My Neighbors Just Ate their Dog (Seriously). What is the libertarian stance on this?

[Revolution9]

Funny man. But plants do have souls, like animals, so you bring up a good point. It is still bad to kill plants. There is an exception, but I won't get into that here at this time.

That is why holy men have floated over lawns since time immemorial.

HTH
Rev9

 

[Bnewfield]

I would probably be outraged if I saw that... But I don't think there should be a law against it. I think there should be a law that you have to kill food animals as quickly and humanely as possible, and it doesn't sound like he had the dog's welfare in mind.

You can't legally determine which animals are OK to eat and which ones aren't, though. Where would you draw the line? Like horses: some people consider horses pets and companions; others think of them as making good food (personally, I've wanted to try horse meat for a while now)

 

[Deborah K]

And I think you do not understand what he means when he says that. This theory is then confirmed by:

A post in which you miss the distinction between "local ordinance" and "contract community". Libertarians aren't opposed to rules. We're opposed to illegitimate rules, made by those with no legitimate authority. People have the right to make whatever contracts they like, and contracts may bind people to follow any number of restrictive rules.

You seem to me to be mincing concepts. A "local ordinance" that is agreed upon by the community is no different in than what is "contracted" by a "community".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You seem to me to be mincing concepts. A "local ordinance" that is agreed upon by the community is no different in than what is "contracted" by a "community".

Oh, nowadays are local ordinances passed by unanimous consent of those to whom it applies?

That's the difference. I can agree to have someone command me when and when not to breathe by joining an orchestra, but such a restriction can only be made with my personal consent. It cannot be made by a vote or a caucus or a bureaucracy or a representative body or a referendum or any other delusional process -- I, personally, must agree to limit myself in this way.

Under libertarianism, I may buy up 50 square miles of land and form a city on my land wherein the rule is that everyone must walk on their hands at all times. Or have no free speech, or be disarmed, or not use drugs, or not eat dog meat, or not torture dogs which they own. But I can only make those rules for land which I own.

"Contract" and "ordinance" are miles apart, across an infinitely huge chasm. And that chasm's name? Consent.

 

[FindLiberty]

Come on. Is this a troll thread about some nuts eating dog meat?

I say, live and let live. The only possible issue is WHO OWNS THE DOG?

We feed people beef. What about those cows? Aren't they sacred too?

And if they want to feed squirrel to the nuts... just say nuts to the squirrels.

 

[Liberty4life]

try video taping it and posting it on your facebook to bring awareness, let them know.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Come on. Is this a troll thread about some nuts eating dog meat?

I say, live and let live. The only possible issue is WHO OWNS THE DOG?

We feed people beef. What about those cows? Aren't they sacred too?

And if they want to feed squirrel to the nuts... just say nuts to the squirrels.

We don't hang cows and beat them while they come to a slow agonizing wheezing death.

 

[beastmode986]

its disgusting and cruel and as much as im against it it was his dog but still i would have done the same thing you did

 

[Wesker1982]

It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.

This.

If animals had rights, then you would be violating them even if you ate one for survival. I would imagine most animal rights advocates would admit that it is not wrong to eat an animal for survival. This ultimately means that they do not actually have rights at all. Situations of survival do not make or break whether or not one has rights. And if you argue that eating animals for survival is immoral, then you would have to argue that much of human existence itself is immoral since it used to depend on animals (as "slaves" or as food).

Most people agree that humans have rights, but no one argues that it is ok to eat a 4 year old if you are hungry enough. So by this standard I would say that even the "it is ok if it is for survival" crowd is inconsistent unless they think it is ok to eat a live 4 year old.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This.

If animals had rights, then you would be violating them even if you ate one for survival. I would imagine most animal rights advocates would admit that it is not wrong to eat an animal for survival. This ultimately means that they do not actually have rights at all. Situations of survival do not make or break whether or not one has rights. And if you argue that eating animals for survival is immoral, then you would have to argue that much of human existence itself is immoral since it used to depend on animals (as "slaves" or as food).

Most people agree that humans have rights, but no one argues that it is ok to eat a 4 year old if you are hungry enough. So by this standard I would say that even the "it is ok if it is for survival" crowd is inconsistent unless they think it is ok to eat a live 4 year old.

This is self evident fact.

The lion has no concept of or respect for the "rights" of the gazelle.

Nor does the bluefish for the squid.

And so on...

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...7iLT4SEAcTq2AW-kZnnCQ&ved=0CEcQ9QEwAw&dur=929

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

honestly, i bet eating those dogs were probably more healthy than eating a cow that was pump full of antibiotics, hormones and growth agents.

i am around chinese a lot. i've probably eaten more different animals than most people here and parts of animals that others throw away XD.. snakes, kangaroo, dog, bats, aligator, oxen penis, pig uterus, chicken hearts.

 

[LibertyEagle]

honestly, i bet eating those dogs were probably more healthy than eating a cow that was pump full of antibiotics, hormones and growth agents.

i am around chinese a lot. i've probably eaten more different animals than most people here and parts of animals that others throw away XD.. snakes, kangaroo, dog, bats, aligator, oxen penis, pig uterus, chicken hearts.

It is not so much the fact that he ate the dogs, it is that he tortured them.

 

[FindLiberty]

A few poor dogs suffered. Caged cats are tortured as they are rendered for their "freshly oxygenated" meat in some cultures...
America's corporate food business makes up for it all in sheer volume. e.g., Chickens don't have an easy time of it either.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

corporate farms are horrible... when they get caught with abuse or cruelty, you can't help but wonder how many millions of chickens died in painful, slow deaths. not many family farm products in the cities =S...

 

[thoughtomator]

I do believe the libertarian position on eating dogs is "bon appetit!"

 

[smithtg]

bumping this thread to honor obama! I was on vacation last week and cant believe this thread is 22 pages - message to romney campaign - dog meat wiki here!

 

[azxd]

bumping this thread to honor obama! I was on vacation last week and cant believe this thread is 22 pages - message to romney campaign - dog meat wiki here!

Gotta keep it going

Dog Wars Escalate: Barack Obama Ate Dog Meat

 

[smithtg]

dogs in america unite! No MITT, no OBAMA. What choice does a dog have? Ride on top of a car or end up on a dinner plate

 

[Deborah K]

Oh, nowadays are local ordinances passed by unanimous consent of those to whom it applies?

That's the difference. I can agree to have someone command me when and when not to breathe by joining an orchestra, but such a restriction can only be made with my personal consent. It cannot be made by a vote or a caucus or a bureaucracy or a representative body or a referendum or any other delusional process -- I, personally, must agree to limit myself in this way.

Under libertarianism, I may buy up 50 square miles of land and form a city on my land wherein the rule is that everyone must walk on their hands at all times. Or have no free speech, or be disarmed, or not use drugs, or not eat dog meat, or not torture dogs which they own. But I can only make those rules for land which I own.

"Contract" and "ordinance" are miles apart, across an infinitely huge chasm. And that chasm's name? Consent.

Ordinances are passed by elected officials representing their community- the definition of a republic. If the community doesn't want the ordinance passed, they get involved and pressure their elected officials to vote against it. Likewise, if the community wants the ordinance passed, they pressure their representatives into passing it. Because it doesn't always work that way is not a testament to the failure of the system, it's a testament to the failure of the community to care enough to get involved.

And "unanimous consent" is a pipe dream. Where you have differing, independent thinking, you will always have discourse. Hence the beauty of a republic.