liberty student:Puppy justice! 4 legs good!
4 legs good!
Curlz31:So you are saying that a murderer going to prison doesn't constitute 'reparations' in some way because you cannot possibly make amends to someone who is already dead?
He deserves punishment. "Reparation", as can be seen from the definition above would be an incorrect term for it.
I'm not a Rothbardian in my theory-of-ethics first principles, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the dog (although I definitely don't buy your "crime against society in general" nonsense). I'm saying you are using the wrong word. Your continued incorrect use of that particular word hurts you in this debate, because it reflects a lack of understanding of the Rothbardian position: that justice is about reparation in the true meaning of the word (restitution).
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:Puppy justice! 4 legs good!2 legs better!
Good point.
CHICKEN JUSTICE!
Curlz31: The Rev: Indifference to cruelty, as much as it may incense a decent person, isn't something that can be fixed by coercion. So magically, coercion is useful if a mentally retarded human has their ears cut off, but its not for a puppy. The Rev:libertarian philosophy is what it is because it values reason over emotion Not all libertarians think the abstract homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom constitutes anything based on reason. It is an abstract flight from reality. True philosophy should be based in reality. Animals evolved as we evolved. Hence you cannot ASSUME differences. You can only ASSUME similarities based on the existence of a common ancestor. Differences must be objectively proven via observation and experiment, and that includes all interaction with animals, not just men in white lab coats. Emotions draw from the observations of normal people. They are not subjective unlike the homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression axiom.
The Rev: Indifference to cruelty, as much as it may incense a decent person, isn't something that can be fixed by coercion.
So magically, coercion is useful if a mentally retarded human has their ears cut off, but its not for a puppy.
The Rev:libertarian philosophy is what it is because it values reason over emotion
Not all libertarians think the abstract homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom constitutes anything based on reason.
It is an abstract flight from reality. True philosophy should be based in reality.
Animals evolved as we evolved. Hence you cannot ASSUME differences. You can only ASSUME similarities based on the existence of a common ancestor.
Differences must be objectively proven via observation and experiment, and that includes all interaction with animals, not just men in white lab coats. Emotions draw from the observations of normal people. They are not subjective unlike the homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression axiom.
You may be able to make the case that certain animals live by territorial codes (urine markings for example), and that some have developed minor divisions of labor; but you cannot say that these beasts have any respect for life or property! So animals can be aggressive towards humans but humans have to exercise some sort of higher clemency? Bullshit. I have a gopher trap in my yard which suffocates the little critter if it does not impale it first. Is that so terrible? Some may say yes, most will say no but will agree with you on the "cute little puppy" case. Why? Because if something is aesthetically pleasing and arousing of sympathy it seems to get extra protection from the crowd. What about the ugly gopher in my trap? So its okay to kill an animal by your vote, just so long as it is done as 'humanely' as possible, or in this case, as long as it is not done to anything you find pretty? Be consistent.
I don't find any joy in the death of life or the needless waste of energy in this universe, but time and energy are all we have, and in ever less usable quantities. I try to share and work as best I can with others, human or otherwise, but I will not tolerate the gopher in my yard. The gopher is free to fight back, but I doubt it will win. =]
I live with other humans peacefully out of mutual respect, the gopher shows me no respect.Pretty soon the argument dwindles down to "The gopher was there first!" Haha...
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Nerditarian:Yes. Humans are indowded with rights by their highly emotional and rational nature. Dogs are not. Nice try.
1. This is a statement of faith not fact. This is your bible.
2. Even if you assume this statement is true, it would mean mentally retarded humans are not endowed with rights. Some pretty weird scenarios could arise from this. For example, if I fall of a horse and the 'rational' functioning of my brain is damaged, somehow the rights are magically zapped out of me.
Nerditarian:All libertarians do. It's just that not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian actually is one (hint, hint).
So you alone, user 'Nerditarian' on the mises.org forums, have the authority to decide what constitutes a libertarian. Impressive.
Nerditarian:Analogy: Damn that Pythagoras! In creating these abstract theorems he is involved in a flight from reality. True geometry should be based in reality.
Geometry has a basis in reality. Time and three-dimensional space. The homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom has no such basis.
Nerditarian:Humans are rational moral actors with unique abilities to reflect on our condition.
1. You can't prove things by merely using subjective words like 'rational' and 'moral'.
2. Many humans are not rational or moral. For example the mentally retarded, murderers etc
Nerditarian:My emotional reaction is not the same as yours and both of our emotional reactions are different from a third person.
But there are reasons for this. We just have not found them yet.
liberty student:Forget ants. How can we get justice for dogs attacked by other dogs? PUPPY JUSTICE!
Puppy gulag's for all the noncompliant ones!
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it doesn't.
Exactly. Hence you believe there needs to be punishment beyond reparations, because you do think murderers should go to prison right?
In any case, I do think reparations are possible in this case, as I mentioned, veterinary bills can be paid. But even if the dog was killed, the person still should be punished.
Curlz31:Exactly. Hence you believe there needs to be punishment beyond reparations, because you do think murderers should go to prison right?
Curlz31:In any case, I do think reparations are possible in this case, as I mentioned, veterinary bills can be paid. But even if the dog was killed, the person still should be punished.
Animal rights is hardly worth splitting up a libertarian movement over. It's a second-order issue. So long as we agree on the central bank and foreign policy, it's all good, you can keep your animal protection legislation.
Esuric: liberty student:Forget ants. How can we get justice for dogs attacked by other dogs? PUPPY JUSTICE! Puppy gulag's for all the noncompliant ones!
We must retrain the puppies to be responsible doggies.
Sukrit Sabhlok: Animal rights is hardly worth splitting up a libertarian movement over. It's a second-order issue. So long as we agree on the central bank and foreign policy, it's all good, you can keep your animal protection legislation.
You're quite wrong. The foundation of this argument is property rights. Do they exist, are they necessary etc?
Without a notion of property rights for conflict resolution, how can any libertarian hope to construct a society based on voluntary contract and individual liberty?
Central banking and foreign policy are second order issues at best. Animal rights is like an 18th order issue.
Telpeurion:you cannot say that these beasts have any respect for life or property
Many people don't have respect for such things. For example, plain old thugs and the mentally retarded.
Telpeurion:So animals can be aggressive towards humans but humans have to exercise some sort of higher clemency? Bullshit.
If a mentally retarded person punches you in the gob, should you punch back or try and resolve the situation using common sense? The mentally retarded person does not realise what he is doing after all. Common sense is required.
Telpeurion:I have a gopher trap in my yard which suffocates the little critter if it does not impale it first. Is that so terrible? Some may say yes
Well i'd use common sense here once again. If the gophers are killing your crops and casuing your family to starve to death, and there is no more humane way to kill them, then fine. But if that is not the case, as I suspect here, then what you are doing is awful.
Telpeurion:as long as it is not done to anything you find pretty? Be consistent.
The aesthetic appearance of the animal is irrevelevant. I am consistent.
Telpeurion:I try to share and work as best I can with others, human or otherwise
Excellent. This is common sense.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No. Prison is just a school to teach people to be better criminals.
Interesting. For me, I'd want to get murderers off the street so they don't kill anyone else. but that's just me.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Bills can be paid....to whom? And what punishment (other than sadism) do you suggest?
Well in this particular case many people have already volunteered to take the dog. So you pay the money to whomever is looking after the dog.
When I was younger my old man hit me with the strap to reinforce the point that what I did was wrong. It definitely made me think twice about doing it again.
He's correct in his core argument, guys, and we ignore the weakness he's pointed out at our own peril. The concept of "rights" is just a utilitarian shorthand. We need to get this straight or we'll be vulnerable to criticisms like this, which are easily answered by unpacking the meaning of "rights" - something that people seem wont to do because of some mystical view of rights.
Why anarchy fails
Curlz31: Telpeurion:you cannot say that these beasts have any respect for life or property Many people don't have respect for such things. For example, plain old thugs and the mentally retarded. Telpeurion:So animals can be aggressive towards humans but humans have to exercise some sort of higher clemency? Bullshit. If a mentally retarded person punches you in the gob, should you punch back or try and resolve the situation using common sense? The mentally retarded person does not realise what he is doing after all. Common sense is required. Telpeurion:I have a gopher trap in my yard which suffocates the little critter if it does not impale it first. Is that so terrible? Some may say yes Well i'd use common sense here once again. If the gophers are killing your crops and casuing your family to starve to death, and there is no more humane way to kill them, then fine. But if that is not the case, as I suspect here, then what you are doing is awful. Telpeurion:as long as it is not done to anything you find pretty? Be consistent. The aesthetic appearance of the animal is irrevelevant. I am consistent. Telpeurion:I try to share and work as best I can with others, human or otherwise Excellent. This is common sense.
A mentally retarted person physically resembles a human being, despite cognitively not being capable of human action. In that regard, my personal opinion is that they do not technically have human rights. However, that is only my opinion, I can understand that others may desire that others may get hung up over an animal in human form -- Going back to sympathy inducing objects. So human rights for all humans regardless of their capability to perform the requisites of human action!
Also, If a thug is mugging me, one might say he has voided his legal protections in the same way. Naturally, we must attempt to prove this beyond the doubt of the court.
I might add you are being lose with your term "common sense", which is purposely vague. Thoughts and actions that the majority of persons will undertake for a given situation? Is that knowable? If so, then from my perspective the majority of persons would favor death for the gopher in the event it was being a pest.
EDIT: I would like to make one further comment as to being beaten by a thug or a retard, I personally would try to resolve the issue as peacefully as possible, but I will not look down on someone, except perhaps as being a bit rash, if they were to kill the offender in defense. Of course, they would have to prove that it was justifiable defense to others.
Curlz31: Knight_of_BAAWA:No. Prison is just a school to teach people to be better criminals. Interesting. For me, I'd want to get murderers off the street so they don't kill anyone else. but that's just me. Knight_of_BAAWA:Bills can be paid....to whom? And what punishment (other than sadism) do you suggest? Well in this particular case many people have already volunteered to take the dog. So you pay the money to whomever is looking after the dog. When I was younger my old man hit me with the strap to reinforce the point that what I did was wrong. It definitely made me think twice about doing it again.
If all other animals have the same rights as humans, then should anyone who kills an ant be prosecuted for murder? What about someone who kills a cow for food, murder too?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
AJ: He's correct in his core argument, guys, and we ignore the weakness he's pointed out at our own peril. The concept of "rights" is just a utilitarian shorthand. We need to get this straight or we'll be vulnerable to criticisms like this, which are easily answered by unpacking the meaning of "rights" - something that people seem wont to do because of some mystical view of rights.
That's because rights are utilitarian at their foundation. =] There is no "natural law".
Telpeurion:That's because rights are utilitarian at their foundation. =] There is no "natural law".
If there is no objective natural law (the is-ought gap), then there is also no objective utility because all utility is just an expression of subjective preference (the is-ought gap).
I hope that makes sense, I am borderline comatose.
I don't know (or care*) about Rothbard's position, but from an AnCap, anti-monopoly perspective the solution is simple. Consumer needs and wants will be better reflected without a monopoly on force, so whatever people in society want to see happen in this dog scenario will be more likely to happen under AnCap than under our current system. Heck, if enough people in a certain society that has no monopoly on force want to bring back human slavery, they will. It's just far less likely for that to happen in anarchy than under Statism, because more people are opposed to slavery than for it. So if enough people in an AnCap society want dogs to have "rights," they will de facto have them because some firms will take an interest in filling that market demand.
All governments do is distort market signals so that consumer voices are more poorly reflected, and charge through the nose for the service. Getting rid of government monopoly minimizes the distortion, but the problem of evil consumer preferences never goes away fully. To fix that, you'd have to fix human nature.
*Because the source of an idea has no bearing on its legitimacy
liberty student: Telpeurion:That's because rights are utilitarian at their foundation. =] There is no "natural law". If there is no objective natural law (the is-ought gap), then there is also no objective utility because all utility is just an expression of subjective preference (the is-ought gap). I hope that makes sense, I am borderline comatose.
Right you are, utility is completely subjective. The question for economics is simply: can the means you use(d) acquire the ends you want(ed).
Daniel: So you favor the mass-killing termites, but not the mass-killing of dogs? If so, why?
So you favor the mass-killing termites, but not the mass-killing of dogs? If so, why?
If I'm not mistaken, he said that mass-killing of dogs was just fine, as long as it is for 'their own good'.
nazgulnarsil: the pathos is even more effective if the puppy is blind (for future reference). for a libertarian response. I would choose to live in a community where this sort of behavior was contractually forbidden. the price to pay for breaking certain behaviors (hurting children/animals) would be death. don't want to sign a contract with a death penalty clause? live in a different community. What is your plan? a righteous crusade? Where you violate people's property and privacy to chek if they are mutilating any puppies? great excuse for a totalitarian state you have there. think of the children.
the pathos is even more effective if the puppy is blind (for future reference).
for a libertarian response. I would choose to live in a community where this sort of behavior was contractually forbidden. the price to pay for breaking certain behaviors (hurting children/animals) would be death. don't want to sign a contract with a death penalty clause? live in a different community.
What is your plan? a righteous crusade? Where you violate people's property and privacy to chek if they are mutilating any puppies? great excuse for a totalitarian state you have there. think of the children.
But they are cute little puppies. You can give up a little freedom for puppies right?
Telpeurion:A mentally retarted person physically resembles a human being, despite cognitively not being capable of human action. In that regard, my personal opinion is that they do not technically have human rights.
Absolutely absurd; pure utilitarianism is void of common sense.
Pablo: Daniel: So you favor the mass-killing termites, but not the mass-killing of dogs? If so, why? If I'm not mistaken, he said that mass-killing of dogs was just fine, as long as it is for 'their own good'.
That's true. So I guess he supports the mass-killing of dogs but not the mass-chopping-off of dog ears because, according to him, chopping off ears is cruel but killing is not.
Curlz31:Interesting. For me, I'd want to get murderers off the street so they don't kill anyone else. but that's just me.
Curlz31:Well in this particular case many people have already volunteered to take the dog.
Esuric: Telpeurion:A mentally retarted person physically resembles a human being, despite cognitively not being capable of human action. In that regard, my personal opinion is that they do not technically have human rights. Absolutely absurd; pure utilitarianism is void of common sense.
Nice way of clipping the other part of my statement. I said I agree with the idea of equal rights for all physical human beings under the law, after all, who are you or I to determine when a human is no longer capable of action.
Mises agreed with me on the idea that mentally retarted persons are not technically human in the same sense you or I are.
Telpeurion: Nice way of clipping the other part of my statement. I said I agree with the idea of equal rights for all physical human beings under the law, after all, who are you or I to determine when a human is no longer capable of action. Mises agreed with me on the idea that mentally retarted persons are not technically human in the same sense you or I are.
This is why I try to stick to economics; philosophy gets a bit "complicated."
Curlz31:I want to see the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics try and defend a puppy having its ears and tail hacked off.
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
liberty student:If there is no objective natural law (the is-ought gap), then there is also no objective utility because all utility is just an expression of subjective preference (the is-ought gap).
I think I agree, but could you elaborate? Do you disagree that rights (and natural law) are just a shorthand for certain subjective preferences prevalent in society (which also happen to make societies work well if upheld)?
Curlz31: Nerditarian:All libertarians do. It's just that not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian actually is one (hint, hint). So you alone, user 'Nerditarian' on the mises.org forums, have the authority to decide what constitutes a libertarian. Impressive.
Of course he doesn't. Only one person has the authority to declare what a certain utterance of sounds means objectively. What say you, Oxford dictionary?
Though I will say this, according to the common usage of the word, he is absolutely correct.
Curlz31: Nerditarian:Humans are rational moral actors with unique abilities to reflect on our condition.
My kitten sure has that same unique ability to reflect on his condition. He sure is bothersome when he is hungry, needs to crap, wants to play, etc.
liberty student:The foundation of this argument is property rights. Do they exist, are they necessary etc?
Necessary- yes. Existing- in our minds, which when others respect them, works out great.
I think the only way animals will acquire rights is if a) they learn to build bombs b) they are cute enough to persuade others to use bombs on their behalf c) if those with bombs decide that there are less violent, more productive ways of saving puppies. (ie: boycotting, contract stipulation, peer pressure, not buying fresh puppy ears on ebay, etc)
Yup.
Telpeurion:retarted
Telpeurion:being lose with your term "common sense", which is purposely vague.
Agreed. In more simplistic terms, the common sense he is refering to is an appeal to emotional reaction. When put in those terms, it becomes much more clear to recognize the danger that it poses.
liberty student:I hope that makes sense, I am borderline comatose.
haha. For some reason that was funnier than it should have been.
Pablo:Agreed. In more simplistic terms, the common sense he is refering to is an appeal to emotional reaction. When put in those terms, it becomes much more clear to recognize the danger that it poses.
Thanks Spok! Did I spell his name right?
Daniel: Pablo: Daniel: So you favor the mass-killing termites, but not the mass-killing of dogs? If so, why? If I'm not mistaken, he said that mass-killing of dogs was just fine, as long as it is for 'their own good'. That's true. So I guess he supports the mass-killing of dogs but not the mass-chopping-off of dog ears because, according to him, chopping off ears is cruel but killing is not.
Correct.
I am just curious what he thinks about starving people.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Curlz31:Interesting. For me, I'd want to get murderers off the street so they don't kill anyone else. but that's just me.And into a place where they can train to become better criminals? I find that thinking to be part of the cause.
What do you propose be done with people whom are a continued danger to others? Soilent green?