Animal Cruelty vs Property Rights

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Tue, May 12 2009 2:49 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

door

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Tue, May 12 2009 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

GilesStratton:

door

Not what you meant to quote?

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Tue, May 12 2009 2:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Giles, it doesnt happen all that often, but I am immature enough to enjoy you making a typo

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:01 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

Giles, it doesnt happen all that often, but I am immature enough to enjoy you making a typo

I still don't get it.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:02 PM

rated by 0 users

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

Reply

liberty student replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:07 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

He's hell on windows too.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:10 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

Oh, right, I see that.

Well, I've come to the opinion that the differences between inanimate objects and peoples is a social construct a la Roderick Long.

Reply

Charles Anthony replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:25 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Charles Anthony:

liberty student:

Perhaps you did not read the thread?

-- or perhaps I see a difference between what a person does and what acts of retaliation a person believes he can successfully repel.

What does this mean?  99% of the discussions here are not based on what people do, but rather what their ideological positions are.

liberty student:

Charles Anthony:

As such, I find his advocacy uninteresting.

Well it's good you no longer claim to relate to him as a libertarian.  Because there is nothing libertarian about aggression or arbitrary justice.

All justice -- whether libertarian or not -- is arbitrary. Perhaps you need to go do some more homework. 

Reply

Juan replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:37 PM

rated by 0 users

Charles Anthony:

All justice -- whether libertarian or not -- is arbitrary. Perhaps you need to go do some more homework.

Reply

Juan replied on Tue, May 12 2009 3:42 PM

rated by 0 users

All justice -- whether libertarian or not -- is arbitrary.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Tue, May 12 2009 4:05 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

I've come to the opinion that the differences between inanimate objects and peoples is a social construct a la Roderick Long.

im sure Vichy would agree

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Tue, May 12 2009 4:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

I wonder if some chemicals in tap water are causing people to have these weird ideas ?

I'm guessing that's a "crankish" comment.

Reply

tabularasa replied on Tue, May 12 2009 5:38 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't think so as animals would not have rights in a libertarian society. However, it depends on if that libertarian society. There are no set rules because we do not live in a libertarian society. I would assume that if we did and a majority of people within that society saw the need to give animals rights as well as humans then their basic rights would be protected as well. If a man beat a child in a libertarian society they would still have that child taken away (or more likely they would be taken away to jail). It's not a free-for-all, that would be anarchies. And anarchies, on the rare occasions they occur, do not last. Human nature leads to their inevitable destruction.

Reply

liberty student replied on Tue, May 12 2009 9:07 PM

rated by 0 users

tabularasa:

I would assume that if we did and a majority of people within that society saw the need to give animals rights as well as humans then their basic rights would be protected as well.

A libertarian society will not function as a democracy.  You cannot give rights by fiat.

tabularasa:

It's not a free-for-all, that would be anarchies. And anarchies, on the rare occasions they occur, do not last. Human nature leads to their inevitable destruction.

We're seeking to improve on that so anarchy persists.

Reply

Conza88 replied on Tue, May 12 2009 10:16 PM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

I emailed Professor Block and he was able to find the article I was referring to earlier! This may clear things up.

Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums by Walter Block

Block, Walter. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175

On the other hand, given that libertarianism, strictly and narrowly construed, does not forbid killing the innocent, but only requires that such a person be duly punished, its claim to promote utility can still be maintained.

Very interesting stuff.. obviously this appears out of context, lol so everyone should read the link - as there is way too much to paste here.

liberty student:

Conza, I don't want you to feel I am going after you but you really need to answer a few questions.

1. If you see problems with the NAP and intend to violate it, can you really say you are guided by the NAP?

2. If aggression is possible under some circumstances, why not under others?  Is it entirely subjective?

3. Isn't the notion that an animal is property (you agree to homesteading animals I believe) but that you would be justified stealing an animal being mistreated a conflict of the notion of property rights?

That last quote from Dr. Block isn't helping your case as I read it.

Again, could you explain exactly where you are getting the notion from Dr. Block that it is acceptable to violate rights?  Please be verbose.

1.  I am not really seeking to "justify" the violation by working an excuse or mitigating factor / lifeboat scenario / extreme case into the NAP - thereby my actions being "justified" would result in me being free from persecution and punishment. I am not contending nor attempting to "justify" myself free from persecution or punishment.

In this extreme case I state, I will accept my fate. "I am guilty as charged." Just as was the case with an earlier example I quoted from Walter Block about him pushing someone out of the way of a falling boulder - saving their life, but in the process, he broke their arm.

If there are violations of the NAP in other instances, they too would be dealt with in exact same way. Following Libertarian law.

"Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?" - Yes, of course. Necessarily, the NAP would still have meaning even if I didn't deliberately violate it. Actions are what matter. Intent is not really a factor. What matters is applying the NAP, in the use of punishment theory.

2. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Or I'm not communicating it effectively enough. I gather you think I am trying to wriggle out of the NAP, or insert some scenario in to justify it being broken. I'm not.

Aggression is possible in ALL circumstances, no? It is wrong however and violates the NAP. Punishment and restitution etc should be accorded to the victim, proportionality etc.

3. Nope. Because I'm not "justifying" it. If by justify, you mean - it doesn't violate the NAP and therefore I am scott free of punishment.

Not to sound rude, but did you read the journal article? I'm not sure how you could have and not have come to an agreement with Walter Block? That quote outlines my case explicitly and "justifies" it.

On the other hand, given that libertarianism, strictly and narrowly construed, does not forbid killing the innocent, but only requires that such a person be duly punished, its claim to promote utility can still be maintained.

Reply

TheOrlonater replied on Tue, May 12 2009 10:39 PM

rated by 0 users

wombatron:

And rights are not derived from the fact that one has emotions and senses.

It's not about rights, it's about who gives the right to extreme torture.

wombatron:

Which presupposes that non-human animals have rights.  They don't

You're not really answering giving a good point out. Torture is unacceptable. 

Reply

Conza88 replied on Tue, May 12 2009 10:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Zavoi:

Conza88:

But then it moved onto; what if aliens (Haha, I hope I find this article) came down and said "this one person has to be killed, in order for the rest of the world to survive." Then it went on too outline, that if someone volunteered to murder that one person to save the world, IF their relatives or next of kin decide to take the murderer to court... Ultimately, those whose lives have been saved would more than likely chip in too pay the compensation, or restitution or whatever it is called - to the next of kin.

An alien holds a gun to your head and says "kill someone or die." You obey. Are you guilty of murder? No: the guilt rests squarely with the alien, because you were not acting according to you own uncoerced free will. This is essentially the situation we have here.

Wrong. You are guilty of murder. You have violated the NAP. Walter Block also addresses this very well. It's called negative homesteading and is contained within the Abortion lecture, in the second half I believe. As it roughly correlates with evictionism.

In that case the ONLY proper action is to try get the gun and kill / defend yourself against the individual (alien), forcing you against your will. You can't pass on the negative to someone else.

Zavoi:

Conza88:

For instance, there is a family farm with children playing, no parents in sight. There is a paddock containing a Bull. You happen to be walking by a paddock along the fence line. There are signs stating "No Trespassing" "Trespassers will be shot" etc. One of the children falls into the Bull Pen. And the Bull starts to charge. You have a reasonably good chance of saving the child from harm.

Do you stand by and respect the owners property rights? Do you violate the NAP? Or do you let the kid get trampled and seriously injured, maybe even death?

Again, here the responsibility rests with someone else, namely the child's guardian(s), who negligently allowed the child to come to harm. By trespassing to save the child, you are exercising by proxy the child's right to self-defense.

Who the responsibility lies with, doesn't actually address the issue though. You, an outsider, have no obligation too protect the child. That's the point. 'Negligence? Reasonably foreseeable.'  It doesn't really matter, nor does it matter if that person was a child, or not - it could be an adult.

What matters is the punishment. You violated the NAP, you trespassed. The victim can choose to punish you or not. That's all I'm really getting at.

I guess negligence etc, would matter if the child died though.

Zavoi:

Conza88:

You are standing in the path on an onrushing boulder...

We can reconcile saving the boulder-stander with the NAP by noting that this person cannot argue that the rescuer should hot have saved his/her life. (I've started another thread to address this issue.)

Wrong. They CAN argue that the rescuer should not have saved their life. Block also addresses this.

A difficulty with this line of reasoning is that you might have been standing in the way of the boulder as part of a suicide attempt. You regarded the situation where you are dead far more highly than the one where you are alive, but debilitated. We may assume you wanted to end your life because of bodily malfunctions like a broken arm, and now I have worsened your welfare, not improved it.

Zavoi:

The point is that you can't just disregard ethical principles by saying "no jury would find me guilty." If we do, we are forced to abandon the entire notion of objective ethics altogether, which is an incoherent position because we are already claiming that it is objectively true that the jury's decision should be followed. We can attempt to rationally justify our moral intuitions, and we will usually be sucessful, but if reason contradicts intuition, then all we can say is "So much the worse for intuition." Fiat justitia, ruat caelum and all that.

The point is erroneous because I've never said that. Strawman. I've said the exact opposite in fact.

"Or, as I am suggesting - I would disregard his signs and the implied contract, ie. "No trespassing" and risk it. I save the child from harm and accept the 'consequences' from such actions. If he wishes to take me to court, fine. If he seeks to shoot me for trespassing on his property, whilst trying to save the child. Fine. I'm just contending no reasonable person would do any of that."

And if they do, fine. If there is a jury / judge from private law courts, following libertarian law, I respect their descision and punishment either way. If I was disregarding them, I would say if HE injured me for trespassing, then HE should be punished etc. But I am NOT. Which is what I think is causing confusion.

Reply

liberty student replied on Tue, May 12 2009 10:43 PM

rated by 0 users

TheOrlonater:

Torture is unacceptable. 

So is loneliness.  And sickness.  And starvation.

Are you a libertarian?

Reply

liberty student replied on Tue, May 12 2009 10:53 PM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

"Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?"

Yes, of course. Necessarily, the NAP would still have meaning even if I didn't deliberately violate it. Actions are what matter. Intent is not really a factor. What matters is applying the NAP, in the use of punishment theory.

I was asking a philosophical question.  Can you truly say you are for the NAP, if you can envision circumstances when you would intentionally violate it?  How is that different from a pro-life Christian who goes abroad to murder in the imperial legion?

Conza88:

2. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I gather you think I am trying to wriggle out of the NAP, or insert some scenario in to justify it. I'm not.

Aggression is possible in ALL circumstances, no? It is wrong however and violates the NAP. Punishment and restitution etc should be accorded to the victim, proportionality etc.

3. Nope. Because I'm not "justifying" it. If by justify, you mean - it doesn't violate the NAP and therefore I am scott free of punishment.

I have no idea what this means.

Conza88:

Not to be rude, but did you read the journal article? I'm not sure how you could have and not have come to an agreement with Walter Block? That quote outlines my case explicitly and "justifies" it.

On the other hand, given that libertarianism, strictly and narrowly construed, does not forbid killing the innocent, but only requires that such a person be duly punished, its claim to promote utility can still be maintained.

I read it twice.

There is a way out of this conundrum for the libertarian who wants to maintain ties with utilitarianism. Strictly speaking, one might argue, libertarianism is not incompatible with murder. This is because libertarianism in a theory of punishment, not proper behaviour. The libertarian qua libertarian, then, does not say "Don't murder." He only says, "If you murder, you should be punished."

This is rubbish.  Libertarianism is not a theory of punishment and is a theory of proper behaviour.  Is this a post-Randian joke from Dr. Block?

Reply

Conza88 replied on Tue, May 12 2009 11:13 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Conza88:

"Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?"

Yes, of course. Necessarily, the NAP would still have meaning even if I didn't deliberately violate it. Actions are what matter. Intent is not really a factor. What matters is applying the NAP, in the use of punishment theory.

I was asking a philosophical question.  Can you truly say you are for the NAP, if you can envision circumstances when you would intentionally violate it?  How is that different from a pro-life Christian who goes abroad to murder in the imperial legion?

If they recognise that if they murder someone, they have taken someones right to property (their life) and in turn, they also lose their right to property (life).

What's the deal with explicitly avoiding the scenario's? I know you go to the premises etc, but are you telling me - if a boulder was going to crush your lover, your mom or dad, you would stand idly by and do nothing? Because you wouldn't want to violate the NAP? Suddenly because you pushed them / using force - means you don't believe in the NAP anymore? Haha, now you can no longer be called a Libertarian?

liberty student:

Conza88:

Not to be rude, but did you read the journal article? I'm not sure how you could have and not have come to an agreement with Walter Block? That quote outlines my case explicitly and "justifies" it.

On the other hand, given that libertarianism, strictly and narrowly construed, does not forbid killing the innocent, but only requires that such a person be duly punished, its claim to promote utility can still be maintained.

I read it twice.

There is a way out of this conundrum for the libertarian who wants to maintain ties with utilitarianism. Strictly speaking, one might argue, libertarianism is not incompatible with murder. This is because libertarianism in a theory of punishment, not proper behaviour. The libertarian qua libertarian, then, does not say "Don't murder." He only says, "If you murder, you should be punished."

This is rubbish.  Libertarianism is not a theory of punishment and is a theory of proper behaviour.  Is this a post-Randian joke from Dr. Block?

Ok, well I don't think it's rubbish. I think it adequately addresses the problems involved in the scenario's he was responding too.

Could you possibly outline your alternative? You have been critical, but you haven't proposed an alternative solution to the specific problems in any of those outlined by Block, in the journal or articles. I am open to persuasion. I just think Block currently has the best position on things such as this.

Reply

liberty student replied on Tue, May 12 2009 11:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

What's the deal with explicitly avoiding the scenario's? I know you go to the premises etc, but are you telling me - if a boulder was going to crush your lover, your mom or dad, you would stand idly by and do nothing? Because you wouldn't want to violate the NAP? Suddenly because you pushed them / using force - means you don't believe in the NAP anymore? Haha, now you can no longer be called a Libertarian?

I'm not explicitly avoiding scenarios.  My lover or parents and I already have an understanding about physical contact via mutual aid.  There is no conscious decision to violate property rights because we have tacit consent.

Nonetheless, you're proposing a lifeboat again.

Conza88:

"Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?"

Yes, of course. Necessarily, the NAP would still have meaning even if I didn't deliberately violate it.

No, if you deliberately violate the NAP, you are deliberately rejecting libertarianism.  I can understand people acting emotionally, in the heat of the moment.  But someone telling me, "I don't recognize your right to property, and will steal your property to satisfy my sense of justice" is not a libertarian.  Do you disagree?

Important question for you, forgive me if you have answered it.  Are animals ownable?  Are they property? Your earlier responses indicate yes, and yet you seem to be ok with violating their ownership if you don't like how they are treated.

Conza88:

Ok, well I don't think it's rubbish.

So you think libertarianism can be utilitarian as a system of punishment, and not a system of ethics?

Conza88:

Could you possibly outline your alternative?

Alternative to what problems specifically?

I disagree with Block.  There is no need to spin a separate utilitarian perspective on libertarianism.  The NAP underpins a value system, and utility is judged subjectively, based upon values.  This notion that ethics can be divorced from libertarianism under the guise of utility bothers me.

Murder is not compatible with libertarianism.

Reply

thomasw78 replied on Wed, May 13 2009 2:43 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

thomasw78:

If humans only have rights because they can rationalize then would someone who is comatose with no brain function lose all their rights? Or would it be okay for me to go to the nearest hospital and shoot every person lying in a bed in a coma?

Let's assume comatose people are no longer sovereign, and are now property.  Can you go into the hospital and shoot the MRI machine?

If they were your property you could. You could also take an axe to it and rip it to shreds. But we are talking about a living person. You are unwilling to admit there is a difference between a living thing and an inanimate object. In my opinion there is a big difference as I think most reasonable people would admit that there is a big difference between an MRI machine and even the most brain dead vegetative person you can imagine. And to whoever's father or mother or son or daughter that is, there's a big difference. And I'm not willing to assume -- just because a comatose person might have a designated "owner" because of their inability to communicate -- that the owner now has the right to cut off that person's legs or engage in other ungodly acts that might constitute torture if that person was awake for absolutely no reason. I'll admit its a judgment call. But I think you are taking the idea that there are basically no limits to property rights to an extreme level.

liberty student:

thomasw78:

Aren't rights derived from the values of the people's who create them? If we all decided certain animals had certain rights how could you say they wouldn't?

If we decided people had a right to health care, wouldn't they?

Technically, yes... regardless of whether you or I thought they should. That's my point. Rights reflect the values of society and are arbitrary. Do animals have rights in some states that prohibit certain types of abuse? Yes. So, saying animals have no rights is either wrong or a lie.

Reply

Conza88 replied on Wed, May 13 2009 5:42 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I'm not explicitly avoiding scenarios.  My lover or parents and I already have an understanding about physical contact via mutual aid.  There is no conscious decision to violate property rights because we have tacit consent.

Nonetheless, you're proposing a lifeboat again.

What's wrong with a lifeboat? They exist, it is possible the scenario has happened before and will again. Simply dismissing it, won't make it go away. That's a good point about the contract lol. But, as is the case with Block's scenario - there is no consent, what then?

Here is Rothbard, essentially saying the same thing as Block. (Block, same as Rothbard)

It may well be objected to our theory as follows: that a theory of property rights or even of self-ownership is derivable from the conditions by which man survives and flourishes in this world, and that therefore in this kind of extreme situation, where a man is faced with the choice of either saving himself or violating the property rights of the lifeboat owner (or, in the above example, of the "homesteader" in the boat), it is then ridiculous to expect him to surrender his life on behalf of the abstract principle of property rights. Because of this kind of consideration, many libertarians who otherwise believe in property rights gravely weaken them on behalf of the "contextualist" contention that, given a choice between his life and aggressing against someone else's property or even life, it is moral for him to commit the aggression and that therefore in such a situation, these property rights cease to exist.

The error here on the part of the "contextualist" libertarians is to confuse the question of the moral course of action for the person in such a tragic situation with the totally separate question of whether or not his seizing of lifeboat or plank space by force constitutes an invasion of someone else's property right. For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a "political" ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not here with concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such "political ethical" questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for "Smith" — the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat — to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]

The crucial point is that even if the contextualist libertarian may say that, given the tragic context, Smith should throw someone else out of the lifeboat to save his own life, he is still committing, at the very least, invasion of property rights, and probably also murder of the person thrown out. So that even if one says that he should try to save his life by forcibly grabbing a seat in the lifeboat, he is still, in our view, liable to prosecution as a criminal invader of property right, and perhaps as a murderer as well. After he is convicted, it would be the right of the lifeboat owner or the heir of the person tossed out to forgive Smith, to pardon him because of the unusual circumstances; but it would also be their right not to pardon and to proceed with the full force of their legal right to punish.

Once again, we are concerned in this theory with the rights of the case, not with whether or not a person chooses voluntarily to exercise his rights. In our view, the property owner or the heir of the killed would have a right to prosecute and to exact proper punishment upon the aggressor. The fallacy of the contextualists is to confuse considerations of individual, personal morality (what should Smith do?) with the question of the rights of the case. The right of property continues, then, to be absolute, even in the tragic lifeboat situation...

To sum up the application of our theory to extreme situations: if a man aggresses against another's person or property to save his own life, he may or may not be acting morally in so doing. That is none of our particular concern in this work. Regardless of whether his action is moral or immoral, by any criterion, he is still a criminal aggressor against the property of another, and the victim is within his right to repel that aggression by force, and to prosecute the aggressor afterward for his crime.

liberty student:

No, if you deliberately violate the NAP, you are deliberately rejecting libertarianism.  I can understand people acting emotionally, in the heat of the moment.  But someone telling me, "I don't recognize your right to property, and will steal your property to satisfy my sense of justice" is not a libertarian.  Do you disagree?

I agree with the latter sentence. But that someone, isn't me. I recognize your right to property. And in the heat on the moment, I can imagine myself acting emotionally through a sense of moral conviction about saving the dog. Aftermath: I would acknowledge I violated those property rights and accept the consequences of my actions. As Rothbard above outlined.

As for the bold, I have said exactly that. '"It just seems so inhumane to stand by idly as some nut pours lighter fuel on his dog and attempts to light it."

I can't imagine myself standing by and doing nothing in the heat of the moment. That's the point. And if I violate the NAP, so be it... I accept the consequences.

liberty student:

Important question for you, forgive me if you have answered it.  Are animals ownable?  Are they property? Your earlier responses indicate yes, and yet you seem to be ok with violating their ownership if you don't like how they are treated.

Yes, as I've said previously - they are ownable. They can be homesteaded. They have no rights.

"yet you seem to be ok with violating their ownership if you don't like how they are treated."

I've been specific. I'd have too be there, physically present with further abuse about to take place before my very eyes. In a scenario, where I'd probably feel intense guilt for watching and doing nothing. If it is to do with how animals ARE being treated, I would go for all the Libertarian actions I outlined earlier. Notify the 'Pro animal groups' etc etc. Denounce the abuser etc.

Maybe I am too focused on the dog aspect. We domesticate them, we give them names,  "A dog has the soul of a philosopher" - Plato, we feed them, we play with them, they become part of ones family. That's where I am coming from. Maybe it's muddying the waters.

liberty student:

Conza88:

Ok, well I don't think it's rubbish.

So you think libertarianism can be utilitarian as a system of punishment, and not a system of ethics?

It's a system of political 'ethics', which can also retain utility in it's system of punishment.

liberty student:

Conza88:

Could you possibly outline your alternative?

Alternative to what problems specifically?

I disagree with Block.  There is no need to spin a separate utilitarian perspective on libertarianism.  The NAP underpins a value system, and utility is judged subjectively, based upon values.  This notion that ethics can be divorced from libertarianism under the guise of utility bothers me.

Murder is not compatible with libertarianism.

"Here, the "Martians," an all powerful but evil group of beings, beam down a message to an entirely libertarian earth: "Kill innocent person Joe, or we will blow up your entire planet."

What do you suggest?

Ok, well I agree with Block and Rothbard.

"Libertarianism is limited to political philosophy; it does not include ethics. It takes no view whatsoever as to the moralitv of pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, gambling, drugs, etc. It states only that, given that these acts take place between consenting adults, they should not be proscribed by law. When prohibited they are victimless crimes, and thus should be legalized.

The libertarian is not a pacifist. He believes that uninvited border crossings against other people and their property are illegitimate, but allows for the use of physical force, only, however, in the case of self defense. But these invasions must be physical, not merely mental or spiritual. Rape, murder, arson, pickpocketing, kidnapping are all, properly, crimes, because they interfere with other people's holdings. Fraud may only be a "white collar" crime, but it is a crime nonetheless.

Even though it may not be brutal like assault and battery, but it alienates property from victims against their will. Rape, too, need not always be physically vicious. To a third party, it might be indistinguishable from voluntary sex. But as long as the woman is engaging in the act against her will, it is a crime2.

In sharp contrast, such things as teasing, imposing psychological harm, libel, slande?, 3, blackmail4, insider trading5, teasing, (racial, sexual, and other) discrimination6, do not constitute invasive violence. Hence, even though they may be immoral, they would not be considered illegal.

Even more narrowly, libertarianism may properly be construed solely as a theory of punishment. If someone uses coercion, then it is proper to utilize physical force against him, with the goal of rectifying the injustice, compensating the victim, as much as possible7. A side order claim of libertarianism, something not intrinsic to it, is that it will in some sense lead to the ''greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." In other words, this philosophy claims a compatibility with utilitarianism. But not a direct one. Were libertarianism a mere branch of utilitarianism, it would ask of every contemplated action in order to determine its legitimacy, not whether it constitutes an invasion of person or property, but rather whether it will maximize utility'. That there is nevertheless an important connection is a pretty reasonable claim.

Reply

Charles Anthony replied on Wed, May 13 2009 6:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

"Here, the "Martians," an all powerful but evil group of beings, beam down a message to an entirely libertarian earth: "Kill innocent person Joe, or we will blow up your entire planet."

What do you suggest?

 I suggest that you distrust the Martians.  It is pretty stupid to think they would keep their word. 

See, you asked what is wrong with lifeboat scenarios.  The thing that is wrong with them is that they presuppose that you can predict the future.  Nobody can ever know whether the Martians will follow through with their claim. They were probably testing the human race to see how inherently selfish we are.  By killing Joe, they probably will think:  "Ah, ha!  The humans are really stupid and evil.  Due to their unlibertarian nature, we will make them our slaves." 

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, May 13 2009 10:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

What's wrong with a lifeboat?

They are an appeal to emotion, deliberately meant to undermine a rational conclusion.  For libertarians, it is like offering a recovering drug addict some cocaine.

I can make any # of lifeboats arguments.  What about the poor?  What about the children?  What about the (special interest group)?  What about security?  What about safety?  For the love of pete, the entire premise of the state is based on a lifeboat!

Conza88:

And in the heat on the moment, I can imagine myself acting emotionally through a sense of moral conviction about saving the dog.

It's not the heat of the moment.  You are rationalizing it.

_______________

Conza88:

"Libertarianism is limited to political philosophy; it does not include ethics. It takes no view whatsoever as to the moralitv of pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, gambling, drugs, etc. It states only that, given that these acts take place between consenting adults, they should not be proscribed by law. When prohibited they are victimless crimes, and thus should be legalized.

I believe this is a false argument.  Crime is immoral.  A "victimless crime" is a non-crime, and we understand that, making homosexuality, prostitution and pornography outside the realm of what is moral (presuming it is voluntary and consensual) and in the realm of preference.

Under the current distorted paradigm, homosexuality or prostitution may be framed as immoral, but in a free market, no concept of immorality for any voluntary action would exist.  What would and would not be moral, would be delineated by whether or not it was voluntary.

There is a difference of preference, and some may find the preferences of others disturbing or unwise, but that is completely different from a question of morality or ethics.

Conza88:

Here is Rothbard, essentially saying the same thing as Block. (Block, same as Rothbard)

Conza88:

Ok, well I agree with Block and Rothbard.

I don't recognize their authority, only the quality of their argument.  And I think this argument is wanting.

To summarize, you recognize property rights and aggression against them as criminal.  And yet you rationalize performing a criminal act due to preference, an emotional response.  That you are willing to do the time for doing the crime does not mean you are not wrong.  Which begs the question, why are you doing something you know to be wrong even though it may feel right?  Isn't there a conflict here?

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, May 13 2009 1:23 PM

rated by 0 users

thomasw78:

liberty student:

Let's assume comatose people are no longer sovereign, and are now property.  Can you go into the hospital and shoot the MRI machine?

If they were your property you could. You could also take an axe to it and rip it to shreds.

Right.  But you don't own the comatose people, and you don't have permission to go into the hospital and do whatever you want to them.  Your example was somewhat ridiculous.

thomasw78:

But we are talking about a living person.

We're talking about property rights.

thomasw78:

You are unwilling to admit there is a difference between a living thing and an inanimate object.

This is a strawman.  Avoid it.  I have never denied there is a difference between a living thing and an inanimate object.  They both however are scarce resources, and thus are ownable.  The rest of what you wrote was a continuation of this false premise.

thomasw78:

But I think you are taking the idea that there are basically no limits to property rights to an extreme level.

There should be no limits on property rights.  That is correct.  A world where strict property rights were absolutely enforced would be very peaceful and very prosperous.  You are suggesting property rights are arbitrary.  They are not.

thomasw78:

liberty student:

If we decided people had a right to health care, wouldn't they?

Technically, yes... regardless of whether you or I thought they should.  That's my point. Rights reflect the values of society and are arbitrary.

So some people can define reality, even if some people disagree?  Are you a libertarian?

thomasw78:

 Do animals have rights in some states that prohibit certain types of abuse? Yes. So, saying animals have no rights is either wrong or a lie.

Who cares what are state laws?  Laws are not rights.  Laws do not define morality.  They do not communicate or enforce justice.  Laws are arbitrary fiat as decided by the mob, political elites and enforced with the power of the gun.

Again, are you a libertarian?  If you are, then I cannot fathom how you would argue that law or a democractic majority can create, alter or abolish rights.  If you are not, please tell me, because I have no interest in debating with true believers.

Reply

Zavoi replied on Sat, May 16 2009 9:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

Wrong. You are guilty of murder. You have violated the NAP. Walter Block also addresses this very well. It's called negative homesteading and is contained within the Abortion lecture, in the second half I believe. As it roughly correlates with evictionism.

I listened to the second half of Block's abortion lecture, and I have a few issues with his "negative homesteading" concept. But just to be clear, what would you say if the alien ordered someone by threat of death to commit some petty crime like vandalism or theft? Who is liable for the damage? (Perhaps another spin-off thread is necessary...)

Conza88:

Wrong. They CAN argue that the rescuer should not have saved their life. Block also addresses this.

A difficulty with this line of reasoning is that you might have been standing in the way of the boulder as part of a suicide attempt. You regarded the situation where you are dead far more highly than the one where you are alive, but debilitated. We may assume you wanted to end your life because of bodily malfunctions like a broken arm, and now I have worsened your welfare, not improved it.

If the boulder-stander really wanted to die, then they should go ahead and finish off the suicide right now (or allow themself to be killed), rather than go after the rescuer and try to exact punishment and restitution. On the other hand, if they maintain a preference for life now, then this contradicts their supposed preference for death earlier. It's as if I painted your black car red without your consent, and then you try to claim both that I should be liable for damages and that you like the new color better than the old. Only one of these claims can be true. (If you want to discuss this topic further, we should do so in the other thread.)

Conza88:

The point is erroneous because I've never said that. Strawman. I've said the exact opposite in fact.

"Or, as I am suggesting - I would disregard his signs and the implied contract, ie. "No trespassing" and risk it. I save the child from harm and accept the 'consequences' from such actions. If he wishes to take me to court, fine. If he seeks to shoot me for trespassing on his property, whilst trying to save the child. Fine. I'm just contending no reasonable person would do any of that."

I agree with you at least on the point that once you have paid your restitution and/or punishment, your duty is done and you retain no further guilt in any ethical sense. I was referring to your statement that you would steal the pyromaniac's dog and "accept the consequences of such actions." Presumably, such consequences would include returning the dog (or, if that is not possible, paying enough money so that the pyromaniac can buy another dog). Would you continue stealing the dog again and again as long as the pyromaniac kept trying to burn it? If not, then why steal the dog the first time?

In contrast to a situation like the flagpole-hanger, who can pay the penalties and then go on living peacefully, consistency in your position requires a continuous violation of rights. This I believe is what Liberty Student means when he says "you are deliberately rejecting libertarianism."

Reply

Eldxale replied on Sat, May 16 2009 10:39 PM

rated by 0 users

I was not going t read all 149 pages of this, so I'm just replying to the first post.

I don't know. Let's take away the government and find out.

Reply

Bostwick replied on Sun, May 17 2009 2:19 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I believe this is a false argument.  Crime is immoral.  A "victimless crime" is a non-crime, and we understand that, making homosexuality, prostitution and pornography outside the realm of what is moral (presuming it is voluntary and consensual) and in the realm of preference.

Under the current distorted paradigm, homosexuality or prostitution may be framed as immoral, but in a free market, no concept of immorality for any voluntary action would exist.  What would and would not be moral, would be delineated by whether or not it was voluntary.

There is a difference of preference, and some may find the preferences of others disturbing or unwise, but that is completely different from a question of morality or ethics.

I hit my wife. She defends me saying she deserved and refuses to prosecute; making it a "voluntary", and thus legal, interaction. But is it moral?

Legality and morality are not equivalent. And much evil has been done trying to make the two in line with each other; welfare, for example.

You are making the same error in reverse, claiming that anything that is not illegal must be acceptable. But I'd have to say that blowing your paycheck at the racetrack instead of buying groceries for your family would be highly immoral.

Reply

thomasw78 replied on Fri, May 29 2009 11:31 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Right.  But you don't own the comatose people, and you don't have permission to go into the hospital and do whatever you want to them.  Your example was somewhat ridiculous.

So then what is the difference between a comatose person and an animal such as a pet? Why can't I own a comatose person and hack off their legs if I feel like it? That was the whole point of my example. Neither pet (according to you) nor coma-man can reason or rationalize so what fundamentally makes them different that one has a right to be free of violence and one doesn't?

liberty student:

I have never denied there is a difference between a living thing and an inanimate object.  They both however are scarce resources, and thus are ownable.

Again, if other living things are ownable but people are not then a person must be different in some fundamental way. If the answer is ability to reason then what happens when you take away a person's ability to reason? Do they automatically retain the full rights of a person who is living?

thomasw78:

But we are talking about a living person.

liberty student:

We're talking about property rights.

You're being awfully cryptic but I'm pretty sure you don't believe a living person can be owned. Maybe I'm wrong about that. If I'm right then property rights don't apply in my example. If I'm wrong then this conversation is pretty much over.

liberty student:

So some people can define reality, even if some people disagree?  Are you a libertarian?

Interesting how you turn the word "right" into the word "reality" so that you can then win the argument. If you don't want to debate rights then again this conversation is going to be real short.

liberty student:

Who cares what are state laws?  Laws are not rights.  Laws do not define morality.  They do not communicate or enforce justice.  Laws are arbitrary fiat as decided by the mob, political elites and enforced with the power of the gun.

Laws don't enforce justice? What about laws against murder or theft? And what good is a right to own property if there isn't a law to enforce it? What good is any right if there is not some law to enforce it? Are you sure YOU are a libertarian and not an anarchist?

Reply

JackCuyler replied on Fri, May 29 2009 11:55 PM

rated by 0 users

thomasw78:

liberty student:

Who cares what are state laws?  Laws are not rights.  Laws do not define morality.  They do not communicate or enforce justice.  Laws are arbitrary fiat as decided by the mob, political elites and enforced with the power of the gun.

Laws don't enforce justice? What about laws against murder or theft? And what good is a right to own property if there isn't a law to enforce it? What good is any right if there is not some law to enforce it? Are you sure YOU are a libertarian and not an anarchist?

He qualified it with "state" the first time.  And he is correct, laws are not rights and they do not define morality.  As far as justice, what justice comes from locking up a thief?  If there is no restitution, there is no justice.  Why do we need state authority to enforce our property rights?  What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Reply

Conza88 replied on Sat, May 30 2009 12:02 AM

rated by 0 users

JonBostwick:

liberty student:

I believe this is a false argument.  Crime is immoral.  A "victimless crime" is a non-crime, and we understand that, making homosexuality, prostitution and pornography outside the realm of what is moral (presuming it is voluntary and consensual) and in the realm of preference.

Under the current distorted paradigm, homosexuality or prostitution may be framed as immoral, but in a free market, no concept of immorality for any voluntary action would exist.  What would and would not be moral, would be delineated by whether or not it was voluntary.

There is a difference of preference, and some may find the preferences of others disturbing or unwise, but that is completely different from a question of morality or ethics.

I hit my wife. She defends me saying she deserved and refuses to prosecute; making it a "voluntary", and thus legal, interaction. But is it moral?

Legality and morality are not equivalent. And much evil has been done trying to make the two in line with each other; welfare, for example.

You are making the same error in reverse, claiming that anything that is not illegal must be acceptable. But I'd have to say that blowing your paycheck at the racetrack instead of buying groceries for your family would be highly immoral.

Thanks. I think it is correct. There is a difference between ethics, political  and personal morality.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, May 30 2009 12:05 AM

rated by 0 users

thomasw78:

So then what is the difference between a comatose person and an animal such as a pet? Why can't I own a comatose person and hack off their legs if I feel like it?

Who is going to sell you a comatose person?

thomasw78:

Again, if other living things are ownable but people are not then a person must be different in some fundamental way.

Sure.  For instance, what is the difference between a snake and a dog?  A beetle and a sunflower?  I mean, why stop at dogs or animals?  Why not mice?  Why not birds?  And why only animal and not vegetable?  Don't you love the carrots and rhubarb as much as your cats and parrots?  Why discriminate against the potatoes, just because they have more than 2 eyes?

thomasw78:

You're being awfully cryptic but I'm pretty sure you don't believe a living person can be owned.

Self-ownership.

thomasw78:

If you don't want to debate rights then again this conversation is going to be real short.

Don't threaten to leave, I might take you up on it.  You should threaten to stay and drive me bananas.  That is more compelling! 

thomasw78:

Are you sure YOU are a libertarian and not an anarchist?

I am an anarchist.  I am also a libertarian.  Libertarians don't need no stinking government to tax them and maintain monopoly over law and justice.  To be free, you must be free to leave, and when you leave, you are free to choose where to go, and it might be nowhere.  You might say, I am my own President.  I am a country of one (like those army of one ads).  That's anarchy.  Self-rule.  When you take your so-called delegated powers (which you never really delegated) back and say, thanks but no thanks, I can do a better job at this!

No hard feelings friend.  I like pets.  I would never torture one.  But pets don't have rights like people, if they did, then they could probably homestead your garden or garage, kitchen or front yard away from you.  I mean really, can you imagine getting into a property rights dispute with an elephant, and he has a legal team that negotiates a settlement with you, then he takes the deed and rolls it up in his trunk and leads his family off to your backyard?

Sounds like a Disney movie.  Dumbo in my Backyard.  I might pitch that to someone.  The greenies will like a story about how animals have rights like humans and we have to share the planet with them.

Reply

JackCuyler replied on Sat, May 30 2009 12:10 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

The greenies will like a story about how animals have rights like humans and we have to share the planet with them.

lmao

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1541

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, May 30 2009 12:25 AM

rated by 0 users

Thank you for linking that.  I think I found that site, put it somewhere in my 4,000 bookmarks, and then couldn't find it again.  That site is a real hoot.

Reply

thomasw78 replied on Sat, May 30 2009 12:53 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Who is going to sell you a comatose person?

Anyone who believes they have as many rights as a monkey. I mean who's going to stop them... I suppose coma-man might fall on me if I leaned him the wrong way.

liberty student:

Sure.  For instance, what is the difference between a snake and a dog?

Only the difference we choose to arbitrarily give them based on whatever categorizations we choose to use.

liberty student:

Self-ownership.

Then my point stands.

liberty student:

Don't threaten to leave, I might take you up on it.  You should threaten to stay and drive me bananas.  That is more compelling!

I just might do that.

liberty student:

I am an anarchist.  I am also a libertarian.

In an anarchy you would be okay with an angry mob of 20 killing you or stealing from you if you could not adequately defend yourself?

liberty student:

But pets don't have rights like people, if they did, then they could probably homestead your garden or garage, kitchen or front yard away from you.

How exactly would a law against torturing an animal give it the right to homestead your property away from you? I never said pets had rights like people nor that they should. Just that people could choose to give them certain rights if they deemed it appropriate, just as you or I might deem it appropriate to create a law that says no one can have their life or property taken from them.

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, May 30 2009 1:28 AM

rated by 0 users

thomasw78:

Anyone who believes they have as many rights as a monkey. I mean who's going to stop them... I suppose coma-man might fall on me if I leaned him the wrong way.

Why don't we sell sleeping people?

thomasw78:

Only the difference we choose to arbitrarily give them based on whatever categorizations we choose to use.

Good non-answer.

thomasw78:

liberty student:

Don't threaten to leave, I might take you up on it.  You should threaten to stay and drive me bananas.  That is more compelling!

I just might do that.

I knew you had the spirit of a fighter combined with the soul of a poet.

thomasw78:

In an anarchy you would be okay with an angry mob of 20 killing you or stealing from you if you could not adequately defend yourself?

I don't think I understand the question.  I wouldn't be ok with that in any circumstance.

thomasw78:

How exactly would a law against torturing an animal give it the right to homestead your property away from you?

What would be the rationale for the law?  Why would this law make sense?  Why would I be compelled to follow it?  Who is representing the animal?  Who is going to pay for police and courts and prisons to protect animals?  Is my dog going to sue me for mental abuse if I don't play with him?  Who will represent him?  Who will pay his bills?

thomasw78:

I never said pets had rights like people nor that they should. Just that people could choose to give them certain rights if they deemed it appropriate, just as you or I might deem it appropriate to create a law that says no one can have their life or property taken from them.

Why would people choose to give a creature without rights (as we understand them), rights?  What good are rights if you can't defend them?  Does my dog get free speech?  Am I compelled to feed him?  If he has rights, does that mean that while I can't be compelled to pay for welfare for a poor person, my dog can place obligations on me for trips to the vet or milkbones?

I like animals.  Except snakes.  But they are not people.  Well, some people are snakes, but most people are not.

Only people can have rights.  I happen to believe that all of our rights are derived from property rights, so to give an animal rights, to me necessitates that the animal gets property rights.  And now he is a self owner, so he can't even be my pet.  In fact, he can go to the bank for a loan, and buy the house next to mine.  Then he can borrow my hedge trimmers and never return them.  Maybe he will try to put the moves on my wife at a block party, or lure one of my kids into his basement with candy.  I bet he will vote Democrat.

You can give your hat or your tree rights.  Do whatever you want.  With your stuff, on your property.  Just don't ask me to pay for any of it.

Reply

thomasw78 replied on Wed, Jun 3 2009 12:13 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Why don't we sell sleeping people?

Why don't we?

liberty student:

thomasw78:

Only the difference we choose to arbitrarily give them based on whatever categorizations we choose to use.

Good non-answer.

The differences between animals and other animals are based on categories we choose. Just as it is difficult to define what "life" is and whether something can be categorized as "alive" or not it is no small task defining exactly what makes a person a person and a horse a horse. All I'm asking you to do is tell me what is the one thing that makes a person different from all those other animals that makes us exclusively entitled to have rights while other animals are not. And I don't think "because we're people and they're not" is really an answer.

liberty student:

thomasw78:

In an anarchy you would be okay with an angry mob of 20 killing you or stealing from you if you could not adequately defend yourself?

I don't think I understand the question.  I wouldn't be ok with that in any circumstance.

Well your the one that wants anarchy right? How exactly would you defend your right to life and property without a government?

liberty student:

What would be the rationale for the law?  Why would this law make sense? 

Good question. Say I propose a law that says slaughterhouses kill cows in a way that causes the least suffering. My rationale is cows feel pain and that pain should be minimized if possible.

liberty student:

Why would I be compelled to follow it?

It would be the law. If you didn't like it you could try to get it changed, break the law, or move somewhere else.

liberty student:

Who is representing the animal?

Well how does representation usually work? Lawyers maybe? Who represents a 1-year old child?

liberty student:

Who is going to pay for police and courts and prisons to protect animals? 

I'm sorry to say but we would all have to pay for it. I thought we were debating principles though, not costs.

liberty student:

Is my dog going to sue me for mental abuse if I don't play with him?

I don't know why since I never proposed we have a law against that.

liberty student:

What good are rights if you can't defend them?

Exactly my point a few posts back. Governments and laws are needed to grant and enforce rights. Without them you don't actually have any rights at all. You can believe you should but that doesn't get you a whole hell of a lot.

liberty student:

Why would people choose to give a creature without rights (as we understand them), rights?

Why would people choose to create a government that gives everyone a right to their own life? People do crazy things sometimes.

liberty student:

Does my dog get free speech?

Again, I didn't propose that it should. But more importantly, are you especially eager to incarcerate a dog for barking?

liberty student:

If he has rights, does that mean that while I can't be compelled to pay for welfare for a poor person, my dog can place obligations on me for trips to the vet or milkbones?

But you CAN be compelled to pay for welfare for a poor person. Whether you should or not is another matter.

liberty student:

Only people can have rights.  I happen to believe that all of our rights are derived from property rights, so to give an animal rights, to me necessitates that the animal gets property rights.  And now he is a self owner, so he can't even be my pet.  In fact, he can go to the bank for a loan, and buy the house next to mine.  Then he can borrow my hedge trimmers and never return them.  Maybe he will try to put the moves on my wife at a block party, or lure one of my kids into his basement with candy.  I bet he will vote Democrat.

You can give your hat or your tree rights.  Do whatever you want.  With your stuff, on your property.  Just don't ask me to pay for any of it.

I think you're going too far with all of this. Like I said I never proposed that we put people and animals on an equal footing. Nor did I say that because we give an animal a right or two means it then gets full blown property rights by default. But I'm still curious as to what it is, in your mind, that makes people so different that only us can have rights.