That was the point that Wombatron was making. There are a lot of things that may offend me, but it is impossible to construct a meaningful set of rights based upon the subjective valuations of millions of people.
It’s completely likely people will decide to shun those who harm animals and this would be acceptable under the NAP. However, it would never be ok to violate the rights of someone who hurt a dog, unless the dog was the property of someone else.
Dr. Block did a lot of television interviews up here relating to protecting animals through private property ownership. Then the lines of protecting animal life are much clearer between humans.
Non-violent threats = good (good in my opinion, but actually non-moral)
Violent threats = unjustifiable unless animals have self-ownership rights, which I can’t see
The problem here is. If rights are rights in the general sense of the idea, there are no circumstances in which they can be legitimately violated. The only way to “solve” that problem would be to convince the individual who must be killed to sacrifice himself through being killed (etc.)
I first discovered Austrian Economics under a year ago. I’m even newer!
Here we go with this nonsense again. The fact that a word is a mental existent does not mean it does not refer to anything real or objective. The word denotes something in the world. And anyway, something need not be “measurable” to have meaning. Meaning is not “measurable” to begin with. It is always agent-relative. Are your words also subjective, with no “objective” meaning? If so I have no idea what you’re saying. It’s subjective. As far as I am concerned you are uttering gibberish. There’s no argument to deal with.
This is why normal people don’t take people like you seriously. Now, I am going to go hunting, kill some animals, burn them, and eat them. Also, I saw two strawmen in a different post of yours…You will pay dearly. I am now going to kill two more animals.
In the “real world” things are either ownable or they are not. So no, it’s not a third category. My point was if animals had rights they’d merely be the same as humans are assumed to have, i.e. property rights. If not, then they lack them and it goes no further than that, and therefore it isn’t a matter of animal vs property rights.
In the “real world” things are either ownable or they are not.
What a bald assertion. In the real world, things exist, and the only relations that exist between any objects are physical. ‘Ownership’ doesn’t even mean anything specific, it’s a legal convention on who is generally allowed to utilize certain resources for their own purposes.
So you do not own anything?
I own whatever you want to say I own, since it’s just a matter of how you define legal appropriation. But there is no objective or intrinsic ‘ownership’ which pertains between me and anything else. Power, and only power, really determines what you can do.
Do relations between persons not exist then or are they physical? If they do exist and are physical, then what of relations between persons and objects?
None of it, of course, even comes close to falsifying what I said, given that my point was predicated on assuming that if rights exist it makes no sense to dichotomise between “animal” and “property” rights anymore than it does to do so between “human” and “property” rights. Clear now? BTW what is non-specific about the exclusive right (power) to dispose of a resource? One wonders.
i would say that when society or individuals determine an animal a property - any trespass on that property wold be a property violation.
bull fighting, dog fighting, boiling goldfish etc…trespass efforts to prevent these activities would be property violations.
if these activities offended the sensibilites of some then efforts to understand and if necessary advocate against (animal love edification of some sort) would be be the proper course.
Do relations between persons not exist then or are they physical?
They are physical. What we’re doing right here is symbolic translation of information.
If they do exist and are physical, then what of relations between persons and objects?
Physical, of course. But this is the key difference - the relationship of property is not one which pertains between persons and objects but between various persons. It is what other people will tacitly accept. The actual object which is evaluated in this manner does not change, nor establish some new ghostly connection to its ‘owner’. It is a recognition of spheres of influence among people, it is not a description of actual relations between objects.
None of it, of course, even comes close to falsifying what I said, given that my point was predicated on assuming that if rights exist it makes no sense to dichotomise between “animal” and “property” rights anymore than it does to do so between “human” and “property” rights. Clear now?
Although for terminological clarity I still tend to object to the term property ‘rights’, yes I agree with you. I misunderstood part of an earlier post. However, since everything in reality is physical of course the only coherent question of relations between people would be disposal of scarce resources.
BTW what is non-specific about the exclusive right (power) to dispose of a resource? One wonders.
Nothing, perhaps, but all 3 times in human history that has actually been property law are a bit narrow to use as a definition as ‘property-qua-property’.
I think the first question that we shound ask is “What is the difference between a human being and an animal? Is it reason? Is that difference a difference in degree or a difference in kind?”. If it is a difference in kind, so it is compatible with the Rothbardian view (Lockean conception of property, and animals being able to be property of human beings). If it’s a difference in degree, then we should apply the same property rights to animals too, as they homestead, they also have property rights. I just can’t think of a third alternative, but we should also consider the social place of kids and unimpaired in an ancap society.
OK, this makes sense - especially given that absolute property rights are in a sense an injunction on how a person disposes of a resource under their control.
I agree with everyone else that the animal is property of the owner. To me though, it seems like a waste of time and money to abuse the animal. If someone disagrees with his treatment of the animal they could offer to buy the animal from the owner.