What Does The Consitution Say About Animal Rights?

[AxisMundi]

does this responsibility include not killing and eating them?

Did you miss my "animals have a right to be tasty on my plate" comment?

Or are you jumping to the conclusion than I am some militant vegan?

The responsibility is to house them in healthy environments then ensure their purpose is fullfilled in a quick, clean manner.

[teacherone]

Did you miss my "animals have a right to be tasty on my plate" comment?

Or are you jumping to the conclusion than I am some militant vegan?

The responsibility is to house them in healthy environments then ensure their purpose is fullfilled in a quick, clean manner.

and who determines this?

[heavenlyboy34]

It would take a very compelling argument indeed for me to support the privitation of our road system, especially considering the plethora of recent examples of how corperate greed has not only raised prices, but impacted public safety in the Free (for all) Market atmosphere of de-regulation.

You assume I or Block, et. al. are referring to corporate ownership of roads. This is not true. You also assume that "corporate greed" has done such things as raise prices, etc. In reality, this is a consequence of moral hazard, as RP and the other Austrians have pointed out.

A "corporation" is simply a business structure (did you know the constitution is a Corporate Charter?). What makes some corporations objectively bad is the extent that they cooperate with the regime and use their power for destructive purposes. side note: A corporation can be comprised of a single person.

[AxisMundi]

It's only disturbing if you fail to understand the nature of family government.

In like manner, those who find it disturbing that one would not accept the idea that animals have rights fail to understand the doctrine of creation. Animals are not equal with human beings, no matter what evolution lies to us about. Of course, if one is an evolutionist (believing humans are just an advanced form of animals), then naturally that person should believe in animal rights, to a certain extent. Otherwise, that person would have to conclude that since "lesser animals" don't have rights, then neither do "greater animals" like humans.

But I digress.

Biblical ideology is nothing to base laws upon.

And I'm sorry if you feel the need to labor under the lie that Evolution is not a simple fact, or that human beings are indeed animals.

And please feelf ree to show where I claim that "animals ahve inherent rights" or that I "conclude that since "lesser animals" don't have rights, then neither do "greater animals" like humans".

[AxisMundi]

You assume I or Block, et. al. are referring to corporate ownership of roads. This is not true. You also assume that "corporate greed" has done such things as raise prices, etc. In reality, this is a consequence of moral hazard, as RP and the other Austrians have pointed out.

A "corporation" is simply a business structure (did you know the constitution is a Corporate Charter?). What makes some corporations objectively bad is the extent that they cooperate with the regime and use their power for destructive purposes. side note: A corporation can be comprised of a single person.

I am well aware that teh Constitution is a Contract of INcorperation, yes, one of the things that argues for it's supremecy.

I've been an informal student of the document for many years, studing in dusty libraries because the Internets hadn't been invented yet.

And yes, I was indeed assuming you were speaking of corperate ownership of the roads. I am apperently mistaken, please expand.

And corperate greed built this Nation, IMHO, from driving the Rail Road coast to coast to building up corperate giants that fueld our "Golden Age" of employment. However, unchecked corperate greed leads to things like huge oil spills, worker safety concerns, sweat shops, child labor, etc. Many of the concerns now found in China where corperate greed, again IMHO, has sent many jobs.

[AxisMundi]

and who determines this?

Logic. Reason. You know, the stuff we excell at in the animal kingdom.

[teacherone]

dupe...

[teacherone]

Logic. Reason. You know, the stuff we excell at in the animal kingdom.

uuhhh... let me rephrase

who determines that an animal is

house[d] in healthy environments [and] ensure[s] their purpose is fullfilled in a quick, clean manner?

[heavenlyboy34]

I am well aware that teh Constitution is a Contract of INcorperation, yes, one of the things that argues for it's supremecy.

I've been an informal student of the document for many years, studing in dusty libraries because the Internets hadn't been invented yet.

And yes, I was indeed assuming you were speaking of corperate ownership of the roads. I am apperently mistaken, please expand.

And corperate greed built this Nation, IMHO, from driving the Rail Road coast to coast to building up corperate giants that fueld our "Golden Age" of employment. However, unchecked corperate greed leads to things like huge oil spills, worker safety concerns, sweat shops, child labor, etc. Many of the concerns now found in China where corperate greed, again IMHO, has sent many jobs.

In a sense, you're right. But where does "corporate greed" come from? It comes from our seriously $#@!ed up monetary and government system. (back to the "moral hazard" again, you see) If the head of a corporation couldn't rely on backing from the regime, it is not likely that he would take absurd risks.

Where you're going wrong in your reasoning is assuming that corporations are inherently immoral. They aren't. Those corps that do obviously stupid and dangerous things act that way because they are "blessed" by the regime. (big pharma is a great example of this)

[Sentient Void]

Secondly, those roads you mentioned are still paid for through fees and gate admission. Even mall roads are paid for by fees stores gather through marking up their merchendice. These are essentially taxes. Privitizing roads would also remove We the People from the ability to control the roads we own and use, and open a plethora of possible concerns such as "road companies" banning certain vehicles from travelling on their roadways. Even people who do not own a car use the road system, every time they go to the grovery store and purchase produce that has arrived by truck, for one glaring example.

So what? Do you expect it all to be *free*?You haven't refuted my point at all. The point is - that private sector can do it all. There *has* to be fees and ways to pay for it in the end, and we all know that they're there somewhere (mall rent for the commercial space, etc). The point is, is that the private sector *always* has and always will, do what the public sector does - but better, cheaper, more effectively and with better quality. These are great examples of just that. You also obviously haven't done the necessary reading and informed yourself on the privatization of inner-city/town roads - since you wouldn't necessarily need 'road companies' to take care of the roads - another example is homeowners in the town sharing the cost - and there are numerous ways this can be done (and gets done in gated communities, condo areas, etc). As for your claim that road companies would start banning certain vehicles from travelling on their roads? There's no evidence to support such a claim - and is wild speculation.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about an old lady in the bread line during the 'height' of the Soviet Union (if there ever was such a thing). She turned to the man behind her and said, "This is ridiculous! This line is taking forever... just for a loaf of *bread*. I need to feed my dear husband." The man turns to her and says, "Oh yeah? Well in America - their government doesn't *even* give out any food!"

I hope I've illustrated my point.

Thirdly, essential government services, such as fire and police, health/fire/building code enforcment, essential document storage (marriage licenses, propetery titles, birth/death certificates, etc), water and sewage services, etc. should never be left open to corperate greed. The pure amount of baeroucracy that would be required to oversee such privatized services would be much larger, and more expensive, than We the People paying for those services directly.

All can be done by the private sector - and there's *no* reason to believe otherwise. As for 'corporate greed' - others on this thread have pointed out your errors in your misperception of corporate greed - the problem is government distortions, not voluntary individual transactions and capitalism - and your attack is a complete strawman against the subject matter. As we have seen - government monopoly on coercion, public utilities and other services you hold so dearly are the ones that offer your typical monopoly problems - high prices, waste, corruption, and on top of that, massive bureaucracy. This is because competition - private competition and capitalism, is not allowed to operate.

Firstly, they have no "monopoly" on anything. The county residents are free to organize their own fire department, which I am confident might occur due to that incident.

Oh really? Feel free to point out competitive fire services in that area. Do you *really* need me to define what a monopoly is for you? Do you *really* not understand the destructive nature of government monopolies?

Secondly, while it is indeed a government department, it is quite indicative of what would occur if fire serveices, or any other emoergency serivices such as police, was privatized.

Um, no... it isn't. It's a government mandated public monopoly. It is not a private enterprise operating in a free market.

Fail.

We can already see what would occur from those areas that labor under private ambulance services. Service fees of hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars.

In my town in Massachusetts, our ambulance services are completely privatized and there are a few companies out there that compete for business. Since privatizing the ambulance services - response time quickened, the tax burden was released from the taxpayers, the overall cost was reduced, and it was one less thing for the local government(s) to worry about. 'Nuff said.

Lastly, locally there was a huge concern over fire companies (which are private incorperated companies that charge he local government for their services) charging property owners fees and giving preverential treatment to those who have paid those fees.

And? What do you expect? Do you think no one should have to pay for a service that they demand? How do you expect businesses to react to such a situation? They still help them, but *naturally* you're going to prioritize your customers - as it should be. In the end, if a fire department got to a burning house and the house owners didn't pay their subscription fees or whatever, they'd still put it out - but charge them probably more via bill.

In the end, because the *governments* (who take the money through coercion and taxes) and not the consumers directly pay for the services, it's *still* not the same thing at all as private enterprise in a free market - which would be *much better*. The private market shows this.

The way I see it - if a 'private company' gets a majority of it's revenue from taxdollars - it's not really a private institution, and should not be viewed as such.

[AxisMundi]

In a sense, you're right. But where does "corporate greed" come from? It comes from our seriously $#@!ed up monetary and government system. (back to the "moral hazard" again, you see) If the head of a corporation couldn't rely on backing from the regime, it is not likely that he would take absurd risks.

Where you're going wrong in your reasoning is assuming that corporations are inherently immoral. They aren't. Those corps that do obviously stupid and dangerous things act that way because they are "blessed" by the regime. (big pharma is a great example of this)

I was thinking on this on the two hour bus ride to college this morning, that I hadn't explained what the term "corperate greed" is that I use.

Corperate greed, as opposed to Big Corp Greed, is the culture of greed found in many places, from Big Corp to Big Gov, and not an individual or individual company.

And I agree that Big Corp, through lobby efforts have been anionted by both parties, more so, I believe, on the right than the left.

[osan]

If animals have rights, where do their rights come from?

Where do ours?