Has anyone else read this? I just started it 2 days ago and its very good book I am interested in it. I don't agree with it 100% though. I disagree where its says all animals are equal I translate that to be all humans are equal and obviously we are not. Just wanted to share my view of it so far and see what everyone else has to say about it.
The "equal" deal turns on the meaning in the particular usage. The most basic sense of equality does not apply here, for it means sameness. The sense in which all people are equal relates largely to the property right. We are equal in that we are each the proprietors of our own lives. Nobody else may legitimately claim superior rights to the life of another. Our just and legitimate claims to life itself are also equal. This must be the case, for if Johnny held a higher claim to life than does Jimmy, there is nothing in principle from barring Johnny from enslaving or killing Jimmy. In such a world the only arbiter of "right" is might. From a purely practical standpoint this would not prove very satisfactory, but the non-propriety of this arrangement can be demonstrated in other ways as well.
If we accept as the base premise that our claims to life are equal, the entire body of natural law follows axiomatically therefrom. If, however, we reject this primary postulate, and entire can of worms is opened in the form of the most obvious questions. For example, if we are not equal in our just claims to life, it follows that some hold superior claims to the right to live. Who are these people? By what standard are they judged superior to the rest? Whence came the standard? Who established it? By what authority did they do so? Whence arose that authority? How do we know that it is legitimate? Who says so? By what standard is that decision made? We can go on and on ad infinitum down the chain of questions with no absolute bottom ever to be found. This very nature of the assumption of unequal claims should tip one off to the fact that it is the wrong answer. I have found nature to be very compact and elegant in its truth. Rejection of the postulate of equal claims is decidedly non-compact, arbitrary in its very fabric, and eminently inelegant. What follows from acceptance of the postulate of equal claims is indeed small, efficient, elegant, and beautifully symmetrical. I personally hold vanishingly small doubt that the postulate of equal claims is untrue. This is what it means when one refers to "equality" among people. The socialist/progressive/communist sorts have it hopelessly backward, revealing to the world what corrupt and scurvy little imbeciles they really are. There - I said it and I feel better.
Given the common understanding of "equality" it is no surprise that you disagree. Good to see your brain in in gear and going somewhere.
Try this:
http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/12/common-principles-of-free-living.html
Maybe it will help clarify things in better detail.
I could just imagine the conversations between him and AF. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. 
