This relates to my further question regarding what animals actually understand - do they understand the concept or is the behavior simply instinctual? Is there a difference with respect to property? I think it requires more than instinct to place a claim on property.
This relates to rights of ownership, which is essential for property rights. A person may claim that a tree or even an animal on his property is his. Can the tree or animal claim ownership of the human on the same property (afterall, they were there first)? I believe if we go there, then the entire argument for property rights breaks down.
Animals can be claimed as property, and have so ever since man domesticated them. Now some might argue this as slavery, but I for one would disagree.
The approach of those seeking to elevate animal rights is very similar to the approaches used to promote collectivist rights. Since no individual animal has yet to claim rights of its own, people have fought for the rights of animals as a collective. The libertarian position holds property rights as an absolute individual human right.
Perhaps I could have broken my argument into rights for animals versus property rights to own animals. I would imagine that if you could establish animal rights, then that would preclude humans from owning animals as property - unless you’re a proponent for slavery.
The issue with animals seems to revolve more around morals rather than rights. So laws passed in favor of the proper treatment of animals come from an emotional application of morals rather than the cold, hard application of reason required to determine rights.
Not exactly, I pointed some not-emotional reasons for the debate, including different qualities between standard property and animal property, to the extent of asking if they are really ‘property’ in full sense or something in the middle, a lower than child-like status, that, would solve the problem of pets, which could be like ‘adoptions’ or ‘asylum’ or just friendship or whatever.
On hunting I’m not sure, but I’m not against it, I don’t see shooting a deer as immoral, what I do find immoral is abusing a dog, or a deer, you can shoot them if they are a threat of trespass your property, or if you are hunting (saying otherwise would be problematic, a positive right and a violation of a negative one, and condemning to death of hunger), but I’m suggesting something in the line of minimalistic right against abuse.
I do know too well the collectivist mentality most ecologist have, I understand the ‘fear’, but why shouldn’t it be something like, You could own, but not harm? A limited property, like a flat you have just rent, the animal deserves and has a minimalists right to not be hurt unnecessarily or abused.
I don’t think libertarianism is very well applied to animals. Obviously there’s the problem with rationality etc. I think you have to admit that you are motivated by your emotions, which is okay, you just can’t make any universal statements.
The libertarian position would be to say “I often find killing animals repulsive, but I will not initiate violence against those who do so”. Perhaps this is unsatisfactory. Perhaps you’re looking for some justification to use force to prevent unjust treatment of animals. I guess it depends if you value libertarianism more or less than compassion. I think there’s a point at which all of us would give up our libertarian ethic. Another thread on child molestation showed many libertarians were willing to violate the NAP to stop consensual adult-child relations.
Not to rehash that entire thread, but I for one do not believe a child can consent to anything and any NAP should take children into account. Children should be off limits until the age of consent, which should be determined by the market. Presently, the age of consent is prescribed by law. So the act of doing anything to a child under the age of consent, even if they agree, is itself a violation of the NAP. Now how to treat the offenders of this policy is another story. Some would say the present laws are way too leinent. The retaliation under the NAP could, and probably would be more effective that any current law. But yes, when it comes to children and animals the argument frequently moves from one of reason to one that’s very emotional. The hard part is to have faith in the NAP - afterall, how much faith do you have in the State?
I could care less what Rothbard thinks. In anarchy, there will be no monolithic legal code.
And yes, in polycentric law, there is fair or unfair court rulings. People would most definitely find a court that was not a neutral third party to be unfair. And no pet owner would go to a court that was known to rule against pet owner’s rights. Nor would parents go to a court that was known to rule against parental rights.
Seems he did, and you imply that you support a monopoly of law as well. Can I ask, for you specifically, who would ensure that this monopoly of law is maintained?
explain how a person, Rothbard, who advocates the NAP and the principle of original appropriation, is calling on a monopoly? if you think my choice to own myself and to not let somebody else violate my ultimate-decision making in liberty is a monopoly on my own property that is to confuse what a monopoly truly is.
If anarchy is defined as “no-rulers” then we can no longer be in anarchy when some PDA or private court makes any attempt to act upon their ‘unlibertarian’ decisions - because we would then be in a situation whereby the PDA or court is imposing rules.
Rothbard advocated a monopoly on law, not legal services. He got away with not calling it a monopoly by determining natural law as somewhat ‘self-evident’. Rothbard then claims that natural law must be determined (monolithically) as the basis for ‘fair’ rulings if ancap is to be viable. Thus, he proposes a standard legal code. From the legal code comes competition in services.
Secondly, wilderness states:
I would not readily call that a monopoly, although I would say that you are a monarch - as is every relationship between single owner and property. But, as I’ve said before, anarchy is not only the absense of the state.
If we’re defining “anarchy” as universal adherence to the NAP by everyone, then that surely sounds like a nice thing to achieve, but how? It seems the only way, in the absence of a higher authority which we are all obviously opposed to, is that the market (consumers) must support this universal adherence to the NAP. If that is what is being claimed, then it sounds good to me, but it’s just a conjecture about what consumers will support.
Tell you what. If I can talk to and strike a deal with that squirrel in my tree, then I will trade with him. If said squirrel can demostrate to me that he is a self-aware acting moral agent, then I will deal with him. If he is I’m sure I could find a way to occupy the land with the squirrel by improving both our habitats with my tools. A self aware squirrel will recognize I can bring it more leisurly life if he lets me occupy his homesteaded land and destroy oops I mean cultivate and develop the land around it.
Talk to any squirrels lately? What do the squirrels think? I wonder if the raccoons think we have destroyed their habitat? After all, they are most populous in human cities.
No, parents would ask for child-protecting courts, in case their babysitter, their neighbour, or anyone harmed their child, or even if their lover/partner did it, those who are sure they would never commit such immoral acts would have no problems in asking and abiding by protecting-agencies that would implement child and pet-protection.
You wouldn’t want your kids to see your neighbour putting cats on fire, you would sign a contract in a residential area where those things would be prosecuted.