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

[Yieu]

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.

Yes, and as a Hindu, I recognize that it is not better to eat a cow than it is to eat a dog.

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

I think it's safe to call factory farm conditions torture, just saying. I do not want to get into a big debate over that, though.

And I would not tell anyone not to kill (i.e. eat) animals because it is wrong to tell people what to do. Nor would I judge them.

I will just continue treating animals the way God told us to in the Bhagavad Gita and other scripture, which is not to harm them.

It is not my business what other people do. If I were to judge others, I would be judged for judging.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ordinances are passed by elected officials representing their community- the definition of a republic [a rights-violating, socialistic, communistic process, which I support and I think that you should, too.]

Actually, you not only think I should support this laughable communist farce of a system, you demand that I support it, and if I do not support it, you wish me to be kidnapped and thrown into a cage. I, umm,... "strenuously object." Or this there an ordinance against strenuously objecting, too? Well then in that case I suppose I just quietly live with it. Because we're no doubt careening towards the "Love it or Leave it" level of discourse; I can already hear the gears in your head.

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

Hence the beauty of the market. The type of beautiful "discourse" you get in a socialistic system like a "republic" is the kind of discourse the OP's dog owner may have had with his dog:

"You are a dog. I have decided to beatcha and eatcha. Remember to vote on March 24th! Make your voice heard! Our system depends on citizen participation."

If you disagree with the beater-eater's policies, the Common People -- who are totally In Charge -- can elect new Representatives to the Soviet Council. If the Council is abusing them, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Unanimous consent, if it had never been tried, would indeed sound almost too good to be true. A "pipe dream," as you call it. However, this is the principle upon which the free market is built, and to the extent it is the free market it never violates that principle. So we have a very large portion of our world and our society operating on the principle of unanimous consent. The portion doing so is, very noticeably and very dramatically, the most successful, pleasant, and humane portion. And within that portion, you can indeed have "differing, independent thinking," and you will indeed "always have discourse." That discourse is the civilized, adult discourse of the type that does not bring a gun to the table to shoot any uncooperative members of the minority the head after the discussion and a vote determines which side is in the minority.

Your communistic "republic" system shoots people in the head when they peaceably disagree. That is the sort of free discourse and independent thinking that you find in a communist system like a republic.

The market allows everyone to peaceably disagree forever. It will never step in and "resolve" the argument of Mac vs. PC, or Pepsi vs. Coke. The parties can just go on disagreeing forever and ever, always trying to persuade or inform the other side of the merits of their side, but never able to (in the terminology of the republic) "do anything about it," that is, never able to shove their solution down the opposing party's throats, and to finally put an end to their ignorant foolishness. In contrast to the communism of a republic, which periodically selects a winning group (every two years, or four years or whatever) which then gets to boss around the losing group until the next winner-selection, the market never need select a winner. In the socialism of a republic, the republic either implements A or B. In the unanimous consent of a free market, A and B are not mutually exclusive; both can flourish side by side.

The system of unanimous consent has given us peanut butter, projector screens, patio chairs, prosthesis limbs, phosphorescent sticky stars, and portable photo printers, all in such staggeringly vast quantities they are available to average and even to poor people. What has your system of socialism (which you call a "republic") given us? Dead bodies? Influenza? The celebration of torture? The glorification of mass murder? Where's the beef?

No, sorry, your preferred socialist system is a total flop, just as all socialisms are. Unanimous consent, on the other hand, is an astounding success. It is the most successful system the world has ever seen. And you want to say it's a pipe dream? Well, true: if it had never happened, if we were not living in the middle of the results, then one could hardly fault a skeptic for his doubts. All laundry, washing, and other household chores delegated to machines, with the homemaker fulfilling her tasks via occasional button-pushing? Voyages of hundreds and even thousands of miles made with trivial ease and minimal expanse, often undertaken while the voyager is sleeping? An impossible world, an impossible dream.

 

[Athan]

This is what local ordinances are for. Even state laws can get involved to a degree. This isn't the place for federal laws however.

 

[Deborah K]

Actually, you not only think I should support this laughable communist farce of a system, you demand that I support it, and if I do not support it, you wish me to be kidnapped and thrown into a cage. I, umm,... "strenuously object." Or this there an ordinance against strenuously objecting, too? Well then in that case I suppose I just quietly live with it. Because we're no doubt careening towards the "Love it or Leave it" level of discourse; I can already hear the gears in your head.

Hence the beauty of the market. The type of beautiful "discourse" you get in a socialistic system like a "republic" is the kind of discourse the OP's dog owner may have had with his dog:

"You are a dog. I have decided to beatcha and eatcha. Remember to vote on March 24th! Make your voice heard! Our system depends on citizen participation."

If you disagree with the beater-eater's policies, the Common People -- who are totally In Charge -- can elect new Representatives to the Soviet Council. If the Council is abusing them, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Unanimous consent, if it had never been tried, would indeed sound almost too good to be true. A "pipe dream," as you call it. However, this is the principle upon which the free market is built, and to the extent it is the free market it never violates that principle. So we have a very large portion of our world and our society operating on the principle of unanimous consent. The portion doing so is, very noticeably and very dramatically, the most successful, pleasant, and humane portion. And within that portion, you can indeed have "differing, independent thinking," and you will indeed "always have discourse." That discourse is the civilized, adult discourse of the type that does not bring a gun to the table to shoot any uncooperative members of the minority the head after the discussion and a vote determines which side is in the minority.

Your communistic "republic" system shoots people in the head when they peaceably disagree. That is the sort of free discourse and independent thinking that you find in a communist system like a republic.

The market allows everyone to peaceably disagree forever. It will never step in and "resolve" the argument of Mac vs. PC, or Pepsi vs. Coke. The parties can just go on disagreeing forever and ever, always trying to persuade or inform the other side of the merits of their side, but never able to (in the terminology of the republic) "do anything about it," that is, never able to shove their solution down the opposing party's throats, and to finally put an end to their ignorant foolishness. In contrast to the communism of a republic, which periodically selects a winning group (every two years, or four years or whatever) which then gets to boss around the losing group until the next winner-selection, the market never need select a winner. In the socialism of a republic, the republic either implements A or B. In the unanimous consent of a free market, A and B are not mutually exclusive; both can flourish side by side.

The system of unanimous consent has given us peanut butter, projector screens, patio chairs, prosthesis limbs, phosphorescent sticky stars, and portable photo printers, all in such staggeringly vast quantities they are available to average and even to poor people. What has your system of socialism (which you call a "republic") given us? Dead bodies? Influenza? The celebration of torture? The glorification of mass murder? Where's the beef?

No, sorry, your preferred socialist system is a total flop, just as all socialisms are. Unanimous consent, on the other hand, is an astounding success. It is the most successful system the world has ever seen. And you want to say it's a pipe dream? Well, true: if it had never happened, if we were not living in the middle of the results, then one could hardly fault a skeptic for his doubts. All laundry, washing, and other household chores delegated to machines, with the homemaker fulfilling her tasks via occasional button-pushing? Voyages of hundreds and even thousands of miles made with trivial ease and minimal expanse, often undertaken while the voyager is sleeping? An impossible world, an impossible dream.

So now, I'm putting guns to your head? And now a Republic is socialism, or worse communism? You have taken the discourse to an illogical conclusion and are couching it in free enterprise. You're not interested in sharing views and debating, you just want to win the argument and are now resorting to unfounded accusations because your argument is weak.

Further, I think it's pretty atrocious and disgusting for a poster to take another poster's quote and change it to make that person sound tyrannical. Shameful really.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So now, I'm putting guns to your head?

And also threatening to blow it off. Yes. That is what republics do. That is the nature of your system for which you are advocating. That is what it means to be a republic. If a system did not have the component of threatening blow people's head off, if that piece were missing, then that system would not be a republic. It would be something else. Probably something less socialist and more desirable (desirable to me, perhaps not to you).

Your system also regularly robs money from me, and occasionally it threatens to kidnap me and throw me into cages. Your system is just a barrel of fun.

And now a Republic is socialism, or worse communism?

It is both. Really socialism and communism are the same thing.

Do you know what any of these words mean? And can you explain the difference in them to me?

You have taken the discourse to an illogical conclusion and are couching it in free enterprise.

Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion? I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.

You're not interested in sharing views and debating, you just want to win the argument and are now resorting to unfounded accusations because your argument is weak.

If my argument is weak, it seems unlikely that I would win the argument.

Further, I think it's pretty atrocious and disgusting for a poster to take another poster's quote and change it to make that person sound tyrannical. Shameful really. [I am Shocked and Appalled!!! Have you no decency?]

 

[Deborah K]

And also threatening to blow it off. Yes. That is what republics do. That is the nature of your system for which you are advocating. That is what it means to be a republic. If a system did not have the component of threatening blow people's head off, if that piece were missing, then that system would not be a republic. It would be something else. Probably something less socialist and more desirable (desirable to me, perhaps not to you).

Your system also regularly robs money from me, and occasionally it threatens to kidnap me and throw me into cages. Your system is just a barrel of fun.

It is both. Really socialism and communism are the same thing.

Do you know what any of these words mean? And can you explain the difference in them to me?

Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion? I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.

If my argument is weak, it seems unlikely that I would win the argument.

You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant, and you went so far as to change my quote so that it aligned with your conclusion. That is a deceptive practice, and if that is the kind of philosophy you ascribe to try and win an argument, then the debate is over. In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between, socialism, communism, and a republic. Tying them all together as if they are the same thing shows a serious lack of knowledge. What you are describing is tyranny, and it doesn't go hand in hand with a republic, what a ridiculous assumption on your part.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

[Y]ou went so far as to change my [beautiful] quote

!!!!! !!!!!! Who would do such a thing?!?!?

That is a deceptive practice [, you LIARPANTS!!!1!]

Get serious. No one but the most weak-minded would think that you actually said those things. Scratch that; you did say them, but not using those words. That was the point. Look, plus I even used brackets wherever I added anything and ellipses wherever I left something out -- that is, I used accepted editorial practices.

In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between [evil, wicked, badguy] socialism, communism, and...[pure, holy, righteous] republic[anism].

Yet again I will ask:

Do you know what any of these words mean? And can you explain the difference in them to me?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion? I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.

You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant

No, I did not say that. Those are epithets you have brought up as labels for yourself; I never did. You do appear to be supporting and defending the principles of communism as embodied in the vaunted "local ordinance," and to specifically be a big booster of an evidently communist system which you call "a republic."

Does this mean you are a commie? I don't know... what does it mean to be a "commie"? Explain what you mean by that swearword and then we can mutually determine whether you personally fit its definition.

Does this mean you are a tyrant? That word has a more specific and standardized definition, I think. Are you controlling or interfering in the lives of others using aggressive coercion? If so, you are a tyrant. Are you trying to control the lives of others, or do you have the desire to do so? If so, you are a would-be or wanna-be tyrant. Now, are you advocating for the lives of others to be controlled via aggressive force? Advocating for that in this very thread? Yes. Yes, you are. Thus, one could with fairness say that you are an advocate for tyranny, at least for what I consider tyranny.

 

[flynn]

as long as the dog is killed humanely. Local ordinance can produce anti animal abuse laws.

 

[SkyPie]

Man. You guys probably would have called the cops on my grandma. When I was little she would hold conversations with me, sitting on a low bench and with her hands splayed near her feet. While we were talking about whatever, a chicken might wander close by. That was pretty much a fatal mistake. It was grab, twist, swing, smack, and then tie up the feet and ask me to go hang it from the laundry pole in the yard for a bit to drain and finish twitching.

Fresh chicken is delicious.

I can't imagine dog is particularly good, but I would not eat there. Your moral indignation is likely noted, but the idea that if someone kills a dog (rather than killing a chicken or a pig or a cow or a turkey or a deer) when they are young, they will probably become a serial killer... some of you are bonkers.

As for the assertion that the average person is going to be turned off by this discussion, consider that there are a lot of people in this nation who do hunt for food or sport, and who feel pretty strongly that they don't need some PETA PITA running after them screeching that they are awful people.

Totally agree.

 

[SkyPie]

Thats sick, in my view.
But then again, im a animal rights defender, so...

I accept that some animals die in order to feed the human, but a dog is a domestic animal, they will defend you with all their heart, they are really the man best friend, and you kill it like that? Sorry, but i would probably give a roundhouse kick to that subject.

Animals do not and cannot have Constitutional rights. We don't torture animals because it would corrupt our own morality. Even the word humane pertains to human beings.

Dogs aren't nearly as domesticated as you might think. Left to their own devices they quickly form packs where they can and have taken down lamas and deer. And who's unaware of dogs mauling human beings, the Golden Retriever/Labrador mix that just last month dismembered a two month old baby, or so many other vicious attacks?

Take note of your inclination to inflict pain on your fellow man with a "roundhouse kick" but not a dog that might rip the face off a defenseless child. The dog was used as food. Sustenance for human beings. What you suggest is law based purely on sentiment and not logic.

There is no way to live on this planet without killing other life forms. No way. All creatures do what they must in order to ensure their own survival. Animals are killed, maimed, and displaced by vegan diet. Imagine how many would be negatively effected were we all vegans. Think of the detrimental effect of faux fur that takes years and years to decompose. I find it so ironic that many of the same people who push for environmental issues and no meat eating are the same people who strenuously promote (with their mouths) the use of synthetics over natural materials including food.

 

[SkyPie]

This is what local ordinances are for. Even state laws can get involved to a degree. This isn't the place for federal laws however.

States have no more right to oppress the people than does the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Animals are and must remain property no matter what the state of Washington and such says.

 

[Exiled_LFOD]

You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant, and you went so far as to change my quote so that it aligned with your conclusion. That is a deceptive practice, and if that is the kind of philosophy you ascribe to try and win an argument, then the debate is over. In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between, socialism, communism, and a republic. Tying them all together as if they are the same thing shows a serious lack of knowledge. What you are describing is tyranny, and it doesn't go hand in hand with a republic, what a ridiculous assumption on your part.

When it is said democrats and republicans are two sides of the same statist coin they cheer.

When it is said theocracy, democracy, facism, socialism, communism, and republicanism are six sides of the same monopoly of force box they boo.

 

[Sam I am]

I am going to change your post in an attempt to make it less disturbing. Tell me if it works

So I live in Guam for another week and woke up this morning to a horrible sound coming from my Chuukese neighbors' yard. Went outside to check it out and saw that one of our neighbors had strung their cow up by some cable so that it was hanging from the tree and choking to death. I yelled at him to quit and get the cow down. Which he started to do but I didn't think the cow was going to make it so I ran inside to get a knife to cut it down. By the time I returned he was carrying the cow (still moving and making horrible sounds to the other side of the house). I climbed over the wall and grabbed their other calf and took it back to my house. By this time other cow[/b] was no where to be seen and had quit making sounds and the neighbor had driven off.

I called the police (I know but there is not a peta or livestock-abuse enforcement agency out here) and filed a complaint. This was the last remaining cow of the original three that neighbors had gotten about a year ago who mysteriously disappeared as well. After waiting an hour and filing a police report, the police officer basically said they weren't going to do anything and that I could file a complaint, but they were still not going to do anything even then. The head of the household came back and talked with the police and I was told to return the calf because it belonged to him, and the other cow strung up on the tree belonged to his brother who was doing the hanging.

cow eating is common and accepted on the island of Chuuk. But this not Chuuk. Guam has horrible animal protection laws and even worse enforcement and apparently even the lawmakers and enforcement are unsure of the legality of eating your own cow.

What is the libertarian stance on eating your own cow on your own property? Even if you accept the cultural differences of eating cow, isn't hanging the cow from a tree and beating it to death with a stick (the Chuukese custom) animal cruelty? dogs are put down more humanely than that.

Is there anything else I should have done? Can't help but think that I should have just grabbed both cows and got them to the animal shelter, but it sounds like legally I would have been in the wrong and I would have to worry about protecting my wife and newborn from reprisal as well as dealing with any legal repercussions while trying to get the hell out of here. Not something I had ever thought about or was ready to deal early Saturday morning.

As I am writing this, they are having a beef barbecue and my wife and I are eagerly packing to leave the island and get back to the states next week.

 

[SkyPie]

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.

No ordinance should be passed if it violates an individual's rights. The Fourteenth Amendment assures the states are held to the Bill of Rights. Animals are and must remain property. You cannot tell people what they can and cannot do with their own property. It happens but it is unconstitutional. Laws need to be based on logic not sentiment.

The A.S.P.C.A., S.P.C.A., Humane Society of the Untied States and their lapdog groups like the Texas Humane Legislative Network are gestapo organizations that kick down people's doors and seize their property that they then destroy or sell for profit. They have lobbied for the right to an appeal be taken away, which in Texas it was. We are talking about complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Rick Perry signed HB 1451 into law last June. It requires dog and cat breeders to apply for permits which they can't get without passing a background check on themselves and anyone who comes into contact with their animals. They are FORCED to submit to unannounced inspections of any property that is known or suspected to contain animals or documents relating to the animals. The owner is allowed to be present but is not required to be present. - Do you understand that this means "animal rights" fanatics who disagree with all animal use can show up and confiscate their property anytime they want even if the owner isn't there? "Violations" such as matted hair or a 'hot spot' (licking granuloma), cataracts, etc. would be an automatic animal cruelty charge. I think three violations eliminates them from being allowed to obtain a permit or own animals. They will be forced to take their animals to a veterinarian at least once per year. - You don't have to take children to a doctor once per year! - They must maintain a written veterinarian prescribed health care plan and document every little ailment from a bug bite to holding up a paw for a day to major illness. Never mind that most vets have never once bred and whelped a litter of puppies and most know little to nothing about specific breeds. Nevermind that vets want a monopoly on pet care and this is a cash cow for them. Minimum U.S.D.A. requirements must be met and they're pushing for strengthening them. Flooring must be able to be washed down. Do you know anyone with a drain in their living room?

"Animal rights" agenda is truly frightening and more and more well-meaning but clueless people are jumping on board. There is no reasoning, no understanding of animal husbandry, no regard for Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and it's all being presented as 'you have to do these things but we don't!'

Google 20/20 Cruelty to Pet Owners and read all three pages. Never ever donate money to any "animal rights" or shelter type operation. To do so is in complete contradiction to everything purported to be good, and right, and free.

Again, we don't torture animals but they do not have rights. - And torture isn't choosing to allow a dog or cat to live and die naturally. Anything an animal gets from us is a benefit they wouldn't receive in the wild.

 

[MelissaWV]

I can tell you have a better point than anyone else, because your post is bold and in color and in a larger font.

 

[patriot2008]

Hey Humans, leave those kids alone!

I guess these are just nice and tender ones?

 

[pcosmar]

Never ever donate money to any "animal rights" or shelter type operation. To do so is in complete contradiction to everything purported to be good, and right, and free.

While I disagree with "Animal Rights" I do support groups that care for animals. I have worked with rescues and have worked with "Friends of Animals".

This is something that each must decide for themselves. I care for and appreciate my pets. They are a part of my family.
I have no right to tell my neighbors how to care for theirs though.

 

[phill4paul]

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then.

And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why are we bumping this thread? Is there a new recipe?