If normal, adult humans have rights by virtue of being rational beings, then, according to the marginal-humans argument, infants and severely retarded humans cannot have rights on this basis because they are not capable of being rational. So, either rationality is not the sole basis for rights, or these marginal humans do not have rights.

This seems to put the defender of rights in a precarious position. He can either reject the idea that marginal humans have rights and thus should be given legal protection against harm and abuse; or he must modify the basis for rights to include marginal humans—and along with them, it seems, at least some higher-order animals.

We can see this problem in the following dilemma from Singer: "If we do not reject the belief that it is wrong to kill severely intellectually disabled humans for food, then we must reject the belief that it is all right to kill animals at the same level of mental development for the same purpose" (Peter Singer, "Animals and the Value of Life," Matters of Life and Death, New York: McGraw Hill, 1993, p. 306).

We either accept some consideration—like rationality or intelligence—as the criterion for rights and accept that infants and the severely retarded might be treated as we treat monkeys or pigs, or we accept that rights are not limited to humans and that rights-holders will include, at least, some animals.

One may be willing to bite the bullet on the treatment of marginal humans and accept that they can be treated as we treat non-human animals. However, most people are not willing to say that and will likely see such a conclusion as a sign that something is wrong in the theory of rights being presented. If the theory allows for infanticide or something similar, it seems wiser to reject or revise the theory of rights than to accept this outcome.

In short, the purpose of the argument regarding the position of marginal humans is to show that traditional theories of rights fail to establish that all humans, including marginal and borderline cases, have rights. This, then, makes room for the new theories presented by Regan and Singer—and these new theories will include rights and protections for at least some animals.
I think I addressed this argument at least marginally well earlier in the thread.  I'll flesh it out a little more.  Even members of the human species lacking key human features are still _potential_ humans.  Infants will develop.  And even the severely retarded may, it seems very likely given the state of biotechnological progression, be brought into full possession of their faculties at some not-too-distant date.  Their _potential_ for eventually becoming rights-bearing lifeforms requires us to respect them somewhat throughout their lifecycle.  We are not rational, thinking, acting men 100% of our lifetimes.  During the first nine months in the womb, certainly, and for at least 6 months after that (probably longer) we do not have rationality and consciousness.  Also often during a period of time at the end of our lives.  For that matter, we lack these key human characteristics for that significant percentage of our lives we call being asleep!  But just because we are asleep, or otherwise at a moment in our life when we do not possess full rationality and consciousness, does not make us entirely lose all our rights, all of our human nature.  Because we still have that _potential_.  Because we are a persistent being and we have the prerequisites to rights (rationality and consciousness, that is: sapience) during _part_ of our lives, that imbues us with at least part of those rights even during those times when we don't have the prerequisites.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

One more thing:




> it's some undefinable nonsense line they draw as to what makes us human or not.


The situation is this:  I can take a survey of thousands of people from all around the world, who speak thousands of different languages, asking them to sort out 20 humans from 20 non-human animals, and they will all define the exact same 20 to be humans and the exact same 20 to be animals.  100% of them.

That does not seem like undefinable nonsense to me.  It seems, rather, that the nonsense would be in pretending to not know the difference between animals and humans.

----------


## navy-vet

What William and Helmuth said....

----------


## fr33

I guarantee you that with most vegetable and grain harvests, many species of animals are forced to suffer from their main source of food being eliminated/harvested. Starvation is a hell of a way to go but that is what happens when you pluck the food that a population of rodents or insects are depending on.

----------


## osan

> There is a sticky statement. And its only a decade or two away from advances in AI or genetic experiments that are going to make it a really sticky statement.


Well stated.

As someone who has worked in the heaviest AI imaginable and whose master's degree in computer science was all about AI, I can stake my claim to a place way down that rabbit hole.  The sorts of silly statements to which you counter, above, stand one day to put those who make them in a most uncomfortable light.

So be it.

----------


## osan

> Non-human people? People are "human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. " (dictionary.com) So try this line of bullcrap again. Animals are not people.


Because dictionary.com is the final authority on this.  Got it.




> Thus they do not have rights and the comparison of animals to slaves is simply idiotic.


Proof by assertion. FAIL.




> Neither are they analogues of humans.


Proof by assertion. FAIL.




> How animals are treated is left entirely up to their owner.


Not in my world.

[/quote]Treating an animal cruelly may be *immoral*, but there is plenty of immorality that isn't and shouldn't be against the law.[/QUOTE]

There is your failure - not just immoral, but criminal.  It is one thing to take the life of an animal cleanly.  It is a very different thing to torture it.

If you disagree, fine.  Not that big a deal.  You act pursuant to your belief and I will to mine.  Chances are we will never collide.

----------


## osan

> I'm not sure what the libertarian solution is to rampant corruption, violence, and lawlessness.


Solutions are simple, in principle.  If the act is criminal, you treat it as crime.  This ain't rocket surgery.

----------


## osan

> I thought my point was clear. It is immoral to kill or harm a human. If you stop short of giving ALL animals equal status to humans, then your laws will be inconsistent. For example, will you outlaw killing a dog, except for by animal shelters? 
> At the same time, will it remain legal to kill a dear by gun or bow?


OK, I now understand your point and it is well taken.  Perhaps that is the rock and hard place between which we stand.  Torture is clearly criminal to my view and should be treated as such.  Killing is more nuanced.

It's all very ugly $#@! to my mind, but that is the nature of this world.  I accept it, but I also accept my perceptions as valid, at least for me.  I choose to act this way or that - others may share in some of it.  Others still, act very differently.  I do what I can to be on good terms, but I also accept the fact that certain brads of action are going to precipitate my interference.  One can only do his best as he navigates the path of his life.

----------


## osan

> No, I firmly disagree. A man can attempt to cleanly kill, and fail, and the animal my manage to hide and expire after many painful hours. So a law requiring clean killing is silly in my opinion. And will lead to grief for mankind, and I man is more valuable than any animal.


I did not call for a law REQUIRING clean killing.  I simply stated that a clean kill <> inept kill.  Let us be precise.

----------


## osan

> The life of 10,000 animals is not worth 1 human life in my opinion.


Depends on the animal.  If a stranger came upon my land and attempted to maim one of my chickens, he would meet with results he would rue the remainder of his life, however many seconds that might be.

----------


## idiom

What this conversation does highlight is how bloody arbitrary the foundation of the Rothbardian thread of libertarian philosophy is. It has no proper axioms, narrow arbitrary definitions and a tonne of inconsistency.

This is because, as Rothbard admitted, its more of a codified cultural viewpoint than an actual argument from first principles. It has a lot of "This is right.... Because."

Thus major proponents can have fundamental disagreements on whether slavery is okay, whether killing children is okay, whether intellectual property exists. Fraud for example is wrong 'just because' and is barely ever worked on.

Humans basically have rights and others don't, just because. Its a line that some would like to extend to animals, and some would like to retract back from not all humans.

----------


## BV2

Rights accompany intelligence.  All animals have degrees of intelligence.  Animals have rights.  They just aren't very good at protecting them.

----------

