Consider the following, which I take to be in accordance with libertarian belief: Animals don’t have rights. Animals can therefore be property. People can dispose of their property as they see fit. What then is the libertarian answer to people being cruel to animals? Dog owners can, as far as I can see, set two dogs to fight to the death for amusement, and there is no libertarian response that I can think of. How could a libertarian (or the law) intervene (on the grounds of common decency, say) without violating the rights of the dog owners? Do readers have an answer?
please use the search engine in the forum site to find threads pertaining to this topic. there have been numerous threads on this run around.
Corsair:Consider the following, which I take to be in accordance with libertarian belief: Animals don’t have rights.
Who or what has rights would be determined by what conception of rights people decide to support when there is no state.
Why anarchy fails
Corsair:What then is the libertarian answer to people being cruel to animals?
Exposing it to the public using video and audio recordings. There would definitely be people willing to engage in vandalism of his property and he would have to fear these people.
Corsair:How could a libertarian (or the law) intervene (on the grounds of common decency, say) without violating the rights of the dog owners?
There would be no standing for anyone to legally intervene. Animals do not have rights.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Corsair:What then is the libertarian answer to people being cruel to animals? Exposing it to the public using video and audio recordings. There would definitely be people willing to engage in vandalism of his property and he would have to fear these people.
The former (and other extra-juridical measures such as refusing to trade with this person) is a libertarian response. The latter is not, whether people may or may not do it.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: Corsair:What then is the libertarian answer to people being cruel to animals? Exposing it to the public using video and audio recordings. There would definitely be people willing to engage in vandalism of his property and he would have to fear these people. The former (and other extra-juridical measures such as refusing to trade with this person) is a libertarian response. The latter is not, whether people may or may not do it.
Agreed, that people would not have a legal standing for committing vandalism. But I am sure people would do it, since it is pretty easy to get away with. The point I am making is that just because something is illegal, does not mean it will not happen. Just like the doctor that was recently killed for performing abortions. The fact that murder is illegal did not stop someone from killing him. When someone gets involved in animal cruelty and abortions, that person needs to take into account the inherent risk that someone will take action against him/her regardless of what the law says.
Since when did we care about the Bill of Rights?