What do the libertarians on here think about Animal Rights?

[osan]

The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house. However if, for example, there were packs of wild dogs roaming and killing people, I would have a different view of how to deal with them, although torture wouldn't be an option. But yeah, rat poison is a form of torture, and I would rather see someone use traps when dealing with an infestation rather than poison. But that isn't the hill I want to die on.

Do not expect honest discussion from this one. I was quite surprised to find this to be the case. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

[osan]

To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another. At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me. I really, really, don't want you to kill me. I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.

You apparently do not even know yourself that well to understand that were someone to begin flaying you in earnest, before they were 10% finished in the task you would be begging them to kill you.

Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb? If not, then I would submit that you have no idea of what you speak. Agony is an interesting thing; a powerful thing. It can change your perspective on living profoundly. I know to be aware that, given enough of that good old-fashioned agony, I would be eager to leave this life. So would you.

Besides, you cannot seriously think for a moment that you would survive being flayed. You would die no matter what. Given that, better quickly than slowly. YMMV, I suppose.

[navy-vet]

geesh.... I always thought "flaying" was beating someone with a whip....I just googled it and read it was skinning them and if they were alive when skinned or flayed, they could suffer unbelievable agony for hours or days....how utterly disgusting humans can be.

[jj-]

Obviously, animals have no rights.

[jj-]

Should it be legal for a dog to be chained to a tree with little leash to move, in a 100 degree heat, with no food or water?

Yes.

Some people want to make a distinction about "cruelty", but if you're going to control and kill living beings, "cruelty" is in the eye of the beholder. Saying that it should be illegal, logically implies that humans should starve. Once animals are given rights, plants will soon follow.

[jj-]

Wouldn't you feel the need to intervene?

I wouldn't intervene with force, it's his private property. Those who violate property rights to intervene should go to jail.

[navy-vet]

I wouldn't intervene with force, it's his private property. Those who violate property rights to intervene should go to jail.

I would intervene and risk going to jail.

[jj-]

I would intervene and risk going to jail.

Your choice of course. Just knowing you put animals over humans, my choice in life would be to disassociate from that kind of person.

[navy-vet]

IMO, there are things worth risking ones life for, and that's one on my list. I would probably start by sending a message followed by reporting them to the proper authority, anonymously, to avoid becoming a suspect, should it be necessary to escalate the process.

[navy-vet]

Your choice of course. Just knowing you put animals over humans, my choice in life would be to disassociate from that kind of person.

That would be prudent.

[jj-]

IMO, there are things worth risking ones life for, and that's one on my list.

My impression is that you value your life very little and are just looking for an excuse to die. Or maybe an excuse to attack other human beings.

[navy-vet]

I wouldn't say that I put animals over humans though. I would say it's more like, a reluctance to tolerate bad behavior from a foul human.

[navy-vet]

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "life". I wouldn't kill the low life over it, if he insisted on torturing the beast, out of indifference or resentment. I might end the suffering of an animal through other actions though.... There are many variables in the scenario you presented.
Hopefully I never have to deal with anything like that.
The whole thing is rather mute though, since it is illegal to mistreat an animal like that where I live, and the authorities will intervene.

[jj-]

I wouldn't say that I put animals over humans though. I would say it's more like, a reluctance to tolerate bad behavior from a foul human.

I think that's like trying to use force to silence someone for preaching communism. It's pretty bad, but freedom of speech is important.

Similarly, I also think torturing animals is bad, but having the legal ability to consume animals is pretty important, so one shouldn't open the door to banning our use of animals as food. If torturing is cruel, eating is clearly cruel too, as dying is pretty bad.

[navy-vet]

I think that's like trying to use force to silence someone for spreading communism. It's pretty bad, but freedom of speech is important.

Similarly, I also think torturing animals is bad, but having the legal ability to consume animals is pretty important, so one shouldn't open the door to banning our use of animals as food. If torturing is cruel, eating is clearly cruel too, as dying is pretty bad.

The slaughter of an animal for food, verses tying a dog to a tree without food or water in 100 degree heat? Is that the premise here?

[jj-]

The slaughter of an animal for food, verses tying a dog to a tree without food or water in 100 degree heat? Is that the premise here?

Once that's accepted, it will be easier for vegetarians to make eating animals illegal. Many are willing to do that but don't have the power, but if the deterioration of society continues, that could be next.

[navy-vet]

Once that's accepted, it will be easier for vegetarians to make eating animals illegal. Many are willing to do that but don't have the power, but if the deterioration of society continues, that could be next.

Once what's accepted?

[navy-vet]

Animal rights or animal cruelty as described by the dog tethered to the tree scenario?

[navy-vet]

this discussion reminds me of a comedy my wife and I started watching on Netflix last night. The last episode we watched was about artificial meat grown in a petri dish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLExLUvfqW0

[navy-vet]

this discussion reminds me of a comedy my wife and I started watching on Netflix last night. The last episode we watched was about artificial meat grown in a petri dish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLExLUvfqW0

Anyway, ends up being successful but costing ten thousand dollars a pound to produce...

[JK/SEA]

Obviously, animals have no rights.

link?

[Deborah K]

Years ago, i was a member of Sea Shepherd. I got very involved in stopping the Makah Tribe from killing whales even though their Treaty with the United States said they could.

I now look back on that episode in my life with mixed emotions. I ended up in front of a Judge over this.... my case was dismissed.

I use glue traps for rodents. I have a 60 grand muscle car in my garage. Glue traps in all 4 corners. I keep my home free of any random food sources in and out.

I also swat flies and mosquitoes, and kill hornets that have started a hive on my house.

There. Confessions are good for the soul.

I have barn cats. They keep the vermin population under control by going after their young. It's sad. If it happens around me, and I think I can save the baby, I will. It creates a dichotomy for me, for sure. But it's so rare now because the cats have been successful at driving the vermin away, they don't even attempt to nest on our land anymore. The dogs go after the vermin as well, and from time to time it becomes necessary to put the animal out of its misery.

I used to think you could torture insects, but I've since learned that they don't have pain receptors, so they don't feel anything. Even so, we don't want our grandchildren (who love to catch anything and everything), to ever think it's acceptable to torture any living creature, including pulling the legs and wings off of insects, even though it does not hurt them. We don't even let them keep the lizards and frogs, and crickets, and so on, for longer than a day.

My grandkids spend every Friday night with us, and we take that time to teach them everything we can, and they know that they have to take up the mantle when they become young men and women. My oldest grandson who is seven, is already very politically aware and interested in the cause of freedom. We've taught them how to garden, and raise chickens, archery, and how to shoot weapons. Anyway, Greg (my 7 yr old grandson) feels he is ready to watch us butcher the chickens. His Mother, my youngest daughter, is NOT ready for him to see it. It's her call, of course. But, the time is coming when he'll be hunting rabbits, and he's going to need to know what to do.

My apologies for the tangent. I guess I just wanted to show that you can be an animal lover, and still kill them humanely. They can be a rich source of nourishment, and yet also be a pest. Either way, they can be dealt with humanely.

[helmuth_hubener]

You apparently do not even know yourself that well to understand that were someone to begin flaying you in earnest, before they were 10% finished in the task you would be begging them to kill you. ... I would be eager to leave this life. So would you.

You could be right. I will readily admit that, in the heat of the moment, I may very well have second thoughts. How many women determined to have "natural births" decide at the last minute: "Enough! Give me the epidural!"?

However, does it not seem the least bit arrogant and conceited to you to be telling me what exactly I will do and think, to assert that you know me better than I know myself, and to come to the conclusion that (surprise, surprise!) my decisions will be the same as your own?

How could I have missed it, right? Obviously I am going to be the same and act the same and think the same as osan! Because, after all, osan is the center of this universe.

Osan, could you tell me more about myself, my inner turmoils, what decisions I will inevitably make in the future? I have always wanted to know. Now at last I have access to someone wise and omniscient enough to patiently correct me about what I really think and feel.

Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb?

Wait, are you asking questions, now? I thought you already had all the answers. Why waste time asking questions when you already have the answers?

Non potest dici aliquid ad **** qui scit omnia.

[robert68]

...

Let me ask you this: have you ever sustained a truly monumental injury, such as loss of a limb?

Wait, are you asking questions, now? I thought you already had all the answers. Why waste time asking questions when you already have the answers?
...

But it's an appropriate question for someone who has said:

I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.

I was wondering it as well. Could you answer it?

[helmuth_hubener]

And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.

And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society! Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.

Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with. But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)

And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society! Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.

I would intervene and risk going to jail.

And that's a choice you can make in a libertarian society! Just realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.

And it sounds like you are! You are saying here that you are aware of the just consequence -- that you are aggressing against the person and that you open yourself to retaliation, such as jail (or in the libertarian society, more likely restitution). It's OK to make a decision to violate the Non-Aggression Principle like that. Or, actually, let me rephrase: it may or may not be OK; libertarianism doesn't actually know. It doesn't have any idea. It doesn't take a position on whether actions are right or wrong, it just states that certain actions can be retaliated against with force. Libertarianism is fundamentally a retaliation theory. It doesn't say XYZ is right or wrong. Even if XYZ is right and good and clearly a wonderful thing to do, it may still be retaliable!

We've talked about this before here on RPF. Here is one of my brilliant posts () on the matter:

Obviously morality and concepts of right and wrong play into any theory addressing what humans should and should not do. And the NAP certainly does make claims as to what humans should and should not do. Let us say, then, that it is a subset of morality, dealing with a very limited sphere (think of a Ven diagram with a little circle -- libertarianism -- inside a much bigger circle -- morality). But it is not a general moral code. It deals only with the question: when is it OK to use force and violence to punish people? Libertarianism, as Walter Block says, is fundamentally a punishment theory. Whether the action was right or wrong in light of other considerations outside the scope of libertarianism does not play into it. If it was an aggression according to the rules of libertarianism, then it is punishable. That aggression may have been "right" in the judgment of the aggressor (and perhaps in the judgment of many). But that doesn't really matter.

Here is Walter explaining it himself, especially 24:12 - 28:30:

[helmuth_hubener]

It's as I said in this post a couple pages back:

Thou shalt not initiate force, but there are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc. More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences. Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.

[helmuth_hubener]

It's also as Danan said in a truly brilliant post in another thread on this topic:

Yes, it is sadistic and morally wrong to torture a living being. I guess that's not a very shocking statement. But not everything that's wrong should be illegal. In fact, most immoral things are and should be legal. Libertarianism is a political philosophy mainly concerned with the legality of things, or whether an action constitutes initial aggression against property or not. It's main goal is to give a consistent framework on how to evaluate such problems, imho.

-- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4866836

In fact, it's so good, let's just quote the whole thing:

What I said was that if you agree that animals are not property, but rather property owners of their own bodies, exactly like human beings (because only then you could make the claim that causing them pain should be illegal), it would also follow that enslaving them and especially killing them would be a crime too. If you agree that animals are not owners of their bodies but property of a human being (or unowned if they are wild), then you still have to make the case why usual property rights don't apply here. Just because they feel pain is not a good argument. You'd have to make the case that an animal has a right not to be tortured but no right not to be killed. And personally I'd rather be tortured from time to time than being held as livestock on a farm and killed to eventually become food. So I don't really buy your argument that torturing animals is worse than killing them.

I have more respect for PETA people who take their ridiculous axiom that animals are full property owners of their bodies to the absurd conclusions. I don't agree with their axioms, but I respect their logical consistency. As long as nobody is able to make a good case for animal rights as a basis for arguments about legality, I'll stick with publically condemning animal cruelty and using my own property to hurt those $#@!s without violating their property.

WEll, okay I guess I can see how it's consistent, but clearly the reasonable view is the one that doesn't reduce the animal to property just because it's been domesticated to the point of having to rely on humans.

I don't know, some people made the same arguments in regards to human slavery. "They couldn't survive on their own, they are not like us!" Cats can most certainly survive on their own. Dogs too, I've seen them successfully hunting deer in groups. And even if they couldn't, it wouldn't make a difference. You'd have no right to "imprison" them, if they'd own themselves.

[helmuth_hubener]

And I happen to like it as well. So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand? The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals. I would like to see their take on it.

I'll see what I can find.

Here is Murray Rothbard from The Ethics of Liberty (recently taken down from the Mises site in the renovation, hopefully soon-to-be-returned!, but in the meantime this section readable here: http://mises.org/library/rights-animals )

It has lately become a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible — i.e., that no man has the right — to kill or eat them.

There are, of course, many difficulties with this position, including arriving at some criterion of which animals or living beings to include in the sphere of rights and which to leave out.

(There are not many theorists, for example, who would go so far as Albert Schweitzer and deny the right of anyone to step on a cockroach. And, if the theory were extended further from conscious living beings to all living beings, such as bacteria or plants, the human race would rather quickly die out.)

But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching. For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, but for the species man alone. The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was "given" — or, in natural law, we may say "has" — dominion over all the species of the earth. Natural law is necessarily species-bound.

That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is "evil" because he exists by devouring and "aggressing against" lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who "aggresses against" other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men "aggress against" cows and wolves as to say that wolves "aggress against" sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an "evil aggressor" or that the wolf was being "punished" for his "crime." And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

What of the "Martian" problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical "Martians" were like human beings — conscious, rational, able to communicate with us and participate in the division of labor — then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to "earthbound" humans.

But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't immediately find a statement from Ayn Rand on the subject, but here is a particularly good essay on it from the Atlas Society:

http://www.atlassociety.org/animal_rights

[helmuth_hubener]

But it's an appropriate question for someone who has said:


I was wondering it as well. Could you answer it?

I could. And since you asked nicely, I will: yes, I have.

There, do I suddenly have credibility now?