Deist:Mentally capable humans may disagree with rights but they are at least capable of understanding and comprehending the system of rights. An ape or any other animal cannot understand that. Yes they may defend their right to life but that does not mean they understand the abstract notion of the "Right to life" it merely means they are acting instinctually to protect their genes.
I do not think available evidence supports the idea that most people with average or better intelligence can or do understand rights. People certainly misuse the term all the time. They are actually philosophical concepts which, in my opinion, most people have neither the patience nor the insight to comprehend.
Deist:And Player if you respond to this post please read my earlier post about the inherent differences between human reasoning and animal reasoning that goes to our very biology. I do understand that humans are a type of animal but that means nothing. Does the nature of of a wolf mean that it is similar to a bear? No. They have inherent differences. Their only similarity are that they are live and are predators. One is a pack animal to it's genes and one is not.
Well, and they are both carnivores. And mammals. With excellent senses of smell. Who prey on many of the same animals and live in near proximity to one another.
This idea of a different "nature" is really funny. I thought most of y'all here were atheists. Bears are really just an evolutionary skip and a jump a way from wolves, not that different at all. But, then, this is an economics forum, so gross ignorance of biology should, perhaps, be expected.
There is nothing (unless you have some religious conviction otherwise) which essentially seperates us from other animals. I will agree that our reasoning is greater, and even that we are more advanced, but these are matters of degree. That we are somehow different by our very nature is an extraordinary claim, and you need to back it up with evidence. Just saying "look how big our frontal lobes are" does not constitute sufficient evidence.
Many other animals are capable of communication, tool use, affection, fear, pain, malice... I think the real reason for the resistance here is that any good Austrian is faced with the prospect of either becoming a vegan, or rejecting the NAP, should they acknowledge that animals are at all capable of self-ownership. Under such a strain, no wonder they resist the concept so very adamantly.
Read my earlier posts. I am relying specifically on atheist biological scientists and neuroscientists to make my argument. As far as different natures I am not talking about it in the Aristotalian sense but in the scientific natural sense.
nhaag:Indeed I have to say that animals have no rights whatsoever. Rights are property rights and they are set to protect the rightful owner against aggression from other human beings. Unless you make animals responsible for their actions, in some tribes there is a court that sentences a lion to death after he attacked one of the members, animals do not have rights.
Hah! What is justice, and who are you to dispense it? An animal will be killed, just as a man will be, if it poses a present danger. What is justice in an anarchist society? Who determines punishment? The justice systems of government, as even you point out, vary in their approaches to both man and beast, and "justice" systems in general are just another part of the government we hope to do away with. Sure, sure, there will be arbitration and the like, but you won't be able to collect money from someone who doesn't have it, whether that someone is man or beast. Please, tell me again, how in a true libertarian framework, where no one institution gets to decide what "justice" is, there is an essential difference between man and beast?
JCFolsom: I do not think available evidence supports the idea that most people with average or better intelligence can or do understand rights. People certainly misuse the term all the time. They are actually philosophical concepts which, in my opinion, most people have neither the patience nor the insight to comprehend.
there is also a HUGE difference between disagreement or thinking a system cannot work, as most people think libertarianism cannot work, and not understanding them. Communist understand the libertarian argument just as we understand the communist argument but we disagree with it. Animals cannot even get these views.
Oh, you are applying libertarianism to cows, to protect your soul and lie to youself to come with the magic word 'the don't have rights'.
Which is racist, you abuse weaker ones. I'm not trying to hijack anything, just following what you all should have discoverd by your own long time ago.
The current 'official theory' or the mainstream one, the one the mayority of libertarians agree on, is flawed in respect to animal ownership and enslavement.
The logical conclusion is the application of the non-agression axiom, not the crazy idea that they can be 'owned' like a rock you find in the beach. You say it's the same, but it's not.
I'm more libertarian than you because I don't start the use of force, you do, against weaker owners, you use them as slaves to do your work, you organize them like a social engineer, a farmer, for the 'greater good'. Who give you authority to use other owner's property? the bodies of other animals? How can you explain that you are entitled to abuse however you want them? where is your contract? where does your legitimacy come to be harming these animals?
You never justified libertarianism in language or any other derivatives of higher brains functions, you did it in innate natural rights of self-ownerships and pursue of your own goals using the mediums you can, all animals do that, you modify nature more than others, but you all have goals and try to make them true as you can, you all try to minimize conflicts and if one arises you defend your life and your property, may it be an ape protecting its child, its bananas or a parrot protecting its nest and its family. You are way above the line drawed to recognice rights, but others are also on this side of the line.
It's not about 'giving rights' we are not gods, it's about recognicing them, realizing they do have and therefore respecting them.
I read your earlier posts, Deist. You cite blowhards, atheist apologists, basically trying to run PR saying "but see, we're not REALLY like apes", because that concept is so distasteful to people. Again, all they're really saying is "we have much bigger frontal cortices", which I never denied. However, the statement that animals have only mechanical brain functions is demonstrably false. Again, the differences between our abilities and those of other animals are only by degree, and where you place that dividing line is arbitrary, and far too convenient to be assured of objectivity.
I have never made the argument that it is ok to toruture your dog. I think from a "humane" stand point animals have a limited duty of care we might owe to them. For instance I do think it is needless and cruel to slowly disect a mammal without drugging it up, forgive me if I think it is more cruel than to do that to an ant. Yeswe are a hell of lot like apes but still we are different and have different characteristics and hence natures.
But I believe in a hierarchy of rights and duty of care based on cognition and capacity to understand them and capability to follow them. I don't think an Ape would totally grasp the notion of proprety rights in land. Humans may not agree to property rights but they can get the argument or somehow failing that have the potential to get it through education.
And guess what? The genetic degrees you talk about make a load of difference. They make totally different species.
Are you vegetarian or vegan by any chance? At least that would make me understand where you are coming from.
I used to be a vegan. I am not now, but I have a huge sympathy for the position. However, I believe that, if necessary for survival, or even just health (as I believe, for instance, meat eating is), violence is acceptable.
Alright then I respect your position.
Player: I'm more libertarian than you because I don't start the use of force,
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."
Juan: Player: I'm more libertarian than you because I don't start the use of force, You clearly stated that humans can be attacked (so no NAP) to protect the imaginary rights of animals. Your position has nothing to do with libertarianism. Not to mention your belief that birds have rights but plants don't, which is wholly inconsistent.
So, you think that humans can't use force to defend other humans from force? Defense by a third party is a violation of NAP? Since when? His supposed inconsistency only arises because you reject his statement that animals have rights. However, his statements are internally consistent.
The plant argument is a straw man. Many animals can show signs of pain, awareness, communication, planning, etc. So far as we know, no plant does. That he chooses to draw the line differently than you does not make him inconsistent. He is not quite as masterful with the language as some, but so far, y'all are just bein' ignant playa-hatas.
I think, though I might be wrong, JCFolsom that we might be closer in our views than thought. How would you classify animal rights and human rights?
It seems that you respect a certain duty of care towards certain animals. Do you think this would prevent me from chopping down a tree that various animals lived in or do you think the duty of care has more to do with the infliction of violence on the animals specific body?
I have to go for now so I wont be able to read the response.
JCFolsom: So, you think that humans can't use force to defend other humans from force? Defense by a third party is a violation of NAP?
His supposed inconsistency only arises because you reject his statement that animals have rights. However, his statements are internally consistent.
The plant argument is a straw man.
Many animals can show signs of pain, awareness, communication, planning, etc. So far as we know, no plant does.
That he chooses to draw the line differently than you does not make him inconsistent. He is not quite as masterful with the language as some, but so far, y'all are just bein' ignant playa-hatas.
It matters, Juan, because you accused him of being inconsistent. He isn't. You just disagree. You are making a false accusation, and you should take it back, and at least give him credit for being internally consisten in this respect. Otherwise, you look like you're being dishonest.
Geez, these Argentinians...
Deist:I think, though I might be wrong, JCFolsom that we might be closer in our views than thought. How would you classify animal rights and human rights?
I'm not sure I would at all. Rights, to my mind, are ill-defined concepts resting on questionable premises (a highly controvertial "natural law"). I prefer to work with quasi-subjective characterizations of actions (cruel, kind, generous, miserly, etc.; I hope quasi-subjective is right, here, I'm not sure).
Deist:It seems that you respect a certain duty of care towards certain animals. Do you think this would prevent me from chopping down a tree that various animals lived in or do you think the duty of care has more to do with the infliction of violence on the animals specific body?
I think you need to avoid unneccessary cruelty. That being said, our interests and those of animals are often in conflict, and our interests ought to be the ones we advocate for. Those animals, were they in your position, certainly would not hesitate to. If a blue jay were big enough to eat you, it sure as Hell would try. The world is not a nice place; excepting our well-controlled human environments (and sometimes those, too), it's downright hostile. We have to live in such a world, and we are where we are not just because we are intelligent, but because we have used our intelligence to become the baddest predator that ever walked or crawled.
JCFolsom: It matters, Juan, because you accused him of being inconsistent. He isn't.
Juan:He wants to extend the NAP to animals in a way that violates the NAP for humans. That is not consistent ?
He's saying that if animals should have NAP applied to them, then it is appropriate for humans to come to the aid of animals if someone aggresses against them. That's not inconsistent. It's the question of whether or not the NAP should apply to animals that's important here.
As far as different natures I am not talking about it in the Aristotalian sense but in the scientific natural sense.
But you are. The Aristotelian argument is just more abstractly stated.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
macsnafu: He's saying that if animals should have NAP applied to them, then it is appropriate for humans to come to the aid of animals if someone aggresses against them. That's not inconsistent. It's the question of whether or not the NAP should apply to animals that's important here.
Well, I for one eat meat, so I'm not going to stop you killing a chicken to eat it. I would stop you chopping it up, alive, from the feet up. Because that's fucked up, and sadistic, and clearly evil. Now, if you'd already started, I'd probably have to break the poor thing's neck (and maybe eat it) as a mercy, but I don't think a court in the land would convict me of any wrongdoing, so long as I only did what was necessary (or maybe just a little more) to stop you.
Player: It's not about 'giving rights' we are not gods, it's about recognicing them, realizing they do have and therefore respecting them.
You cannot have rights if you do not have the ability to recognize that you have those rights, because you cannot even recognize the rights of others.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
No, the cat is sleeping on the cat's desk. While it's sleeping, it's allowing you to use the desk.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, the cat is sleeping on the cat's desk. While it's sleeping, it's allowing you to use the desk.
Indeed. You are lucky to have so lenient a master, Juan
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
JCFolsom:Well, I for one eat meat, so I'm not going to stop you killing a chicken to eat it. I would stop you chopping it up, alive, from the feet up. Because that's fucked up, and sadistic, and clearly evil.
See? One can be against animal cruelty without ascribing rights to animals. If animals did have rights, it would be a violation of the NAP to kill animals for food, clothing, or other byproducts. I guess, milk would still be okay, assuming the cows agreed to it, but eggs would be off limits.
Further, not only would it be wrong for humans to kill animals, it would also be wrong for animals to attack other animals. Who would enforce that? How would it be enforced? How could we force carnivores like lions and bears and spiders to become vegetarians?
BTW, the funny thing is that hardcore vegans ought to consider honey the product of animal exploitation. Indeed, a lot of agriculture comes from "exploiting" insects. Might be immoral to even eat agricultural goods then...
Jon Irenicus:BTW, the funny thing is that hardcore vegans ought to consider honey the product of animal exploitation. Indeed, a lot of agriculture comes from "exploiting" insects. Might be immoral to even eat agricultural goods then...
Haha, so true.
Political Atheists Blog
All this talk about so-called rights makes my head ache.
scineram: All this talk about so-called rights makes my head ache.
A lot of ideas can be made to look absurd by taking them to their logical conclusion. I, for one, would not care to arrest a grizzly bear for killing fish, nor would I relish locking up a spider for trapping flies in its web.
It seems to me that while there are many who feel that animals have rights...or at least should not be tortured or have unnecessary pain or injuy inflicted upon them...the breakdown occurs when trying to set a limit on where in the animal kingdom that line exists.
For most people that line seems to hover around some capacity for feeling pain. Others seem to go with what I call the "Disney" rationale...if it's cute and cudly then it shouldn't be tortured, otherwise anything goes. Each person makes their own distinction, and while this is all well and good it does not lend itself well to a system of justice or an effective legal infrastructure.
What about trying to come up with a definition of "animal" so that we all know what we are talking about when we say "animal rights"? If you were creating a legal system and you wanted to criminalize the torture of dogs, but not have to arrest every person who stepped on an ant, how would you put that in well-defined terms?
I was thinking of some kind of genetic boundary...starting with Homo Sapiens and working down in similarity. Or using existing taxonomic ranks and use Phylum or even Class...say everything in the phyla Chordata. Of course this can't just be an arbitrary distinction. There should be a rational and logical reason for why the boundary is chosen.
Any thoughts? I know that many here have subjective reasons why they think certain animals have rights and others don't, but can we try to get those reasons more concrete?
Jonas:For most people that line seems to hover around some capacity for feeling pain. Others seem to go with what I call the "Disney" rationale...if it's cute and cudly then it shouldn't be tortured, otherwise anything goes. Each person makes their own distinction, and while this is all well and good it does not lend itself well to a system of justice or an effective legal infrastructure.
Um... legal infrastructure? System of justice? What do you think this is, an archy or anarchy? Take your systems of justice and place them where you think appropriate. Order will be maintained by the natural inclination of people to cooperate, or at least leave each other alone, in combination with everyone being at least somewhat armed. Doubtless, there will be some guilds of adjudicators or something people could go to to solve disputes, but it will mostly be to individuals.
On the other hand, most people here (as mentioned in another thread) are actually polyarchists rather than anarchists, and they want all their archies to enforce strong property definitions, so they will likely not be so hostile to your idea of a "legal infrastructure" or "system of justice".
Well even anarchy has a system of justice and legal infrastructure...it's called "might makes right". You just better hope that the group of people living down the street aren't more heavily armed than you when you come knocking on their door and tell them to shut down their dog and rooster fighting clubs.
But that's not the point. Even you mention adjudicators to help solve disputes. If two people had a dispute over whether torturing an animal was okay or not, where would you draw the line? Knowing that this might just create a precedent for future disputes?
Jonas:Well even anarchy has a system of justice and legal infrastructure...it's called "might makes right". You just better hope that the group of people living down the street aren't more heavily armed than you when you come knocking on their door and tell them to shut down their dog and rooster fighting clubs.
If I can't stop them, I can't. On the other hand, I can't stop the government slaughtering Iraqis, either, so its still preferable. On the other hand, if the person running such a operation wants not to be fed to his own dogs, he will have to keep his mob around him all the time...
That being said, I think the truer "system" involved here is "risk makes polite". I think there would be LESS violence in general, since the immediate risk of armed individuals is a far greater deterrent than the more remote risk of being caught after the fact. Most people today go around basically helpless, completely vulnerable to someone with a gun, or even someone who's worked out a bit and knows how to fight. With an armed populace, even if you're the fastest gun in the West, you could always have a misfire. An armed society is a polite society. Police forces just make people complacent.
Jonas:But that's not the point. Even you mention adjudicators to help solve disputes. If two people had a dispute over whether torturing an animal was okay or not, where would you draw the line? Knowing that this might just create a precedent for future disputes?
I'm thinking, for adjudicators, they would handle cases like, "This here's my land, McCoy!", or, to move a little closer to the topic at hand, "You fed my husband to his fighting dogs, and thus owe me some compensation."
Jonas: Well even anarchy has a system of justice and legal infrastructure...it's called "might makes right". You just better hope that the group of people living down the street aren't more heavily armed than you when you come knocking on their door and tell them to shut down their dog and rooster fighting clubs. But that's not the point. Even you mention adjudicators to help solve disputes. If two people had a dispute over whether torturing an animal was okay or not, where would you draw the line? Knowing that this might just create a precedent for future disputes?
Didn't you just intermix anarchy and statism?
"Might is right" is the basic slogan of group coercion, not of anarchy. Anarchy is just the opposite, "might makes NO right", rights do not evolve from coercive power but are an inherent possessions of every human being.
So you should not blame something on anarchy which is the basic creed of the enemy and one, if not the fundamental, reason anarchy abhores collectivism and statism.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag:Didn't you just intermix anarchy and statism?
Unless I am very much mistaken, the only "rights" you have in an anarchist society are the ones you can seize and defend. Since when do inherent or natural rights go hand-in-hand with anarchy? Are you saying that in an anarchist society, if I tried to kill you (or a dog to stay OT) you would say I can't because some greater authority says you (or the dog) has an inherent right to life?
I don't think so. In "might makes right" I don't mean "right" as in "I have a right to exist". I mean "right" as in "correct" or "acceptable". If I want to have dog fights in my house, the only way you can stop me is by using force (might). If you stop me, you have used might to make me do what you think is right. Hence, "might makes right".
But all of this is off topic. Regardless of the type of society, each person reading this thread has to make a personal decision on where to draw the line when it comes to "animal rights". Whether you are doing this to create a legal framework in an enlightened dictatorship or just what goes on in your house, it doesn't matter.
For giggles, lets just assume that we are establishing a legal framework for the newly seceeded Libertarian country of New Hampshire. There is a very small central government. Justice is handled by a few large protection agencies and several private judges, who have all agreed to abide by the NAP. However, there is some disagreement as to whether animals are property or have rights. You sit on a panel of judges who are working to codify this sticking point. How do you argue?
Do you say that all creatures not Homo Sapiens are property? Do you say all living things have the same rights as humans? Why?
Or do you get more complicated, and say that only animals that feel suffering should get rights? How do you define this in a non-subjective way? Do you say that only living things that show an ability to respect others rights should get rights of their own?
It's up to you. You are going to set the legal framework for a new society. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO!!! ;)
Nope, only if you assume the truth of legal positivism/an appeal to authority. Anarchism is predicated on the notion that aggressing (i.e. initiating force) against another is a violation of their rights, hence illegitimate. Otherwise you're conflating rights with their enforcement. What you are speaking of is not rights, but power. It is indeed under the state that "Might makes right", where the ruling class can hypocritically deny certain actions to its chattel whilst at the same time engaging in them, simply because it can.
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I came here from a link on a newer thread and this thread is quite interesting.
I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.
Couldn't we use a "fuzzy" concept of justice and apply it to this scenario? A concept where skinning an ape alive would lead to some severe penalties, while plucking off a fly's wings probably won't warrant any judicial action, only social ostracism? We can think about these concepts internally, why couldn't we apply them to our legal framework?
Ultima:I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.
Really? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So, should killing an animal be a crime?
Jon Irenicus: BTW, the funny thing is that hardcore vegans ought to consider honey the product of animal exploitation. Indeed, a lot of agriculture comes from "exploiting" insects. Might be immoral to even eat agricultural goods then... -Jon
They do. If an insect or living being has been forced in the making of the product they wont use it.
In fact my Significant other doesnt use anything with shellac in or on it. To include certain type of vitamin covers.
The only things she uses that are not 100% vegan are roads and infrastructure.