I think we reached a dead end.
Therefore, I suggest we start again, fresh, I propose two questions; 1. How can animals be the in the same group of homesteaded property as rocks and trees? They have very different qualities that deserve attention, for starters, they moved, on their own, away from their 'owners', that points out some level of 'self-ownership' even when not a perfect sense, it still should be taken into account. 2. How can we justify torture of animals when most (if not all of us) instinctively are against it and consider it wrong? Specially when most 'instinctively' wrong things are ethically condemned: murder, aggression, rape, kidnapping... It could be said that one of the many explanations of rights is that it could be us the one who is being tortured, we could have been born 'black' or female, or slave. Also the recognition that everyone should be free to pursue his own path freely with the only restriction of not initiating force against others. So, please, rocks are not the same as chimps, they are different, you can not look other view, you have to explain and assume that difference, they are not in the exact same ethical status as a rock, they are someway between a rock and a human. And please, stop the silly fallacious attack 'they can't have human rights, therefore they can't have any rights at all!' That's a false dichotomy, there's a third way! As I said, a line between a rock and a human, somewhere in between are the chimps, where exactly, I don't know. Not even ourselves are always in one and only one ethical category! A thief fall from the category (deserving to free from all aggression) to another (owning restitution to the victim therefore not free from aggression from the owner, in a limited way) Why can't animals have a new ethical category for themselves too? Of course they won't sign contracts, of course you will have the right to protect your fridge from hungry bears but...are you ethically right in going to the forest to kidnap a chimp into a jail and torture him? I think not. What do you think, where would you put the line and why?
And by the way, I'm not even against hunting, but I believe there is a long, gray way from recognizing that unlike us, animals do not respect property, to the justification that they should have absolutely no ethical and legal protection whatsoever even against torture.
If you do not like people torturing or killing animals do not associate with them, and encourage other people to do likewise.
The whole idea of objective rights was conceived within the context of the old Statist (albeit minarchist) paradigm. It does not seem to have any purpose on a free market in law, other than as a guideline. The animal rights debate is for minarchists. For those consumers who oppose monopoly, it's just something that may influence what legal assocations one chooses, which PDA one will patronize, and/or which court's services will be preferred.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Can an animal take me to court? Can it make a legal case? If not, then how can it legally defend its rights?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: Can an animal take me to court? Can it make a legal case? If not, then how can it legally defend its rights?
Can the dead? The murdered? How are their rights defended?Maybe, trough other people acting in their behalf?
Children protection agencies act in defense of children, why can't animal protection agencies act in defense of animals?
It's the same, proof will still have to be given, photos, videos, testimonies, neighbors, etc...
You would take to a judge whoever murdered your dog, why can't animal protection agencies take to a judge those who torture animals? Why can't they act in their defense when they are willing and nobody else is?
AJ: The whole idea of objective rights was conceived within the context of the old Statist (albeit minarchist) paradigm. It does not seem to have any purpose on a free market in law, other than as a guideline. The animal rights debate is for minarchists. For those consumers who oppose monopoly, it's just something that may influence what legal assocations one chooses, which PDA one will patronize, and/or which court's services will be preferred.
No, it's not for minarchists only, in free societies the debate will continue, I'm ancap and find the mainstream animal analysis deeply flawed, and I'm not the only one.
Of course it will influence a lot of things, but I'm taking about what natural law says about a man who stops the beating of a dog by his neighbor or allows the dog to come to his property and now protects him,
It's my understanding that it should be treated like children rights, just as if Bart Simpson wanted to run to the Flanders home, or if Flanders entered the simpsons home to protect bart, so should it be with the simpson's dog, it may be their property, but that doesn't grant them the right to abuse him, that means, animals should be recognized minimal ethical rights, a lower status than children, but a status anyway, refusing the debate and going to extreme and absurd positions like 'they are just property, like rocks!' is evidently absurd, they are not, those who say that without rigorously taking into account the different quality of animals in respect to rocks are being intellectually lazy or dishonest.
Player: It's my understanding that it should be treated like children rights, just as if Bart Simpson wanted to run to the Flanders home, or if Flanders entered the simpsons home to protect bart, so should it be with the simpson's dog, it may be their property, but that doesn't grant them the right to abuse him, that means, animals should be recognized minimal ethical rights, a lower status than children, but a status anyway, refusing the debate and going to extreme and absurd positions like 'they are just property, like rocks!' is evidently absurd, they are not, those who say that without rigorously taking into account the different quality of animals in respect to rocks are being intellectually lazy or dishonest.
Well, there goes all good food.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
AJ:The whole idea of objective rights was conceived within the context of the old Statist (albeit minarchist) paradigm. It does not seem to have any purpose on a free market in law, other than as a guideline. The animal rights debate is for minarchists. For those consumers who oppose monopoly, it's just something that may influence what legal assocations one chooses, which PDA one will patronize, and/or which court's services will be preferred.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Animals have no concept of property.
Animals can be property only when a human claims them to be so and maintains them as such. Just because an animal is on your land, doesn't necessarily mean the animal belongs to you. In addition, animals you claim as property can make you liable if they trespass on another person's property. So there is a cost associated with ownership of animals.
Animal rights is a form of group rights. Libertarians are concerned with individual rights, and more specifically individual human rights, primarily the right to property.
The torture of animals violates common morality, but does not violate individual human rights. The response to such action could be severe, which infers a cost to the person who tortured the animal.
Applying moral views on the treatment of animals does not confer rights to the animal.
Player: Spideynw: Can an animal take me to court? Can it make a legal case? If not, then how can it legally defend its rights? Can the dead? The murdered? How are their rights defended?Maybe, trough other people acting in their behalf?
Yes. But this is not the same thing as animals. If I own an animal, you have no claim to that animal, and as such, no standing in court. If someone kills my wife, I have a claim to my wife, as such, I would have standing in court for a redress of grievances.
Player:Children protection agencies act in defense of children,
Really? How are the children going to pay these protection agencies?
Player:why can't animal protection agencies act in defense of animals?
You assume there would be child protection agencies. I see no reason to believe there would be.
Player:You would take to a judge whoever murdered your dog, why can't animal protection agencies take to a judge those who torture animals?
Because, they have no standing to take the case to court. There is no need for restitution to some third party. In order to have standing, you have to have some kind of claim.
Player:Why can't they act in their defense when they are willing and nobody else is?
Because it is not their animal.
K.C. Farmer:Animals have no concept of property.
I have to wonder about this a little. Give a dog a bone and then try to take it back. Does the dog realize the bone is his? Does it realize the bone is his property? Or is this just instinctual behavior that arises from the competition of food and other scarce resources? Is there really a difference?
Player:1. How can animals be the in the same group of homesteaded property as rocks and trees?They have very different qualities that deserve attention, for starters, they moved, on their own, away from their 'owners', that points out some level of 'self-ownership' even when not a perfect sense, it still should be taken into account.
No, it shows instinct. Single cell organisms move around on their own, do they deserve rights? You're not arguing for animals rights, but rights to animals that are furry or cute, or have some other appeal that allows a slight anthropomorphization so you can empathize with them.
Player:2. How can we justify torture of animals when most (if not all of us) instinctively are against it and consider it wrong? Specially when most 'instinctively' wrong things are ethically condemned: murder, aggression, rape, kidnapping...
Why the hell would I have to justify it? I can't offer a justification for mainlining heroin, dying, and leaving your family to rot because you had no savings that you didn't shoot into your veins. Doesn't mean it's a proper place for legal action. I'm against torturing animals, therefore I don't torture them. I do kill them quickly and with as little pain as possible and eat them occasionally.
Player:It could be said that one of the many explanations of rights is that it could be us the one who is being tortured, we could have been born 'black' or female, or slave. Also the recognition that everyone should be free to pursue his own path freely with the only restriction of not initiating force against others.
You or I would not only oppose torture, we would argue against it. Ethically what good in not torturing an animal just because it squeals, so you turn it loose and the first thing it does is chow down on some other animal in the most viscious way possible. They are not objecting to the behavior anymore than a headless human body kep on life support is objecting to being stabbed when it gets jabbed and pulls away.
If animals put forward a declaration of rights, if they are proven to have some level of intelligence however imperfect, that allows them to say, "Don't hurt me, and I won't hurt you," then I'll consider inherent rights for them. But in order to have rights you have to be willing to defend those rights assuming all your faculties are there and up to par, and to argue for those rights. You have to be aware of yourself and your relations to others, and be able to abstract to what a right is, not just not want to be killed because that's what instinct tells you to avoid,
Animals may not be stones or sticks, but only in as much as they have the potential to possess rights should the evolve and become self aware. But despite all the interesting tricks they can learn, I've yet to see evidence of self awareness on the level that humans have. Once I do see that, fine, I won't eat them. But until a cow says, "Please don't do that," when I go to hack a porter house out of his ass, I'm not going to stop eating good steak. I agree to avoiding sufferring through voluntary adherence to standards of putting them down. But beyond that, they're lunch.
I see animals as food. Granted I may not like to eat certain ones but in some culture somewhere around to world another person may. It doesn't make senese to give food rights.
I don't have all the answers, I don't understand well the subject and that's why I ask, I'm merely trying to find a rock-solid foundation and ask fellow libertarians.
I do recognize the gray line regarding 'furry or cute animals', if they truly deserved minimal non-human rights, which species? how down in the biological tree of species? A fast answer could be mammals and birds, both have passed the mirror test and have intelligent species, parrots, dolphins, elephants, chimps...
And Spideynw, I was talking about charitable agencies, they exist right now, lots of people give their money to help former enslaved prostitutes, to help abandoned animals, to help immigrants...
And are you sure they don't have the concept of property at all? Doesn't a chicken defend her eggs as her property? Doesn't she in a way, 'respect' other chickens property? They do not respect _our_ property, but between themselves? That's different.
Who doesn't respect property, the chicken who lays and protects her eggs or the human who steals her eggs?
And what about fur, isn't it pretty clear that their fur belongs to them, its their body!
The question is: Is their no-respect of property a full-permission and legitimation for anything and all against them?
Even burglars who do not respect property still are treated with dignity and within limits.
Southern:It doesn't make senese to give food rights.
I think they're doing that after the Health Care Bill.
Fast Food Rights Act of 2009 - a 23,000 page document that grants fast food and soft drinks equal protection, making it illegal to sell or consume. All fast food restaurants are hereby confiscated by the federal government to preserve fast food's pristine natural environment. The American taxpayer is forced to pay restitution for years of fast food consumption. This progressive "fee" will be determined by the weight of the taxpayer. Fast food will receive full medical benefits, which will result in additional "investment". Overall the taxpayer will "save" an additional $5 trillion.
Player: And are you sure they don't have the concept of property at all? Doesn't a chicken defend her eggs as her property? Doesn't she in a way, 'respect' other chickens property? They do not respect _our_ property, but between themselves? That's different.
So, it sounds like were treating animals equally. No inter-species property and may the better species win.
Player:And Spideynw, I was talking about charitable agencies, they exist right now, lots of people give their money to help former enslaved prostitutes, to help abandoned animals, to help immigrants...
Right, but those are all services to help people that want the help, or help an animal that is unowned. A dog owner that is not treating his or her animal like you want it treated does not want help. A parent that is treating his or her child in some way that you do not like, does not want help.
Player:And are you sure they don't have the concept of property at all?
It does not matter if they have a concept of property. What matters is if they can legally defend themselves. They cannot. And a third party that does not own the animal has no claim to the animal, and therefore no standing to claim a restitution of grievances.
Spideynw: Player:And Spideynw, I was talking about charitable agencies, they exist right now, lots of people give their money to help former enslaved prostitutes, to help abandoned animals, to help immigrants... Right, but those are all services to help people that want the help, or help an animal that is unowned. A dog owner that is not treating his or her animal like you want it treated does not want help. A parent that is treating his or her child in some way that you do not like, does not want help. Player:And are you sure they don't have the concept of property at all? It does not matter if they have a concept of property. What matters is if they can legally defend themselves. They cannot. And a third party that does not own the animal has no claim to the animal, and therefore no standing to claim a restitution of grievances.
I will pretend for a moment that the logical implications of you putting children on the level of rocks and animals doesn't undercut the whole "theory" (whatever that is) of your own claim to any rights at all, as seen here.
What standing do the dead or their kin have and why?
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
But the child wants it, so does the dog.
And when I was a child I would have loved if someone would have stopped my parent, thanks for caring so much, for you only the dad exists, the kid doesn't deserved any consideration, well, guess what, no parent should never ever be allowed to use initiate against a child, I hope you at least agree with that.
You are going back again, a baby cannot defend himself in front of judge, he can't speak! But he still has rights against aggression.
And you are going in circles, you are saying that if a corporation kidnaps chimps in the jungle for testing, they are now their property, but the question remains, can they be owned like a rock? No. They can only have legal tuition over them.
Player:They can only have legal tuition over them.
What is this supposed to mean? Please read back through the thread I linked for my discussion of potentiality.
I will agree to a division between rocks, robots, chinchillas and cyborgs because of their nature of being and potentiality. As a heuristic device, we can consider the possibility of future bovine sentience. If you abduct my cow to a Masai village and participate in a ritual drinking blood from its neck, then Bessy happens to start talking and exhibiting moral agency, I or Bessy will have a legitimate case against you. This is so unrealistic and difficult to prove that us meat eaters have little foreseeable to fear though.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap