Anarchist Cain: Nirgraham...I have no idea how you are going to combat the stunning retort of 'well that's your opinion'. Best throw in the towel...
Nirgraham...I have no idea how you are going to combat the stunning retort of 'well that's your opinion'.
Best throw in the towel...
how am i driving?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Anarchist Cain:Actually the axiom states that individuals cannot aggress against another violently with moral authority. Therefore I am justified in defending my person or property when I am threatened with violence from another individual.
And here goes your bloomer once again. You could use the subjectivity of 'threat' to justify a totalitarian state.
Anarchist Cain:Haha honestly, how petty you have become in this thread.
True. I don't mean to sound arrogant because I know the people here are good folks and well meaning. I just like arguing my position.
I think most of you, if you saw a guy with a hacksaw in the street cutting a dogs tail off, would at least do something, even if its just calling the police.
Curlz31:And here goes your bloomer once again. You could use the subjectivity of 'threat' to justify a totalitarian state.
only if you are a moron. libertarianism is not for morons for this reason. i daresay no political or moral ideology is suitable for morons.
as Walter Block would say, "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and a living room? No? Well, then don't come to my house."
nirgrahamUK:are you hoping to have a rational argument here, or is this just about venting your spleen?
No i'm not venting. My argument has been made.
Animals and humans evolved in the same manner, hence you cannot assume differences. You must assume similarities and prove the differences.
nirgrahamUK:only if you are a moron. libertarianism is not for morons for this reason. i daresay no political or moral ideology is suitable for morons.
*sigh* Can you not see your contradiction here ?
You are proclaiming common practical sense as your support while rejecting it elswhere.
Please try and see this.
Curlz31:You must assume similarities and prove the differences.
now lets be honest, for i will abandon this discussion with you if it is you venting, wheras i will engage if it is to be a rational argument.
are moral facts possible? is it possible I and you might come to agree on them?
is logical deduction over such facts possible?finally and to start our rational argument on moralities contents and dictates...
acknowledging you may have a vast array of unsorted and uncategorized and unsystematized moral beliefs, are there any root ones, from which the vast hordes of others are derived, or do you not distinguish between your smorgasbord of moral beliefs on these ground? (or any grounds?)
A person without any logic could do such an action.
Curlz31:I think most of you, if you saw a guy with a hacksaw in the street cutting a dogs tail off, would at least do something, even if its just calling the police
I'd ask him what he is doing. If he says sawing my dogs tail off then I would say 'Can I buy that dog from you?'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Curlz31:*sigh* Can you not see your contradiction here ?You are proclaiming common practical sense as your support while rejecting it elswhere.Please try and see this.
you are failing to distinguish between pure and applied.
an engineer uses idealized rigourous standards of systemic understanding to design his bridge. to conceive it, in its glorious bridgitude.
and when he is out in the real world making decisions he must rely on common sense, (i.e. if only to tell apart his labourers from passers-by.)
nirgrahamUK:are moral facts possible?
Facts are possible. Morality derives from facts only.
nirgrahamUK:is it possible I and you might come to agree on them?
On facts? Sure, why not.
nirgrahamUK:is logical deduction over such facts possible?
Yes. It is fact that the healthy adult human individual is a distict biological unit. Such a fact forms part of the support for the market economy.
nirgrahamUK:acknowledging you may have a vast array of unsorted and uncategorized and unsystematized moral beliefs, are there any root ones, from which the vast hordes of others are derived, or do you not distinguish between your smorgasbord of moral beliefs on these ground? (or any grounds?)
It's not random at all. I look at reality. From reality I get to liberty. I also get to what you might call for simplicity 'animal welfare'.
It's 11:50pm here in Melbourne folks. So we'll have to continue this tommorow.
Nice chatting with everybody.
Curlz31:It's not random at all. I look at reality. From reality I get to liberty. I also get to what you might call for simplicity 'animal welfare'.
Now you are saying you have a systemic approach?
I'll just answer this before i go off.
nirgrahamUK:an engineer uses idealized rigourous standards of systemic understanding to design his bridge. to conceive it, in its glorious bridgitude.
When an engineer designs a bridge he takes the realities of gravity, forces, material strength into account. He doesn't design it in abstraction.
great, NAP believers so too rely on reality. that there really is such a thing as aggression, that there really is such a thing as private property, that there really is such a thing. as moral agency.
Curlz31:You live your life in an abstract world of words and definitions.
Um, I am sorry, do you have some sort of issue with reason? Should we shed all clothing move about on all fours sniffing each other's asses?
Curlz31:You take 'language' and 'concepts' for granted.
How so, I understand and appreciate the abstract world of "words and definitions"?
Curlz31:You take the words of someone like Murray Rothbard as the words of god itself.
Where am I doing this?
Curlz31:Murray Rothbard is no better than you.
Never said he is better than me, He just has done things I have not...
By the way, self ownership is older than Murray...
Curlz31:No. I just find occasional satisfaction in annoying the hell out of people who generally hold the same views as I do but who base their philosophies on abstract absurdities like a human-exclusive non-agression axiom.
I am sorry but if you do not understand that Man stands alone in nature as the one that is capable of reasoning and transforming his environment, you are nothing more than a moral relativist...
Curlz31:Because libertarians argue amongst ourselves you think statists win?
Because Libertarians are looking to take personal preferences and make a public policy out of them (what statists do)...
Curlz31:If you've ever been to revleft forums you'll see statists tearing each other apart just the same.
It is proper for them to do, they are arguing the nature of their shackles, you are arguing for shackles in the house of the unshackled...
This also does not take away that you seem to think if others do it, we should too
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Pablo:What do you propose be done with people whom are a continued danger to others? Soilent green?
Curlz31:Animals and humans evolved in the same manner, hence you cannot assume differences.
To the original poster,
Nothing personal, but you're invoking emotivism in an argument in which emotions couldn't apply. In terms of what happened to the puppy does piss me off as a person, but if we're considering the nature of law among humans, then it must deal only with what humans do to other humans (and not to other species, unless they are the rightful property of another human).
To expand legal and ethical obligations to non-humans, in which no one can validate as being rational (which means they can take on rights and the responsibilities that come from rights), then one is daring to deconstruct the entire basis of civil society. If you think what happened to that puppy is bad, often certain breeds of dogs have their ears and tails clipped all the time and no one bothers the breeders that do this as it's considered perfectly normal for such breeds (and thus perfectly legal due to the errors of legal positivism, imho...).So, sauce for the goose and all that it entails.
In my personal opinion, if this crap became fashionable, I would probably make it my best effort to recruit individuals to ostracize anyone who bought, sold, or provided services for such individuals that like to see animals with hacked off bits, but that's just me.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Curlz31: nirgrahamUK:are moral facts possible? Facts are possible. Morality derives from facts only.
Oh really? How have you derived your moral code from facts of nature?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: Curlz31: nirgrahamUK:are moral facts possible? Facts are possible. Morality derives from facts only. Oh really? How have you derived your moral code from facts of nature?
I think one can, but that it cannot be said that they will be universal for cases within same or similar agents. A classic example would be the lifeboat situation. No one operates in everyday life as if it were a lifeboat, but that doesn't negate the nature of it. It simply means what happened (or will happen) on the lifeboat stays there (to steal a phrase from the Vegas vacation adverts). Similarly, whatever happens in terms of humans stays with humans, unless someone from another planet comes to visit Earth and happens to understand the same ethical dilemmas as we do. Any other assertions of transspecies ethics would be pure speculation at best (and pure sophistry at worse).
AJ: 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)?
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)?
I do disagree with your statement, because natural rights cannot be a subjective preference. They are attributed to something inherent in man, stemming from his creation/existence.
My point is, utilitarianism is just another value preference. Some people want more cake, some people want more pie. Some people derive utility from torturing dogs, some people derive utility from caring for dogs, and some people derive utility from foregoing interaction with dogs at all. It is completely subjective and shouldn't be confused with objectivity.
I'm not interested in a natural rights/utilitarianism debate. I want to tease Curlz about how he wants to elevate some animals and not others to the same level as man, and how he sees man on animal crime as being worthy of restitution, but would have to admit that animals themselves are incapable of devising restitution for animal on animal crime, and thus it is difficult to assign them rights that they do not acknowledge within their own species.
liberty student:I do disagree with your statement, because natural rights cannot be a subjective preference. They are attributed to something inherent in man, stemming from his creation/existence.
How does the proof for this go?
liberty student:I'm not interested in a natural rights/utilitarianism debate.
Oh. Then maybe someone else?
Why anarchy fails
Curlz31: Spideynw:Curlz31, do you eat meat? If so, stfu and go away. This statement tells me either you havent read this whole thread or you have the level of understanding that many others in this thread have displayed.
Spideynw:Curlz31, do you eat meat? If so, stfu and go away.
This statement tells me either you havent read this whole thread or you have the level of understanding that many others in this thread have displayed.
No, I have not read the whole thread to see if you eat meat. So, do you eat meat? Even if you do not, have you ever entered an animals territory without getting permission? If so, then your arguments will be inconsistent. Animals do not have the ability to make contracts or to consent or withhold consent to anything. The purpose of law is to settle disputes between adults, period. And no, I am not talking about the current government definition of "adult".
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
AJ:How does the proof for this go?
A belief in natural rights is subjective, but the notion of natural rights itself is based on a *supposed* objective truth of existence.
Curlz31: sicsempertyrannis:So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go? Should it be extended to plants? Via your observation that I reject the human-exclusive non-agression axiom, you have stupidly assumed that I support another axiom and indeed an axiom that would be one of non-agression which includes all animals ? You have assumed wrongly.
sicsempertyrannis:So, in your mind how far should the non human-exclusive non-aggression axiom go? Should it be extended to plants?
Via your observation that I reject the human-exclusive non-agression axiom, you have stupidly assumed that I support another axiom and indeed an axiom that would be one of non-agression which includes all animals ?
You have assumed wrongly.
So why are you complaining about cutting the ears off of dogs? This is not an attack question, but rather, I am curious to see how you defend your position. I agree with you in that a lot of the things you are bringing up need more debate. Fundamentally though, from my viewpoint, some sort of non-aggression principle needs be accepted by those who are interacting. This is not to say it needs to be a 'right'. It is a 'must' if humans are to interact in society.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What do you propose be done with people whom are a continued danger to others? Soilent green?Banishment works quite well, especiallly combined with notifying other private police agencies.
What if they continue to return and act violently? Is there no point in which death becomes an option?
How would they return?
Daniel: 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?
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.
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?
Curlz, I will await your answer to this question.
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."
Curlz31: Harry Felker:Is the dog a self owner? You live your life in an abstract world of words and definitions. You take 'language' and 'concepts' for granted. You take the words of someone like Murray Rothbard as the words of god itself. Stop doing that. Murray Rothbard is no better than you.
Harry Felker:Is the dog a self owner?
You live your life in an abstract world of words and definitions. You take 'language' and 'concepts' for granted. You take the words of someone like Murray Rothbard as the words of god itself. Stop doing that. Murray Rothbard is no better than you.
Ad hominem. I would really like to read your non-fallacious and non-emotional response to this question.
That's curlz style. Just ignore him or mess with him. His only interest is in arguing from fallacy. You must have seen him on RPF before.
Curlz31: Yet another case of what I call "The deification of the celebrity philosopher". You can't use the fact that a really famous philospher said something as an argument. It's bankrupt and a reflection on the lazy "cult of celebrity" culture that exists in all areas of life today
Yet another case of what I call "The deification of the celebrity philosopher". You can't use the fact that a really famous philospher said something as an argument. It's bankrupt and a reflection on the lazy "cult of celebrity" culture that exists in all areas of life today
Curlz31:You've never come across serious cases of mental retardation have you. What about those who are permanently unconcious? What about newbord human babies?
Curlz31:So even if I believe there should be no government healthcare, no government education, no government defence, no government welfare, no government anything ...... i'm still not a libertarian because a libertarian has to believe in the human-exclusive NAP ?
liberty student: That's curlz style. Just ignore him or mess with him. His only interest is in arguing from fallacy. You must have seen him on RPF before.
That's funny. I was just on RPF. I saw someone arguing that FRB isn't fraud. However, what the person described wasn't FRB so his conclusion didn't follow. Typical of RPF.
Curlz31: This is another example of "The deification of the celebrity philosopher"
This is another example of "The deification of the celebrity philosopher"
Curlz31: I'm saying you can't make an argument by constantly spitting out "rational" and "reason". Explain your argument with a basis in the origin, existence and progression of the universe.
I'm saying you can't make an argument by constantly spitting out "rational" and "reason". Explain your argument with a basis in the origin, existence and progression of the universe.
Curlz31:You've never heard of involuntary tics and things like Tourette Syndrome, where people can move thier body INVOLUNTARILY. Every hear of sleep walking
A. even the person with Tourettes has the power to reflect on his deed in a way the tiger doesn't after it rips another tiger or a human or whatever limb from limb.
B. there is still a degree to which people can and do try to morally aid the people around them to deal with this. People with Tourettes inform people they are diseased so they don't get shocked when they blurt out profanities in the middle of a sentence. People with physical ticks have the ability to tell people that their left arm randomly swings so they avoid it. The fact that people can and often do takes these steps reflects their moral and reasoning nature.
So you're one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that.
Political Atheists Blog
Curlz31: ClaytonB:"Animals will get their rights when they petition for them." - Rothbard "Retarded people will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard "Babies will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard "A foetus is a parasite because it relies on its host to survive" - Rothbard "A baby is a parasite because it relies on its mother to survive" - Rothbard
ClaytonB:"Animals will get their rights when they petition for them." - Rothbard
"Retarded people will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard
"Babies will get their rights when they petition for them" - Rothbard
"A foetus is a parasite because it relies on its host to survive" - Rothbard
"A baby is a parasite because it relies on its mother to survive" - Rothbard
As noted by another poster, if you disagree with the treatment of the animal/retard/baby/etc. then buy it. If you don't have enough money of your own and you know lots of people will sympathize with your cause, start a charity and raise the money to buy these abused creatures. The problem is not your desire to intervene but that you want to socialize the cost of intervention.
On top of this is the fact that this is another case of "The deification of the celebrity philosopher".
You're the one who addressed this thread to Rothbardians.
ClaytonB:The moral question is whether we can justify the use of force to prevent the dog's owner from disposing of it as he sees fit. I think the answer is pretty clearly "no." Your morality derives from an axiom which is abstract and bankrupt and which calls foetuses and babies parasites.
ClaytonB:The moral question is whether we can justify the use of force to prevent the dog's owner from disposing of it as he sees fit. I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."
Your morality derives from an axiom which is abstract and bankrupt and which calls foetuses and babies parasites.
Yes, the fetus and very young child is parasitic upon its mother and parents, respectively. This is not an emotional statement, it is a statement of fact. Please reference any introductory textbook on reproductive biology.
It is an axiom which itself has a basis in emotion rather than the origin and progression of the universe.
I have no idea what the origin or progression* of the universe is. I welcome any evidence you might have in that regard.
As for the non-aggression principle you clearly do not understand its foundation in argumentation ethics. Go read Hoppe. Emotion has nothing to do with it.
Clayton -
*beyond the evolution of the state of the universe according to the laws of physics
Curlz31:however his overall theory is a failure and his arrogance and intellectual laziness (or deliberate ignorance) in justifying animal cruelty and calling foetuses and newborn babies parasites is to be condemned.
But it's not arrogant or lazy to simply assert his theory is a failure without extrapolating his philospophic point and brush off refrences to the historic thinkers of which he derived his ethical system from as an appeal to "celebrity philosophers" simply because you refuse to take the time to research points of view that don't confer your own? How enlightening.
And please describe how babies are not parasites. Rothbard was, of course, calling them such in an economic sense, as the baby or fetus does not produce wealth, while at the same time consuming the savings of the parent.
Curlz31: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25797913-661,00.html Now according to Rothbardians this guy cannot be jailed because he "owned" the puppy. I want to see the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics try and defend a puppy having its ears and tail hacked off. Hopefully there will not be many of you because you are a weight on the shoulders of sane libertarians.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25797913-661,00.html
Now according to Rothbardians this guy cannot be jailed because he "owned" the puppy.
I want to see the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics try and defend a puppy having its ears and tail hacked off.
Hopefully there will not be many of you because you are a weight on the shoulders of sane libertarians.
Well, I guess I would be one person to agree with you more on this forum, but you're coming at it the wrong way.
Look, this is awful. Thinking about it makes my eyes start to tear up. I have a real soft spot for animals, but at the same time I have a real distaste for the state.
Now, of course all of these conversations are moot - because most of us will never live in a society without a fairly large nation-state dictating rules - 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.
existence is elsewhere
krazy kaju: So you're one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that.
In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety.
I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men.
Wilmot of Rochester: In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don't even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety. I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can't accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal "rights" and worthiness of empathy as other men.
I used to know this one kid years ago- he was a pretty cruel kid, he'd find ants and kill them in all kinds of ways, sometimes he'd rip them apart, sometimes flood their colony entrance with water, or just plain step on them. I'd never think of sentencing him to death because he wasn't concerned with the ants safety.
If you do then I think you're crazy- if you don't then when is cruelty to animals punishable? Which animals? Do only certain mammals receive this type of justice? Does it have to do with how cute the animal is? If you only give dogs this right- then do you think I should be punished for killing a dog for food? For clothing? Or is it only punishable when you don't like the reason the dog was killed?
This curlz guy completely avoided any question regarding stepping on ants. Why don't insects deserve the same rights as dogs? Is it because they're not as visually appealing? It all sounds way too arbitrary.
auctionguy10:This curlz guy completely avoided any question regarding stepping on ants. Why don't insects deserve the same rights as dogs? Is it because they're not as visually appealing? It all sounds way too arbitrary.
One can't ask a well-formed question using the word "deserve" (or "should") without specifying for what purpose something "should" or "deserves to" be. Not "Do insects deserve rights?" but "Do insects deserve rights in order to achieve X purpose?" Or "Should insects have rights in order to achieve X purpose?"
I suspect Curlz's moral sense (probably mostly the sense of empathy) is offended by cruelty to dogs (as is mine), but not so much offended by cruelty to insects. For whatever reason doesn't really matter. So for Curlz, dogs should have rights in order not to offend his sense of empathy. The benefit to him of lessening animal cruelty apparently outweighs the costs of assigning dogs legal rights and enforcing them. That is fine, and he should not have to explain why dogs should have rights and ants should not, because the purpose the word "should' refers to is "not offending Curlz's sense of empathy." So it's subjective, and in AnCap you (and whoever or whatever you care about) de facto get the rights you pay for. It's a non-issue.
liberty student:A belief in natural rights is subjective, but the notion of natural rights itself is based on a *supposed* objective truth of existence.
What is this supposed objective truth? Or link to something I could read? I think the time has come to resolve this issue.