Perhaps if we extended it to include animals and what not. But as you can only squat on abandoned land, the required second party for a machete battle is lacking.
Ultimately, whoever has the most machetes does get to decide what the legal system is; but if you believe that honest people outnumber the dishonest there is no reason to be concerned.
Animals have no rights? So the owner can torture them to satisfy his own warped desires? That’s gross.
A domesticated animal is a slave, yes, but even slaves should have certain inalienable rights. Amongst these is the right to humane treatment by the owner.
As to who will enforce these rights, anyone should be able to intercede on the animal’s behalf. Most people detest cruelty in any form. The ASPCA gets plenty of donations. If a man drags a girl into his house to rape her, all of us would want to beat his door down to protect her. So give animals a break too.
Rights are derived from the fact that human beings have the capacity for rationality, and also that respecting rights is a constitutive part of one’s eudaimonia. Animals do not have rights, because they are not rational and their natural end does not require them to respect rights. Animals are, therefore, capable of being owned fully and completly. If you are opposed to what someone is doing to their animals, you can boycott them, etc. However, anyone “interceding on the animal’s behalf” would be violating the NAP.
Whether or not the abuse of animals is moral or not is a completely different question. I myself am opposed to it.
The anti-Animal Rights aura here is despicable and anti-intellectual.
You can’t arbitrarily apply rights to humans and then deny ANY to other animals.
All animals, including homo sapiens, evolved via the same process. The only differences that can be stated accurately are those objectively observed.
You can’t simple make idiotic statements like “animals don’t rationalise”. “Rationalise” is just a word, like all other words, created by humans for the purpose of communication.
And i’ll just add that if I saw any of you pouring gas on your dog and setting it alight, I’d pull out my gun and blow your brains out of your skull with a nice big smile on my face.
Animal Rights and Libertarianism are completely consistent. Anyone who can’t see that is just making excuses for their own convenience. Exactly what the statists do.
Have a nice day.
Rights are not arbitrary. They are derived from the capacity to be rational.
Why is the statement idiotic? Because animals do rationalize? Because humans do not rationalize? Because rational thinking is not a good measure of determining the capacity to have and uphold rights?
Before tossing around a word like idiotic, you had best define your own position.
And that is why you are not a libertarian.
What is anti-intellectual is your emotive argument. The standard for discourse here is higher than that.
The car, or the animal, must surely have been abandoned prior to the re-homesteading. Not using your car for a while, or not feeding your dog for a while doesn’t cut it .
Actually I think the above is an idiotic statement. It is a word, meant to express/refer to something. So no, it isn’t “just” a word in the sense that it refers to something in the world.
Essentially, the situation I see potentially evolving in a Libertarian Society…
I believe there would be “pro animal” groups if you want to call them. Organizations like the R.S.P.C.A etc that monitor and get calls about the misuse and treatment of animals.
If people believe there is abuse occurring they could contact the Animal Protection Organization, who then contacts the owners and request an inspection. If refused they could then put a notice out on the person, add them to a online animal abuse suspect list, and keep a database on all others who are known to be abusive. If the owner wishes to remove themselves from the list, they could attempt to prove they are not abusing their animals.
Animal breeders and sellers can check in with this organization before selling to a prospected buyer to make sure the animal won’t be abused.
In the written contract for sale, they could also stipulate they will be allowed access in 6 months time to check on the health of the animal.
In terms of the argument put forward, “what would you do” - if I was present I would try negotiate and buy the dog from the owner who is about to harm it. Bribes would also suffice. Alternatively, if that does not work and he refuses and attempts to harm it.. (burn it to death) I’d use force, steal the dog and accept the consequences.
The consquences being compensation for his property that was stolen. i.e the Dog. This would only happen if the dog owner wants to take you to court. In all likelyhood the organizations / agencies would have clauses / contracts with the individual against animal abuse.
Charities could exist that go around rescuing and buying animals from their owners, putting them into good and better homes. As well as providing the market with easy sources to make sure the abusive owner is never sold another animal again.
I think, kind of outlays like this are much better than the “vulgur libertarianism” of straight up. eg. “Yeah, the animal is his property. He can burn it if he wants.” - It really isn’t the answer anyone wants to hear. And whilst being ‘tough’, I really don’t think that anyone here could stand by and literally not say anything in such a situtation…
But really why is there even a situation like this? The State is the main culprit. Welfarism no doubt plays it’s role and warfarism too. (See: US solider throwing a puppy off a cliff) A lot of problems stem from broken homes, problems in the family. Marriage breakups, stress from taxation, divorce courts, easy money, easy morals, public education… yada yada. So in a Libertarian society, long term - this really wouldn’t be a problem, except very marginally.
“Rational” is just a word created by humans for the purpose of communication. A word has no value in and of itself. It has no objective, measurable meaning. Its dictionary definition is subjective.
Even within the realm of subjectivity, by your definition the mentally retarded, babies and children have no rights.
Well I guess your definition of a libertarian is anyone who fawns over Murray Rothbard.
The man was intelligent but with serious flaws. Think for yourself. Stop turning “Ethics of Liberty” into your faith Bible.
What I find hysterical about many of you is that you make the same mistake in “begging the question” on overall philosophy that John Maynard Keynes makes when he talks about the swings of under and overinvestment in the “free market”.
Keynes ignores the reality of the situation and proceeds to use his initial assertions as the basis for everything he writes.
Before looking at philosophy you must look at the facts of the universe.
This is aggressive force - a rights violation. Does this mean you are arguing that the animal does indeed have rights?
Other than that part I thought your post was excellent.
My dear Curlz - how wonderful to discover another being on this forum who also agrees with the concept of animal rights. You know, it would be just great if you joined the protection agency that I have set up. More details on this post:
Am I thick, or is it quite obvious that you are joking?
Can anyone honestly see people respecting another’s ‘right’ to torture their pets? It seems like something that is almost universally deplored.
Nope, people are immoral creatures, so of course they would not respect another person’s rights to do what they want with his or her own property. I mean they cannot even allow others to smoke a plant.
Please do pardon my little reductio ad absurdum 
Yes I would probably use just enough force (if it was necessary) to save the innocent harmless dog from being abused/killed. I would never mean to harm the owner though. I guess threats could be used - “I’ll film you doing it and put it up on youtube. Send it to the local news networks. I’ll tarnish your name in this town so that no-one will sell you anything.” Is one possibility. Hahah, but this is all rather out there in lifeboat territory I think & the list of possible ‘what ifs’ and ‘it depends’ tend to keep on growing.
Ultimately, let’s assume I stole the dog. His property. I didn’t injure the owner in the process. Animals have no right to self ownership, as far as I can see.
But yes, the owner can now take me to court if he chooses. It is a rights violation. But I’m not arguing the animal has rights. I’m just saying I’d probably be willing to accept the consequences of such actions.
There are a few good examples in here:
Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression by Walter Block
I remember reading a better article on lewrockwell sometime ago by Walter Block or Murray Rothbard or someone - scenario’s were stipulated were utilitarian considerations were addressed. i.e A man has a button that can end the world, are you justified in using force to stop him? Very vaguely from memory it went on about, whether it could be deemed if that was an initiation or threat of violence against you. And thus people would be justified in using force to stop him, from memory the argument was ‘yes’.
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. The person killed may have been the families bread winner etc. But as with Rothbard’s Punishment and Proportionality the rights violator, gives up his rights to the degree he violates anothers. So he could be put to death for saving the world… if the victim’s families so choose. Which they really wouldn’t.. I mean, he saved their lives too.
It’s late and I probably haven’t made my point as clear as it should be. Drawing it back to the ‘dog’ argument. Oh well.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment. I’m still fairly new to Austrian Economics (a year? But only recently started paying much more attention to it. Tried to think this one through some what and for some reason I can’t help but feel that it’s partially intellectual wankery. Haha.. although most of the above mystery article, I have been unable to find, was in response to some lifeboat scenario’s. So bare with me. [:P]
Just wondering aloud.. domesticated animals or pets are a kind of bi-product of civilization? Back in hunter gather days, food was scarce so you’d eat the animals - not take them in and feed / domesticate them?
“Objective” and “measurable” are also just words, without objective, measurable meanings. Their dictionary definitions are subjective. That being said, you and liberty student are humans, I presume. He is using the word “rational” to communicate an idea to you. While I agree that the word has no value in and of itself, in the context of communication between humans, it does. You can quibble about his choice or words, or you can actually comment on his meaning.
This is a cop out. Explain why a dog has rights that a fish does not. Explain to me how a dog is the same as a mentally retarded person, or a fully capable person.
If you want to play the “words means nothing game”, then please leave the forum and spare us your immeasurable and valueless words.
I’ll repeat, this forum has a higher standard for discourse, my suggestion is that when you are in a state of ignorance or conflict, check your premises, and thus far, you have not provided any premise for debate.
This is a strawman. If I was, it is irrelevant. You have not challenged my position except to say all words are subjective.
This is a continuation of your strawman.
I know you from RPF. The way you act towards others there isn’t acceptable here.
It’s not possible to build a libertarian society if you can’t fit your values within the NAP. That is to say, if you are ok with the NAP 95% of the time then it doesn’t work. You can’t choose when to violate rights and still claim to be a libertarian.
I’m not implying that you MUST embrace the NAP, but if you plan not to, then it is probably best to make that clear and explain you are using a different ethical system because lifeboat scenarios are no different than welfare.