wilderness: so you are biased... unlike justice
so you are biased...
unlike justice
I am biased like every other human being. I have empathy and I have beliefs. I'll act according to those.
And you can say that justice is unbiased, that is until you factor in who is doing the justice.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: wilderness: so you are biased... unlike justice I am biased like every other human being. I have empathy and I have beliefs. I'll act according to those. And you can say that justice is unbiased, that is until you factor in who is doing the justice.
Not when you commit coercion upon another due to animal rights, that is not law, unless, as I asked you previously, you can suggest a law of animal rights that is unbiased.
Somebody "doing" natural rights is unbiased.
liberty student: Knight_of_BAAWA:Replacing one form of sadism with another is not a very good option, don't you think? Curlz' doublethink is indicative of why nothing changes. You have people more obsessed with the Rothbardian position on the treatment of monkies, than eugenics and genocide against whole swathes of the human population. Is it any wonder the statists are winning?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Replacing one form of sadism with another is not a very good option, don't you think?
Curlz' doublethink is indicative of why nothing changes. You have people more obsessed with the Rothbardian position on the treatment of monkies, than eugenics and genocide against whole swathes of the human population.
Is it any wonder the statists are winning?
Maybe it's important to understand the emotional impact and how people think and react in general. In order to win the battle of ideas you need to understand the "enemy", so to speak. If you don't want the statists to win, then explain how animal cruelty could and would still be punished in a free society, instead of trying to defend the position that the monkey had no rights. Taking the latter course will not win you any friends nor will it influence people, other than to repel them from libertarianism and anarchism in general. The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas.
Ultima: The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas.
The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas.
There is room for both viewpoints, that's not the point. Rights are synonymous with law in light of a liberty oriented person. Natural rights of human nature are not viewpoints in this context.
(1) So to declare an "animal law" without stating what that animal law is, is deceptive or irrational in the first place. This animal law would need to be judged unbiasedly as such is the virtue of justice. So what is this animal law that is unbiased?
(2) Thus to conflate the meaning of natural rights of human nature (human law) with a law of animal nature is to judge poorly on what rights mean in the first place in light of - natural rights of human nature.
It's an emotional confusion by animal lovers to get so hung up on a dog meanwhile Rome is burning and in the meantime no animal law has even been suggested as we try to put out this fire.
My challenge: declare an animal law, meaning, it is to be unbiased and the integrity of justice for humans as well as the animals are to be kept intact.
Ultima: liberty student: Knight_of_BAAWA:Replacing one form of sadism with another is not a very good option, don't you think? Curlz' doublethink is indicative of why nothing changes. You have people more obsessed with the Rothbardian position on the treatment of monkies, than eugenics and genocide against whole swathes of the human population. Is it any wonder the statists are winning? Maybe it's important to understand the emotional impact and how people think and react in general. In order to win the battle of ideas you need to understand the "enemy", so to speak. If you don't want the statists to win, then explain how animal cruelty could and would still be punished in a free society, instead of trying to defend the position that the monkey had no rights. Taking the latter course will not win you any friends nor will it influence people, other than to repel them from libertarianism and anarchism in general. The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas.
I've never met a libertarian who is for animal cruelty. That being said, what do you propose we do to someone who is harming an animal while continuing to respect their property?
The alternatives to violence are many.
Off the top of my head. a) Offer to purchase the abused dog. b) Boycott the abusees c) Include an animal abuse stipulation into developers contracts d) Public humiliation
Take your pick. What I will not stand for is the cop out answer- e) make it a law/throw them in jail.
Wilmot of Rochester: but in a world absent those rules, I don't think you'd see these people going unpunished for their treatment of pets. If it were in my neighborhood and there were no police to stop me, I'd very likely take the dog away from the owner myself and I wouldn't be too sad to see his ears cut off for double measure.
but in a world absent those rules, I don't think you'd see these people going unpunished for their treatment of pets.
If it were in my neighborhood and there were no police to stop me, I'd very likely take the dog away from the owner myself and I wouldn't be too sad to see his ears cut off for double measure.
This is a fallacy that most people commit. It is just like saying without religion, people will go and commit crimes. If you go and take away this dog from the owner, then the owner might come and destroy something on your property as payback. Which is why people would seek a neutral court to decide on the dispute, instead of taking things into their own hands, to avoid continued retaliation.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness: Reminder: Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral.
Reminder:
Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral.
A right to health care is moral?
The OP might not want to see what they do to puppies in China.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
Spideynw: Wilmot of Rochester: but in a world absent those rules, I don't think you'd see these people going unpunished for their treatment of pets. If it were in my neighborhood and there were no police to stop me, I'd very likely take the dog away from the owner myself and I wouldn't be too sad to see his ears cut off for double measure. This is a fallacy that most people commit. It is just like saying without religion, people will go and commit crimes. If you go and take away this dog from the owner, then the owner might come and destroy something on your property as payback. Which is why people would seek a neutral court to decide on the dispute, instead of taking things into their own hands, to avoid continued retaliation.
Or you could just ostracize him.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Pablo: Ultima: liberty student: Knight_of_BAAWA:Replacing one form of sadism with another is not a very good option, don't you think? Curlz' doublethink is indicative of why nothing changes. You have people more obsessed with the Rothbardian position on the treatment of monkies, than eugenics and genocide against whole swathes of the human population. Is it any wonder the statists are winning? Maybe it's important to understand the emotional impact and how people think and react in general. In order to win the battle of ideas you need to understand the "enemy", so to speak. If you don't want the statists to win, then explain how animal cruelty could and would still be punished in a free society, instead of trying to defend the position that the monkey had no rights. Taking the latter course will not win you any friends nor will it influence people, other than to repel them from libertarianism and anarchism in general. The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas. I've never met a libertarian who is for animal cruelty. That being said, what do you propose we do to someone who is harming an animal while continuing to respect their property? The alternatives to violence are many. Off the top of my head. a) Offer to purchase the abused dog. b) Boycott the abusees c) Include an animal abuse stipulation into developers contracts d) Public humiliation Take your pick. What I will not stand for is the cop out answer- e) make it a law/throw them in jail.
If it was up to me, I'd propose that there shouldn't be animal cruelty in general. But that's only my opinion; it's not based on a universal truth and I wouldn't seek to impose it on the whole world. In a world that respects property rights in general, A, B, C, and D are already acceptable alternatives to violence. I believe that E is also acceptable if tied with C. This might not be the Libertarian answer, but it's my answer.
wilderness: Ultima: The view that animals have rights or no rights is subjective and fuzzy, anyways, and therefore there should be room for both viewpoints in the free market of ideas. There is room for both viewpoints, that's not the point. Rights are synonymous with law in light of a liberty oriented person. Natural rights of human nature are not viewpoints in this context. (1) So to declare an "animal law" without stating what that animal law is, is deceptive or irrational in the first place. This animal law would need to be judged unbiasedly as such is the virtue of justice. So what is this animal law that is unbiased? (2) Thus to conflate the meaning of natural rights of human nature (human law) with a law of animal nature is to judge poorly on what rights mean in the first place in light of - natural rights of human nature. It's an emotional confusion by animal lovers to get so hung up on a dog meanwhile Rome is burning and in the meantime no animal law has even been suggested as we try to put out this fire. My challenge: declare an animal law, meaning, it is to be unbiased and the integrity of justice for humans as well as the animals are to be kept intact.
How would you create an "unbiased" animal law? The mere act of creating a law that sets limits on what one can or can't do with animals is biased, , the bias depending on your subjective value judgements. Either you value performing experiments on monkeys as to be higher value than protecting their freedom and liberty, or you don't. Maybe you value it in certain conditions, such as research for an important cancer cure. It's not absolute, is it? Therefore it cannot be unbiased, either.
That's why I say it's subjective. I believe if you submit it to the free market of ideas and let free competition reign amongst the ideas, you will see there's room for differing viewpoints, and in general, most communities would likely frown upon certain types of animal abuse and could make it a contractual clause that to live here or do business with us, you shouldn't commit these certain abuses against animals. I think this is where a market of laws would be an improvement upon today's policy of one law for the land.
Juan:In this context, it means whatever the person talking of "rights" intends it to mean. I see. It means whatever it means. Very helpful. I myself think, for example, that upholding property rights is beneficial for society, What do you mean, good for society ? A communist would support different rights for different immediate purposes that he or she (however wrongly) believes would be good for society Good for society ?
In this context, it means whatever the person talking of "rights" intends it to mean.
I myself think, for example, that upholding property rights is beneficial for society,
A communist would support different rights for different immediate purposes that he or she (however wrongly) believes would be good for society
Yeah, the big concept here is that, by definition, words like "rights" imply a purpose. The trick is that the implied purpose is usually unstated, often because the speaker expects others to agree on it. On this forum, there is much disagreement about what the implied purposes are, yet the purposes are still unstated, hence the frequent misunderstandings.
I also make no claims that a "right" is a useful concept. It may have been at one time, but now it seems more confusing that illuminating. If you want my suggestion, it would be to do away with all the terms that have implied purposes, so that the purpose would always have to be explicitly stated. We obviously don't agree on the purposes, particularly if we can't even agree that general prosperity is beneficial for society, so we'd better keep the purposes explicit, not implicit.
Why anarchy fails
AJ:Yeah, the big concept here is that, by definition, words like "rights" imply a purpose.
The trick is that the implied purpose is usually unstated, often because the speaker expects others to agree on it.
On this forum, there is much disagreement about what the implied purposes are, yet the purposes are still unstated, hence the frequent misunderstandings.
I also make no claims that a "right" is a useful concept. It may have been at one time, but now it seems more confusing that illuminating.
general prosperity is beneficial for society,
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."
wilderness: Not when you commit coercion upon another due to animal rights, that is not law, unless, as I asked you previously, you can suggest a law of animal rights that is unbiased. Somebody "doing" natural rights is unbiased.
Because there is no law but the law of the gun. And if I get to the cruel, little guy first after taking the puppy and moving him safely, well that's right enough for me.
And natural rights is as biased as any other construct for what makes "right." I don't know if you want to hash up this old debate about how morality works.
Spideynw: This is a fallacy that most people commit. It is just like saying without religion, people will go and commit crimes. If you go and take away this dog from the owner, then the owner might come and destroy something on your property as payback. Which is why people would seek a neutral court to decide on the dispute, instead of taking things into their own hands, to avoid continued retaliation.
I'm fine with continued retaliation, though. If the guy got pissy because I stepped in while he was beating an animal like it was a rag-doll, I'd just be tickled pink about that.
Then I'd shoot him.
Pablo: I've never met a libertarian who is for animal cruelty. That being said, what do you propose we do to someone who is harming an animal while continuing to respect their property? The alternatives to violence are many. Off the top of my head. a) Offer to purchase the abused dog. b) Boycott the abusees c) Include an animal abuse stipulation into developers contracts d) Public humiliation Take your pick. What I will not stand for is the cop out answer- e) make it a law/throw them in jail.
I guess my argument, if I were to assume rights for human beings, would be that this is not a human being, but a violent creature within a human beings' body. Human beings possess something called empathy and compassion. This "human being" obviously does not and so has no property to respect.
Juan: AJ:Yeah, the big concept here is that, by definition, words like "rights" imply a purpose. Really ? Well you could say that any word "implies a purpose" - so frankly I don't see what point you are making.
It's easiest to see with the word "should." Sometimes we say things like, "You should have that mole looked at," and the purpose is clear - to make sure the mole is not a skin cancer. Other times someone may say, "You shouldn't steal," and the purpose is not necessarily clear. Is it to avoid harming others? To avoid incurring people's anger? To avoid trouble with the police? To stay on God's good side? To stay on the speaker's good side? To avoid giving others license or encouragement to do the same? To maintain order in society? The person who flatly states, "You shouldn't steal," with no explanation speaks as if the purpose is clear, but often it is not. My point is that "should" implies one or more unstated purposes, and "rights" - meaning something that should not be infringed - therefore imply unstated purpose(s) as well.
Juan:Also I find your assertions about what is "good for society" to be pretty meaningless...
Yeah, I'm just saying that something being "good for society" (however the speaker defines that) is often one of the unstated purposes the speaker means to imply. What I personally think is good for society is not central to the point; I just mentioned it because I thought it would clarify my explanation. My point is only about definitions and word usage.
It's easiest to see with the word "should." Sometimes we say things like, "You should have that mole looked at," and the purpose is clear - to make sure the mole is not a skin cancer. Other times someone may say, "You shouldn't steal," and the purpose is not necessarily clear.
Is it to avoid harming others?
Wilmot of Rochester: I'm fine with continued retaliation, though. If the guy got pissy because I stepped in while he was beating an animal like it was a rag-doll, I'd just be tickled pink about that. Then I'd shoot him.
What about people like me who enjoy the fine art of hunting? I kill animals for fun. I stalk and shoot unsuspecting animals. Sometimes the animals die quickly, and sometimes they don't. I don't eat the animals or anything, I kill them for no purpose other than enjoyment.
Would you shoot me as well?
Eric: Would you shoot me as well?
Presumably no. If he doesn't have an negative emotional reaction to hunting (which is a predominantly socially accepted practice) he won't act on it. But if it does displease him emotionally, you'll become his prey.
Very childish. I doubt he'd live long going around killing people that he didn't like. But to each their own. I suppose not everyone prefers social peace.
Eric: Wilmot of Rochester: I'm fine with continued retaliation, though. If the guy got pissy because I stepped in while he was beating an animal like it was a rag-doll, I'd just be tickled pink about that. Then I'd shoot him. What about people like me who enjoy the fine art of hunting? I kill animals for fun. I stalk and shoot unsuspecting animals. Sometimes the animals die quickly, and sometimes they don't. I don't eat the animals or anything, I kill them for no purpose other than enjoyment. Would you shoot me as well?
No. That doesn't seem quite as cruel. You could still have a level of empathy that would qualify you as human.
So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever 'rad' sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums, that people have the 'right' to cruely torture animals?
Lord Shore-Twilly:So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever 'rad' sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums, that people have the 'right' to cruely torture animals?
People have a right to do with their property as they wish.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Spideynw: wilderness: Reminder: Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral. A right to health care is moral?
Don't waste my time.
Ultima: wilderness: My challenge: declare an animal law, meaning, it is to be unbiased and the integrity of justice for humans as well as the animals are to be kept intact. How would you create an "unbiased" animal law? The mere act of creating a law that sets limits on what one can or can't do with animals is biased, , the bias depending on your subjective value judgements. Either you value performing experiments on monkeys as to be higher value than protecting their freedom and liberty, or you don't. Maybe you value it in certain conditions, such as research for an important cancer cure. It's not absolute, is it? Therefore it cannot be unbiased, either. That's why I say it's subjective. I believe if you submit it to the free market of ideas and let free competition reign amongst the ideas, you will see there's room for differing viewpoints, and in general, most communities would likely frown upon certain types of animal abuse and could make it a contractual clause that to live here or do business with us, you shouldn't commit these certain abuses against animals. I think this is where a market of laws would be an improvement upon today's policy of one law for the land.
wilderness: My challenge: declare an animal law, meaning, it is to be unbiased and the integrity of justice for humans as well as the animals are to be kept intact.
I agree with the general sense of what you are saying.
Natural rights of human nature are "of" humans (universally human). Something, like health care as a poster muddying the waters mentioned, is "for" a human. Natural rights are projected out of the individual whereas health care is given from one person to another.
Animal rights would need to come from the animal, not applied by a human upon the animal.
Wilmot of Rochester: wilderness: Not when you commit coercion upon another due to animal rights, that is not law, unless, as I asked you previously, you can suggest a law of animal rights that is unbiased. Somebody "doing" natural rights is unbiased. Because there is no law but the law of the gun. And if I get to the cruel, little guy first after taking the puppy and moving him safely, well that's right enough for me. And natural rights is as biased as any other construct for what makes "right." I don't know if you want to hash up this old debate about how morality works.
You lack understanding liberty. Liberty is unbiased. Non-initiating physical coercion against a person is liberty and thus each person is able to actualize their potential in liberty.
Anarchist Cain: Lord Shore-Twilly:So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever 'rad' sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums, that people have the 'right' to cruely torture animals? People have a right to do with their property as they wish.
Ah, the Captain Luke Collingwood defence. I don't buy it, and no people do not have the right to do with their property anything they wish. 'Rights' are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending 'rights' to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the 'right' to do what you like with your property.
Lord Shore-Twilly:rights' are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending 'rights' to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the 'right' to do what you like with your property.
You confuse rights with privilege
Anarchist Cain: Lord Shore-Twilly:rights' are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending 'rights' to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the 'right' to do what you like with your property. You confuse rights with privilege
I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Anarchist Cain: Lord Shore-Twilly:rights' are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending 'rights' to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the 'right' to do what you like with your property. You confuse rights with privilege I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.
Rights are not granted by society. They may or may not be recognized, but that is beside the point. Rights are not created; they are discovered.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Lord Shore-Twilly:I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.
I just did explain. You are lacking in definition of what is a right and what is a privilege.
Anarchist Cain:I just did explain. You are lacking in definition of what is a right and what is a privilege.
No, I think he is English, in England you have no right to defend yourself, but the social privlilege of curling into a ball and crying for the police to save your sorry ass, as not even other people are allowed to intervene on your ass whooping....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
I thought it was because he is a "Lord" and wants to feel special about granting privileges. Like when the free market does good the politicians take credit for what is obviously not of their doing, but when the free market buckles under their statist regulations the politicians want to blame the free market. I mean the politicians are still lingering pharaohs that haven't woke up to reality yet - they bleed red like the rest of us.
Lord Shore-Twilly: So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever 'rad' sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums...
So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever 'rad' sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums...
Was it only me that read that in Ben Stein's voice?
JackCuyler:Rights are not created; they are discovered.
That's quite a statement. Please elaborate.
Harry Felker:No, I think he is English, in England you have no right to defend yourself, but the social privlilege of curling into a ball and crying for the police to save your sorry ass, as not even other people are allowed to intervene on your ass whooping....
The British are not to be trusted.
wilderness: Spideynw: wilderness: Reminder: Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral. A right to health care is moral? Don't waste my time.
;) I know what you are saying. Some people may not however.
You gave a strawman argument. Anything else?
wilderness:I thought it was because he is a "Lord" and wants to feel special about granting privileges. Like when the free market does good the politicians take credit for what is obviously not of their doing, but when the free market buckles under their statist regulations the politicians want to blame the free market. I mean the politicians are still lingering pharaohs that haven't woke up to reality yet - they bleed red like the rest of us.
That reminds me of the man who criticqued Rothbard's Gold Standard lecture before the civil war. He stated: 'There is no shortage of scapegoats when the government is to blame.' Rather insightful, I think his last name was Timberlake.
Anarchist Cain:The British are not to be trusted.
I am still puzzled how they became allies after 1812....
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: wilderness: Reminder: Not all morals are rights, but all rights are moral. A right to health care is moral? Don't waste my time. ;) I know what you are saying. Some people may not however.
ok
If you mean in the U.S. culture for I saw a news bulletin at Campaign for Liberty about the Federal Administration is trying to make the case health care is a right, but I know Obama is purposely muddying this issue. I've heard Obama explain negative and positive liberties (rights) before and he clearly understands the difference. He went to school for Constitution law. He even admits the Constitution is about "negative liberties" (rights), but Obama stated he thinks more positive rights should be provided cause the government can do what's best for people and in the same breath he said this is why the Constitution is flawed.
Negative rights: "of" an individual
Positive rights: "for" an individual
Negative rights are natural rights.