CShirk: I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights
CShirk:If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that's how they get their jollies.
That seems contradictory to me. If you think animals have rights, but their owners can do whatever they want to them, then what rights do the animals have? A right to fight back? A right to be unhappy about being tortured? Those aren't rights as "rights" are usually defined.
What about relationships that don't match up with the predator-prey scenario, like the situation I mentioned in my previous post about killing ants and yellowjackets? I tortured and killed them for no more reason than "they were bugging me"....pun intended. I didn't eat them...I probably could have just left them there. Did I infringe on their rights?
Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to "torture" them?
You're conflating rights with morality. Rights are what make moral behaviour possible in the first place, i.e. they are metanormative principles. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian, and as such to be moral would be for one to be in possession of such virtues as compassion and the like. These need not be enforceable, just as they are not in the Kantian system (they correspond to "imperfect duties".)
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Can you or someone else explain that one to me? How is it a moral obligation that is also unenforceable? If they have no rights then how is it immoral for me to "torture" them? You're conflating rights with morality. Rights are what make moral behaviour possible in the first place, i.e. they are metanormative principles. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian, and as such to be moral would be for one to be in possession of such virtues as compassion and the like. These need not be enforceable, just as they are not in the Kantian system (they correspond to "imperfect duties".) -Jon
Rights are also interpersonal normative principles such that it is right to respect rights and wrong to violate them (while maintaining the distinction between a right and what is right). But rights are not the be-all and end-all of morality. It's not as if something is only immoral if it is a rights violation while everything else is subjective/relative/fair game. Libertarianism is not concerned with legally enforcing the rest of moraliy, the various virtues like courage, generosity, productiveness, honesty, etc. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that only beings that are moral agents have rights. Rights are legally enforceable moral claims that moral agents have against other moral agents, but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought to practice virtue and it hardly matters whether the recipient or object of one's actions is a rights-bearer for morality to come into play. The central question of virtue ethics is "what kind of person should I be?" To an Aristotelian libertarian, it is immoral to live a parasitical existence, to lie, to mistreat one's pets, etc., but since such vices do not constitute rights violations (and their prohibition would constitute rights violations) they cannot be prohibited (although they can be discouraged by voluntary means such as moral suasion, boycotting, blacklisting, etc.)
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Jonas: CShirk: I would say that yes, animals are self-owners (to some extent) and they do have rights CShirk:If a person wants to abuse their animal(s), more power to them, if that's how they get their jollies. That seems contradictory to me. If you think animals have rights, but their owners can do whatever they want to them, then what rights do the animals have? A right to fight back? A right to be unhappy about being tortured? Those aren't rights as "rights" are usually defined.
Jonas:What about relationships that don't match up with the predator-prey scenario, like the situation I mentioned in my previous post about killing ants and yellowjackets? I tortured and killed them for no more reason than "they were bugging me"....pun intended. I didn't eat them...I probably could have just left them there. Did I infringe on their rights?
In fact, if you consider it for a moment, most pest-control measures are, indeed, self-defense. The pest in question has invaded your space (or that of the society in which you live) and seeks to either conquer your territory (often the case with wasps and hornets), drink your blood, spread disease, or steal and/or contaminate your food supply. Pest control is therefore not just getting your jollies torturing "helpless bugs", but rather is an act of self-defense. So, in essence, it is still a predator-prey relationship, the prey has simply decided that it will not be prey and the result is a conflict of predators deciding who is really predator and who is really prey.
(And yes, there is a little light-hearted humor intended in all of that.)
CShirk:If abusing animals is how the person gets their jollies, then they had better be prepared to suffer the consequences, be it by the hands of the animal, the owner, or those around who see what's happening and are disgusted by it.
So you believe that animals have rights, and that other people would be legally justified if they aggressed against me by forcing me to stop torturing a cat that I purchased from a pet store while on my own property?
Jonas: So you believe that animals have rights, and that other people would be legally justified if they aggressed against me by forcing me to stop torturing a cat that I purchased from a pet store while on my own property?
I certainly do. I'd give you two in the hat if I had to, and I'd have a good chance of getting excused by a jury for it, too.
JCFolsom:I certainly do. I'd give you two in the hat if I had to, and I'd have a good chance of getting excused by a jury for it, too.
Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend? What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat? Or a frog? Or a gecko? Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly?
Jonas: Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend? What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat? Or a frog? Or a gecko? Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly?
No, not for a butterfly. I admit that there is a certain amount of subjectivity. However, creatures like dogs can give clear signs of pain and suffering. If they are giving such signs, I would feel compelled to stop you by whatever means necessary.
Frankly, if you were doing something like taking a blowtorch to a dog in public, you'd be awfully lucky not to be torn apart by a mob. Of course, I use "lucky" loosely, as I'm not sure sociopathic sadists really benefit by their own existence.
JCFolsom: Jonas: Do you have a line as to how far in the animal kingdom these rights extend? What if that wasn't a cat I purchased, but a rat? Or a frog? Or a gecko? Do I still get "two in the hat" for pulling the legs off a butterfly? No, not for a butterfly. I admit that there is a certain amount of subjectivity. However, creatures like dogs can give clear signs of pain and suffering. If they are giving such signs, I would feel compelled to stop you by whatever means necessary.
This strikes me as arbitrary and no basis for rights or a libertarian legal system.
JCFolsom:Frankly, if you were doing something like taking a blowtorch to a dog in public, you'd be awfully lucky not to be torn apart by a mob. Of course, I use "lucky" loosely, as I'm not sure sociopathic sadists really benefit by their own existence.
This does next to nothing to establishing that the dog has rights and that the mob was right to use force to intervene (much less tear the torturer apart).
Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion.
Jon Irenicus: Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion. -Jon
Exactly. And why stop short at physical pain caused by the threat or use of initiatory force? Why not include pain from hunger, injury, disease, etc., and even emotional pain?
Jon Irenicus:Don't insects, plants &c. also have the capacity to feel pain? Why on earth restrict rights just to mammals, why not go the whole way and extend them to the entire domain of living entities then? This is a major problem with so broad a criterion.
I rather doubt plants feel anything, given that they have no recognized pathways by which to feel anything.
I am not concerned with pain per se, but suffering. Pain is just a signal, an input. However, animals which take their body to be their selves (such as atheists) experience pain as damage to their very selves. Creatures which have the capacity to the emotional state which is suffering, and for whom pain causes that suffering, can often make their suffering known. Most mammals can, indeed, do this, as can some birds.
Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer. You need to take into account, with your proposed systems, that people will act with force out of righteous anger, and that in cases like this, most people will agree that they did the right thing, perhaps even hailing them as a hero. Even in a stateless society, that would be so, and I'd wager dollars to donuts that any group you gathered to capture someone who forcefully stopped the torture of a dog would be met by a far larger group defending that person.
Morals and ethics can be theorized about, but the proof is in the pudding. What you do reveals what you really believe. If you would stand aside while a dog is tortured, you can. You should not be legally obligated to act. Nor am I obligated to consider you other than a coward at best.
JCFolsom:Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer.
The problem is that you cannot make an arbitrary distinction and use that as a basis for a legal system. Either animals are property, or they aren't. Period. Either I can legally use force to stop that person from torturing a lizard, or I can't. There are two things to note here:
1) We are talking about a LEGAL system here, not a moral code. If animals are property then they can be legally tortured by their owner, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable. The person may very well be shunned by the community. They may even be "torn apart" by an angry mob. But while that angry mob might feel that they were morally justified in their actions, it would still be illegal. If they are willing to accept the punishment for their actions, then fine.
2) You must be very careful how you make the distinction between which animals have rights and which do not. You say you would kill me to save a dog from torture, but not a butterfly. What about a squirrel? Or a rat? How do you know that a butterfly does not feel the same suffering that a dog feels? Or a fish? You end up making some arbitrary decision (dogs are cute, rats are not) and that is no way to create a stable society.
Jonas:1) We are talking about a LEGAL system here, not a moral code. If animals are property then they can be legally tortured by their owner, but that does not mean it is morally acceptable. The person may very well be shunned by the community. They may even be "torn apart" by an angry mob. But while that angry mob might feel that they were morally justified in their actions, it would still be illegal. If they are willing to accept the punishment for their actions, then fine.
I do not consider animals property. Neither are they people. They are something else. What that is is not well defined in our current conceptions, but I consider this issue far from simple.
Jonas:2) You must be very careful how you make the distinction between which animals have rights and which do not. You say you would kill me to save a dog from torture, but not a butterfly. What about a squirrel? Or a rat? How do you know that a butterfly does not feel the same suffering that a dog feels? Or a fish? You end up making some arbitrary decision (dogs are cute, rats are not) and that is no way to create a stable society.
How about we start our stable society with the proposition that you not go around deliberately torturing living things.
JCFolsom: Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer. You need to take into account, with your proposed systems, that people will act with force out of righteous anger, and that in cases like this, most people will agree that they did the right thing, perhaps even hailing them as a hero. Even in a stateless society, that would be so, and I'd wager dollars to donuts that any group you gathered to capture someone who forcefully stopped the torture of a dog would be met by a far larger group defending that person. Morals and ethics can be theorized about, but the proof is in the pudding. What you do reveals what you really believe.
Morals and ethics can be theorized about, but the proof is in the pudding. What you do reveals what you really believe.
Careful with this line of reasoning or you'll end up rejecting libertarian rights because most people don't believe in them or hold them to be absolute.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Careful with this line of reasoning or you'll end up rejecting libertarian rights because most people don't believe in them or hold them to be absolute.
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm openly unconvinced of the idea of rights in general and do not believe they are essential to a libertarian society. My tendency is towards a virtue ethic that does not limit itself to such simplistic deontology.
JCFolsom: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Careful with this line of reasoning or you'll end up rejecting libertarian rights because most people don't believe in them or hold them to be absolute. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm openly unconvinced of the idea of rights in general and do not believe they are essential to a libertarian society. My tendency is towards a virtue ethic that does not limit itself to such simplistic deontology.
Well, as an Aristotelian libertarian I can tell you that rights need not be conceived deontologically. Indeed, properly construed in a virtue ethical framework they cannot be.
Oh, and implicit in my previous post was the likelihood that in giving up libertarian rights you would also eventually give up libertarianism.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Oh, and implicit in my previous post was the likelihood that in giving up libertarian rights you would also eventually give up libertarianism.
Agreed. It's incontrovertible that crime often does pay. Once you've convinced yourself that it's also sometimes virtuous, the state is the only logical conclusion: the institutionalism of "virtuous aggression." Thus one becomes a minarchist at best. From there, it's a small step to realize that everyone has competing definitions of "virtuous aggression," and then you realize that getting hold of the levers of power is the main thing. Before you know it you're working inside the beltway as a lobbyist.
--Len
Len Budney:Agreed. It's incontrovertible that crime often does pay. Once you've convinced yourself that it's also sometimes virtuous, the state is the only logical conclusion: the institutionalism of "virtuous aggression." Thus one becomes a minarchist at best. From there, it's a small step to realize that everyone has competing definitions of "virtuous aggression," and then you realize that getting hold of the levers of power is the main thing. Before you know it you're working inside the beltway as a lobbyist.
An amusing progression, but I never (well, I awfully implied it with my icon, but still) actually claimed to be an anarchist. While I definitely see the appeal and purity of the position, I have never really taken the step from minarchism, though I think my reasons are different than those of some. Truth is, I'm not totally sold on anything yet. I feel pretty good about wanting people to be free to live their lives as they see fit, but I have lingering doubts.
My geolibertarian leanings, along with my belief in the righteousness of those stepping in to defend the defenseless, do indeed keep me from taking the step into an anarchic mindset. I acknowledge the dire difficulties of government in general, and I do not expect others to be convinced by my counters, so I won't try right now.
JCFolsom: I feel pretty good about wanting people to be free to live their lives as they see fit, but I have lingering doubts.
That was me for a long time.
Two things finally swayed me. First, a growing conviction that limited government can't be confined within its bounds. And second, the realization that if vice is sometimes virtue, then it's inescapable that vice becomes virtue whenever I want it to be. Now I think about it, those are equivalent. If non-aggression allows exceptions, then (1) I can't trust others not to aggress whenever it benefits them, and (2) I can't trust me not to aggress whenever it benefits me. I and others will both rationalize aggression that benefits ourselves personally as the "virtuous" kind.
What prolly makes Geoffrey pull out his hair is that I'm an absolutist precisely because I'm what he'd call a relativist. No moral principle, including nonaggression, can be proven objectively (in the sense of Aristotelian logic) or empirically (because aggression sometimes "works," for any definition you like of "works"). One either adopts it or doesn't. If one adopts it less than absolutely, then the considerations above indicate that eventually one will reject it completely, and aggress whenever one wants to.
My geolibertarian leanings, along with my belief in the righteousness of those stepping in to defend the defenseless...
I like Robin Hood movies too, you know.
Over the years, though, I've become more and more cynical. I still like the fairy-tale of the defender of the defenseless. I even believe in one: Messiah. But so far I've never met or heard of one who turned out to be a genuine altruist. Ron Paul seems to be one so far, and I can't explain him; maybe he's a space alien. But Mother Theresa was a monster. The Red Cross misappropriated funds donated after 9/11. Etc., etc.
In the end, anyone who claims that he needs to aggress in order to "defend the defenseless," or another lofty-sounding goal, is virtually guaranteed to be a fraud who will aggress for his own benefit, not for the stated end. So I trust nobody with that authority, much as I love the fairy tales.
Regarding plants I do recall that they can feel pain, but I forget whereby I came by that tidbit of information. I might have to look it up.
Sure, but how does that prove that one ought to behave that way? It just shows how they act, not how they ought to act.
Jon Irenicus:Sure, but how does that prove that one ought to behave that way?
Well, now, that's a real question, isn't it? If one isn't convinced by Rothbard's arguments on the nature of man, what other source is there?
I don't recall Rothbard giving much of a proof to begin with. He refers the reader to Henry Veatch and other Aristotelians, who go to greater lengths to do so.
JCFolsom: Let's get real for a minute here, guys. Are you seriously proposing a system where someone would be punished for stopping a dog torturer.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Len Budney:First, a growing conviction that limited government can't be confined within its bounds. And second, the realization that if vice is sometimes virtue, then it's inescapable that vice becomes virtue whenever I want it to be. Now I think about it, those are equivalent. If non-aggression allows exceptions, then (1) I can't trust others not to aggress whenever it benefits them, and (2) I can't trust me not to aggress whenever it benefits me. I and others will both rationalize aggression that benefits ourselves personally as the "virtuous" kind.
Well, now, then, if it be our intent to govern fairly, we must simply change our nature such that these sorts of selfish considerations are not in our calculus. I tend to agree that bureaucracies and democracies such as we have now inevitably grow, because people in general always want more. I am not sure that it is inevitable that enlightened dictatorships grow. The problem with them, of course, is that enlightened bit which is most difficult to ensure, especially with transitions. History is replete with cases where a good king is followed by a steaming pile of stank tyranny.
Len Budney:What prolly makes Geoffrey pull out his hair is that I'm an absolutist precisely because I'm what he'd call a relativist. No moral principle, including nonaggression, can be proven objectively (in the sense of Aristotelian logic) or empirically (because aggression sometimes "works," for any definition you like of "works"). One either adopts it or doesn't. If one adopts it less than absolutely, then the considerations above indicate that eventually one will reject it completely, and aggress whenever one wants to.
I'm not sure that this is true, if you can establish teleology in the origin of our species. That of course, is a whole nuther debate.
Len Budney:Over the years, though, I've become more and more cynical. I still like the fairy-tale of the defender of the defenseless. I even believe in one: Messiah. But so far I've never met or heard of one who turned out to be a genuine altruist. Ron Paul seems to be one so far, and I can't explain him; maybe he's a space alien.
Isn't it wierd? I was stunned that such a man was in government when I first saw him. The Ron Paul Revolution, while ideological differences have since distanced me from it, was what really got me libertarian in the first place.
Len Budney:In the end, anyone who claims that he needs to aggress in order to "defend the defenseless," or another lofty-sounding goal, is virtually guaranteed to be a fraud who will aggress for his own benefit, not for the stated end. So I trust nobody with that authority, much as I love the fairy tales.
Well, now I don't think you can say that there's never been a good ruler or even a good defender. It seems to me that there have been several at least OK rulers, they just tend to be poor fathers, if you take my meaning. It is possible for individual humans to actually be noble and enlightened, even if as yet we can not rely on them being so.
Only beings capable of understanding the concept of rights and recognizing rights can be said to possess rights. Even the more intelligent animals do not grasp the moral concept of rights. A dog will take food off your plate and chew up your best shoes unless he's trained not to, and this has much more to do with conditioning than with comprehension. He obeys because through repetitive training you establish a connection between the dog's unwanted action and an unpleasant consequence, not because he recognizes your ownership of the items in question. It's the same with the dog's expectation of a treat for performing a trick. This isn't a contractual agreement; it's purely a conditioned response to a recognized stimulus.
I'm less familiar with chimps. They obviously have some capacity to reason and to manipulate elements of their environment, but that in itself is not sufficient condition for the recognition of rights. Is there any body of evidence to suggest that they understand the concept of personal property?
Cut me some slack. I no where claimed to be a philosophy student and have made some posts here and elsewhere concerning my intentions and current progress with a more dedicated and in depth self education into the subject. Of course maybe I am deriving a tone of hostility where there is none... it would not be the first time, as i am so used to moderate-extreme hostility on forums.
I suppose the distinction was and is still a bit blurry for me. In the end though, I might think that rights would be what I am most concerned about and perhaps what I currently think of as aesthetic morals like compassion and the like are much less important or completely optional for a libertarian.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Jon Irenicus: Can you or.... You're conflating rights with morality... Rights are also interpersonal normative principles such that it is right to respect rights and wrong to violate them (while maintaining the distinction between a right and what is right). But rights are not the be-all and end-all of morality. It's not as if something is only immoral if it is a rights violation while everything else is subjective/relative/fair game.
Jon Irenicus: Can you or.... You're conflating rights with morality...
Can you or....
You're conflating rights with morality...
Rights are also interpersonal normative principles such that it is right to respect rights and wrong to violate them (while maintaining the distinction between a right and what is right). But rights are not the be-all and end-all of morality. It's not as if something is only immoral if it is a rights violation while everything else is subjective/relative/fair game.
This has been mostly my impression for some time actually. That beyond rights, its a free for all. And I am not sure I can see yet how it cannot be.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Libertarianism is not concerned with legally enforcing the rest of moraliy, the various virtues like courage, generosity, productiveness, honesty, etc. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that only beings that are moral agents have rights. Rights are legally enforceable moral claims that moral agents have against other moral agents,
Libertarianism is not concerned with legally enforcing the rest of moraliy, the various virtues like courage, generosity, productiveness, honesty, etc. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that only beings that are moral agents have rights. Rights are legally enforceable moral claims that moral agents have against other moral agents,
I suppose it is up to me to further discover why rights alone are and not others beyond what I think of as aesthetic morals and neccesary interpersonal morals.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought (Again I guess its up to me to further discover why) to practice virtue and it hardly matters whether the recipient or object of one's actions is a rights-bearer for morality to come into play. The central question of virtue ethics is "what kind of person should I be?" To an Aristotelian libertarian, it is immoral to live a parasitical existence, to lie, to mistreat one's pets, etc., but since such vices do not constitute rights violations (and their prohibition would constitute rights violations) they cannot be prohibited (although they can be discouraged by voluntary means such as moral suasion, boycotting, blacklisting, etc.)
but rights-respecting behavior does not exhaust the realm of moral behavior for moral agents. Moral agents still ought (Again I guess its up to me to further discover why) to practice virtue and it hardly matters whether the recipient or object of one's actions is a rights-bearer for morality to come into play. The central question of virtue ethics is "what kind of person should I be?" To an Aristotelian libertarian, it is immoral to live a parasitical existence, to lie, to mistreat one's pets, etc., but since such vices do not constitute rights violations (and their prohibition would constitute rights violations) they cannot be prohibited (although they can be discouraged by voluntary means such as moral suasion, boycotting, blacklisting, etc.)
Hmm. Once again I leave these forums with my thoughts slightly clearer. Thank you Geoffrey and Jon.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
Almost all animals comprehend the notion of territory. As for property, that's an interesting question, but I wouldn't be too surprised if chimps had a rudimentary understanding of it. A good book on property's deeply biological roots is The Territorial Imperative.
Thor, I did not intend to be hostile. My impersonal style tends to give the impression that I am though.
JCFolsom:Well, now I don't think you can say that there's never been a good ruler or even a good defender.
Sure. In fact Hoppe leans toward monarchy because, he argues, a monarch is much less bad than a democracy. If I have to be under any archy at all, I more or less prefer monarchy myself.
But Orwell probably said it best, referring to Ghandi: a saint should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you make a living gambling, you'll starve betting on the benevolence of aggressors.
Ok, well, I have to concede that animals have no rights, as abhorent as animal "torture" is to me.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
It's clear that animals are not like rocks, or sand or this kind of static material objects men can find in nature.The first clue is this, they ran, when you try to get it, they run away from you, even they defend themselves.
So, to 'use' animal products one has to use force against something that clearly doesn't want to have deals with you, it tries to run or defend.
You do not aquire rights to own animals through comerce or through contracts, because obviously, they were never made.
So, they have to be taken by force, the question is, is this use of force legitimate? by a truly libertarian point of view?
You can not say that humans have rights because they are humans, that's a circular and void argument.
They have someting inside, some innate characteristics. I'm not talking about utilitarism which is void, 'we have rights because it serves us well for now'.
¿Is it that they own their own body and use it to achieve its own goals with the mediums the can manage?
Yes, that is the core, and I'm saying here that animals(specially mammals and birds) own their own bodies and use them as they can to achieve their own goals. That's the real deal.
How big their brains are is irrelevent, how many fingers they posses or how impact they make while achieving their goals is secondary.
They cannot be homestead, because they already have an owner, themselves!
They already show their own preferences, they are constantly making choices, running their lives as they so see fit.
So, the use of force against them is an agression against a sovereign owner. It can only be justified in defense.
You can use orwellian language to excuse your behaviour, hide in the masses, 'they all do it'.
They don't own you anything, they don't have to speak your own language so you can understand, native indians did not speak your languages, neither do chimps, from this point of view they all are groups of self-owners who live their lifes with a language barrier, why you give rights to one tribe and not the other? As far as I know, libertarians believe native tribes of indians have rights, even when they do not write nor even have writen contracts.
Where is the point, this line that separates slaves from owners?
It's not consciousness, lots of animals have been shown to have it. Is it language? Just because we are unable to understand theirs doesn't mean they don't have one, dolphins have their own names. We are falling again to the cuantitative argument, we don't know or can't clearly put a line, but we are clever, which is a wide concept and very difficult to explain, if we define it as the ability to solve problems, the difference is again hard to draw.
Is it the owning of a body and using it for your own benefit? kangaroo have sex alone for pleasure, chimps use tools or other small animals for oral sex.
Bonobos have been discovered even atempting trade and prostitution, sex pleasing for food.
That we are clever does not mean that we are the only ones with rights. If we are clever, good, but how does logic follows that we are the only ones?
We put the rules of the game and then judge who wins? Isn't it partial? A conflict of interest? We should try harder to be neutral and objective. From the point of view of someone who is watching the moment of the capture of an ape inf the jungle, and this person saw how the ape was scared, screaming and trying to run, calling form help in his language and calling for his family, would you consider this act a legitimate use of force? would you accept that this ape had no owner and therefore could be kidnapped, beaten, taken away and later tortured and experimented upon? The reality is that this ape had no human-owner, that's the reality, you are trying to slave those weaker than you and use propaganda like language to excuse it. It doesn't work, animals are their own owners and as long as they do not harm others, they should be left alone.
Then if they are their own owners, they also must face the corollary of responsibility for their actions, and thus be liable for criminal actions on their behalf. There is no escaping this.
Ok, no problem, if a bear attacks you or enters your kitchen to eat from your fridge, you can shoot him.
But how do you justify the massive industrial farms of cows, pigs and chickens?
With whay you have said you can't, if I agree that if they attack you, as I do, you can defend, you agree that they are self-owners and cannot be attacked or kidnaped. And even if they had to face criminal charges, how do you justify jailing a chimp and burning his skin again and again for experimentation? If you bring criminal charges, bring them here! Tell me the process of how the ape ended being tortured because he steal a banana from you. And I'm helping your point and I'm not starting with the most typical scenario of chimps being hunted in the jungle for no reason and before comiting any 'criminal act'. In fact when the crime is against them.
Player: Ok, no problem, if a bear attacks you or enters your kitchen to eat from your fridge, you can shoot him. But how do you justify the massive industrial farms of cows, pigs and chickens? With whay you have said you can't, if I agree that if they attack you, as I do, you can defend, you agree that they are self-owners and cannot be attacked or kidnaped. And even if they had to face criminal charges, how do you justify jailing a chimp and burning his skin again and again for experimentation? If you bring criminal charges, bring them here! Tell me the process of how the ape ended being tortured because he steal a banana from you. And I'm helping your point and I'm not starting with the most typical scenario of chimps being hunted in the jungle for no reason and before comiting any 'criminal act'. In fact when the crime is against them.
Irrelevant. If a dog chews up my lawn chair, can I take it to court seeking restitution? If not, why, if they are self-owners.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Evasive. I asked, do rights come with the concomitant responsibilities in the case of animals, not whether you may defend yourself against one. This entails the possibility of the animal advancing a case in its defence, against your claims. Do you argue animals have the mental capacity for this? Can they even in principle recognize what a right is at some stage of their development? Should they be trialled as human beings, dealt the same punishments &c.? You're not "helping" my point at all (or yours, for that matter), because the entirety of the rest of your post is assuming what it is meant to prove.
I've never posted on an animal rights thread before, so here goes:
Here is a basic list of rights:
THE RIGHT TO SELF OWNERSHIP: the right to life the right to liberty the right not to be agressed against the right to self-defence ... THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY the right to own property the right to trade property the right to defend property ...
THE RIGHT TO SELF OWNERSHIP:
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
If non-humans are self owners and possess the right to life, then there's no more killing them and eating their flesh. Vegitarianism for us. We couldn't tether dogs to leashes, let alone fence creatures inside enclosures. We couldn't milk cows or steal chickens' offspring from under them. If we wanted to we would have to obtain their consent, consent which they obviously can't give us.
I know that someone could just as easily refute this by discussing the benefits of slavery, like cheap textiles. But animals can't enter into agreements with us.
The problem comes between confusing rights and morals/ethics. I think it's immoral to treat animals inhumanely. That's probably why I don't participate in ***-fights or kick around stray dogs.
*EDIT: the board won't let me post the word C O C K. I chose to keep it there, even though I could have easily substituted the word 'dog'
Irish Liberty Forum
You are also asuming they do not have rights and start from there.
Please, someone explained to me what 'agression' or 'crime' has commited a cow and how they ended in jails with machines attached to them, being raped and having their babies stolen from their mothers?
Deef people can not defend themselves, and? They hire others, so are victims that can't protect themselves, caring people can join their defense.
1.I said they are self-owners, which is absolutely evident by any standards, they own their body, move it, and choose among several options to achieve their goals.
2.It's also obvious that they are not as clever as we do and their brain is not as faster or as powerfull chosing and managing mediums.
You have to acept #1. The #2 point is cuantitavie and as such doesn't matter in this discussion. We can add a third point,
3.Their actions, like everyone else have consequences, the discussion of their consequences is hard because of the language barrier and because of #2.
Still by nature, most of them try to minimize damage to others and usually try not to start conflicts of agression.
This is clear in cows, pigs and birds that do not attack humans and therefore whatever 'legal' excuses you make, restitution could hardly explain or justified the massive industrial farms of hundred of thousands of animals jailed for life and their babies latter in their place.
And this is the part of the case that is helping you, I'm accepting you point that they 'may' harm humans, like a cow walking through your garden or eating your grass.
The other part of the point is where you, or people you pay, go to the forest and kidnap animals. Clearly starting the use of force.
How do you justify that? If we are going to discuss which kind of rights they have and if they are selfowners, how can you justify their kidnapping for no reason and before comiting any agression?
I'm not confusing moral and ethics, I'm trying to explain that according to ethics of self-ownership it never follows that animals are our slaves.
You could discuss for days the secondary implications of this, like how the relations should be, and what kind of restitution if any and things like that, it could be a nice academical chat, but first, animals are not your property, they are already theirs, they do not wish to trade, well, that's their choise, but it's not true, you can trade with clever mammals if you explain the concept easily in a way they can understand.
Yes, you should become vegetarian or only eat meat of animals that have already died of natural causes, you cannot use force against them except in self-defense, is that hard to understand?
Player: You are also asuming they do not have rights and start from there. Please, someone explained to me what 'agression' or 'crime' has commited a cow and how they ended in jails with machines attached to them, being raped and having their babies stolen from their mothers? Deef people can not defend themselves, and? They hire others, so are victims that can't protect themselves, caring people can join their defense. 1.I said they are self-owners, which is absolutely evident by any standards, they own their body, move it, and choose among several options to achieve their goals. 2.It's also obvious that they are not as clever as we do and their brain is not as faster or as powerfull chosing and managing mediums. You have to acept #1. The #2 point is cuantitavie and as such doesn't matter in this discussion. We can add a third point, 3.Their actions, like everyone else have consequences, the discussion of their consequences is hard because of the language barrier and because of #2. Still by nature, most of them try to minimize damage to others and usually try not to start conflicts of agression. This is clear in cows, pigs and birds that do not attack humans and therefore whatever 'legal' excuses you make, restitution could hardly explain or justified the massive industrial farms of hundred of thousands of animals jailed for life and their babies latter in their place. And this is the part of the case that is helping you, I'm accepting you point that they 'may' harm humans, like a cow walking through your garden or eating your grass. The other part of the point is where you, or people you pay, go to the forest and kidnap animals. Clearly starting the use of force. How do you justify that? If we are going to discuss which kind of rights they have and if they are selfowners, how can you justify their kidnapping for no reason and before comiting any agression? I'm not confusing moral and ethics, I'm trying to explain that according to ethics of self-ownership it never follows that animals are our slaves. You could discuss for days the secondary implications of this, like how the relations should be, and what kind of restitution if any and things like that, it could be a nice academical chat, but first, animals are not your property, they are already theirs, they do not wish to trade, well, that's their choise, but it's not true, you can trade with clever mammals if you explain the concept easily in a way they can understand. Yes, you should become vegetarian or only eat meat of animals that have already died of natural causes, you cannot use force against them except in self-defense, is that hard to understand?
Player, I accept your idea that animals are self owners and therefore can't be agressed by us - nor of course one another.Currently I'm occupying a house which was built on the previous property of a great number of ants, caterpillars and spiders. Obviously, having realised the error of my ways I would like to return what is quite rightfully theirs. I won't destroy my house but just leave it to be homesteaded by them when I move out.My real passion are the Antelope of Southern Africa whom I have great interest in. I plan to start a protection agency in that area which will defend, voluntarily, all of these self-owned animals - from Wildebeest to Springbok. Naturally any aggression of these animals can be repelled with force, so I will kill any humans, leopards, lions, hyenas etc which transgress the Non Agression Principle and attempt to murder these great creatures.Of course, these predators will lose a nutrition source - that is obvious. But surely this means that they will have to divert their resources into different methods of food production rather than murder of other animals? I fully anticipate seeing newly vegetarian lions setting up homesteads and farming plots, and possibly even engaging in trade with other animals eventually as they realise the benefits of free trade and the NAP. Maybe they will eventually become my clients too.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
No, I am assuming that it remains to be proven. So far you've just evaded my question. If you base rights on rationality (morality without it is mere nonsense - Mises' instrumental sense of rationality is also insufficient), you must demonstrate they have a (potential) understanding of concomitant concepts. But you haven't. You keep on bringing up self-defence, which is not the same as demonstrating this.
Why can't it be the other way around, they do have and you have to show why they should be treated as slaves instead of selfowners who should be left alone as long as they don't harm others.
And you haven't answered my questions, it's you who is evading, please explain the logical process of cows, pigs and chickens being born already as slaves in factories and how that can be related and/or justified and how ethics whose purpose is to avoid conflicts ends with massive slavery and constant initation of force against innocents.
And I specify clearly before that I only refer to mammals and birds, once these is clearified and agreed, we could continue moving on.
Native indians and amazonian tribes also do not have these potential, nor did they when they were 'discovered' by the europeans, but their rights are defended, why should these backwards and middle-aged tribes of humans be granted non-agression axiom while other tribes of apes don't, both will only attack you in defense, they both will prefer to be left alone in their own way of life in the jungle, what makes them different? speaking? a parrot can speak and understand its meaning? that they are humans? that's a void point, humans have rights because they are humans? or because we accept and agree to respect our rights and each other? the rest of the animals are weaker so we don't respect them? that's it. We are stronger and clever, therefore we can do what we want, we make excuses like they can't sign contracts or they don't respect our property, well then as long as they do respect it and stay away of it, they should also be left alone, but you don't.