In a Libertarian society does anyone have the right to take an animal away from a person if they are physically abusing the creature?
Nowadays, animal workers can take away pets of the owner doesn't feed them, beats them or hurts them in any other way. What would be the case under Libertarianism?
I would have to say no because animals would not have rights in a libertarian society. Forcing the owner to give up the animal would be the same in a libertarian society as forcing owner of a yard to give it up because he does not keep the grass in perfect shape. I am obviously against animal abuse, but just because I believe it is wrong does not justify breaking into somebodies house and taking their property (animal) away because I think it is wrong.
I guess if somebody is beating an animal and abusing it, it is their right to do so. I am not sure what they would get out of hurting an animal except a waste of time and money but if they want to, it is not anyone else's place to stop it, especially by coercive means.
Just my opinon...
A have a question similar to this: In our current pseudo-free state, Should Dog-Fighting be legal or illegal?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Animals are property and have no rights as such.
Although under the system of anarcho-capitalism your private defense agency or insurance company might have their own laws against animal cruelty.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
This thread is poorly named. Either animals are property, or they are not, in which case they are self-owners. Whatever the case, there's no versus involved. Property rights reign supreme either way.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
What everyone else said. I'd only add that the Christian ethic is God has appointed Man as steward of Creation, and wanton cruelty to animals violates that duty of stewardship.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Also, if an animal owner neglects the animal (doesn't feed it, etc.), I guess they're effectively allowing them to be homesteaded. Although if they're on their property you'd still need permission to get there, or else you're trespassing.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
Fred Furash: Also, if an animal owner neglects the animal (doesn't feed it, etc.), I guess they're effectively allowing them to be homesteaded. Although if they're on their property you'd still need permission to get there, or else you're trespassing.
I would disagree with you here. Unless the animal is a self-owner, it is property, and the owner's right to the animal would be absolute. The title to your car doesn't expire merely because you let it rust.
Of course, there are moral aspects to this as well, but that's another story entirely.
Agora! Anarchy! Action!
Well I'm just applying the idea I read about on the children discussion to animals. Since parents are guardians and not full properietors of children, if they neglect them, they can be homesteaded (adopted).
Can't we apply the same principle here? Rather than treating animals as full property, we could say that they had at least some sort of minimal rights with regards to neglect. Besides, the only people to suffer in this case would be those that neglect and abandon their animals by not feeding them (on purpose), etc. I don't see why lifeforms in general can't have a different sort of property status (guardianship) from non-living objects.
I'll have to think more about this though, as I'm not sure if its consistent with my other views.
Fred Furash: Well I'm just applying the idea I read about on the children discussion to animals. Since parents are guardians and not full properietors of children, if they neglect them, they can be homesteaded (adopted). Can't we apply the same principle here? Rather than treating animals as full property, we could say that they had at least some sort of minimal rights with regards to neglect. Besides, the only people to suffer in this case would be those that neglect and abandon their animals by not feeding them (on purpose), etc. I don't see why lifeforms in general can't have a different sort of property status (guardianship) from non-living objects. I'll have to think more about this though, as I'm not sure if its consistent with my other views.
I'm not sure that the same principle applies. Human beings have rights because of their essential nature. To have rights, an animal would have to be a rational animal whose nature did not conflict with that of humanity (Rothbard's old "alien vampire" example). Perhaps borderline animals, such as bottlenose dolphins and great apes, could have rights similar to those of children, though.
I would say if you want to abuse an animal, well go ahead, it is your property after all and animals - being property (or resources depending on your point of view - have no rights. But, you had better be prepared to reap the consequences. Cats will claw you or a dog might bite you. I would say then that if you do abuse animals government should have no obligation to protect you from your stupidity if you get hurt.
Well, I've been thinking about this, and perhaps there ought be no law. However, because I believe that animals are neither persons nor property, but another category of being, one I'm not prepared to fully define here, I think perhaps animal cruelty should be a defense for one who removes an animal from its current master, even if to do so that one harmed the master. In other words, government forces cannot be brought to bear against you for animal cruelty, but your protection from the law, in regards to that animal, is reduced.
It basically means, if you're torturing your dog and I knock you over and take the dog, I can cite your abuse of the dog as a defense against both civil and criminal proceedings against me.
What's really the difference between the government doing it and a private citizen doing it?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:What's really the difference between the government doing it and a private citizen doing it?
It is not the purpose of human government to protect animals, but humans. Governments must be deontological in their ethics of action, while acknowledging, in justice, that each action has a certain moral character when a human performs it. For instance, when I save the animal at the torturer's expense, this is a compassionate act. One might not think me any worse a person for it, but rather a courageous and compassionate one. It is expected that I will act when these virtues are called for, if I be a virtuous person. However, the state cannot act with virtue, for it has no virtues. It is an organized fiction maintained by both the individual governors and the governed. Such a collective fiction, such a terrible repository of force, must be run according to strict, well-defined and very simple deontological rules. That being said, I will admit this idea is still very raw.
Ultimately, the state is simply a collection of individuals. Are you saying that tax-funded individuals shouldn't be the ones to step in and protect animals? I don't think the government should be tax-funded, so perhaps that's where the confusion lies.
Well, a whole 'nuther can o'worms here, but I'm a single tax guy, myself. That is, a land tax semi-geolibertarian type. But then, we don't tend to view the land tax like Austrian folk tend to view taxes in general.
I agree that the government is a collection of individuals. However, the real difference is, if the man torturing the dog kills you defending himself and his possession of the dog, then he has committed no crime. He has every right to defend himself and his interests to whatever degree, until he violates the rights of another to do so. However, if he killed someone trying to enforce a law against him, this would be added to his list of crimes.