Animal Cruelty vs Property Rights

Miscellaneous General
61

Now apply argumentation ethics to Parrots. [:D]

Why isn’t it possible though? [:S] I’m saying the NAP works. That I could be and probably should be persecuted for violating it. It’s essentially a one off freak event. What might that ethical system be if its not the NAP? I see your point about welfare and lifeboat scenario’s.. if someone steals or violates someones private property rights though, they could be taken to a Private Court etc. And would have to deal with the consequences. Restitution and proportionality. The thief (stealing for someones welfare) would have to pay back twice what they took, (etc with Rothbard’s analysis you no doubt know). The person is far better to work through voluntary exchange and then give to charity to help those who need welfare. And I think such a system would make that painfully obvious to the offender.

I am in thorough agreement with Block here, Non Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block

Therefore, the only proper questions which can be addressed in this philosophy are of the sort, if the flagpole hanger attempts to come in to the apartment, and the occupant shoots him for trespassing, Would the forces of law and order punish the home owner? Or, if the owner of the cabin in the woods sets up a booby trap, such that when someone forces his way into his property he gets a face full of buckshot, Would he be guilty of a law violation? When put in this way, the answer is clear. The owner in each case is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.

It just seems so inhumane to stand by idly as some nut pours lighter fuel on his dog and attempts to light it. Considerations involve, 'well how is the reaction of other individuals going to be on the market? Will word go round, I stood by idly as this inhumane act took place? etc

I’m projecting but maybe it will be the case that in a Libertarian society, where individuals and businesses undoubtedly know more about property rights and are allowed to use their right to discriminate, it may result in an increased awareness of our own reputations and how we interact with others. This obviously doesn’t remove the rights violation. I stole his property (dog) yes, it is uncontested.

62

Yes, which is why I would avoid / haven’t made a violent threat.

Agreed. I’m not saying they can be legitimately violated. I’m saying I’d probably take a direct action that violates them, then in the aftermath I’d accept the consequences.

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?

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.

Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression by Walter Block

You are standing in the path on an onrushing boulder, completely unaware of your fate. In a second, this massive rock will hit you, and you will die. (Let us stipulate the truth of this supposition). Instead, however, I push you out of its path, and into safety. The only trouble is, as a result of it, although I have saved your life, I also broke your arm.

Now, if you are a reasonable sort of person, you will be grateful to me. Instead, you insist upon sticking to the literal letter of libertarian law, and sue me for damages for the injury you have sustained. After all, I did initiate a violent act upon your person, which resulted in an injury. If this is not assault and battery, you argue, then nothing is. How shall the libertarian judge rule?

One possibility is to hold me innocent of this charge. This could be done by adding up the two acts, the life saving and the arm breaking, and deciding that the former is far more important than the latter. So much so that the one ought to be in effect “subtracted” from the other, and since the result would be a “positive” (I contributed more to your life by saving it than I cost you through the injury you sustained), I would be let off scott free. The point here is that I committed not two acts, but only one: saving-your-life-and-injuring-you, and that this complex but single act is not one of initiatory aggression.

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.

Another problem is that these really are two separate acts. It is certainly possible that I could have pushed you out of death’s way without breaking your arm. To call it two separate acts is really to fudge: this would only be done in order to achieve the common sense result we all presumably want: to find me innocent of bodily harm.

No, the only proper libertarian judgment is that I am indeed guilty of a battery upon your person. My motives may have been exemplary, but my act, strictly speaking, was in violation of your property rights in yourself. I might well be let off with a light sentence, given the extenuating circumstances, but guilty I am.

Liberty Student, I’m not sure how given the above - I can’t call myself a Libertarian… following the same situation regarding the dog?

My 13 or so books I ordered from Mises Store are here and on the shelf! The 10’s of thousands of people now learning Austrian Economics because of Ron Paul are going to take the world by storm. [:D]

63

Yes. Homesteading animals, so that you can own the animals privately would be the best bet. Obviously the less there are, the more they will be worth or valued. There are incentives to do breeding programs and sell them to zoo’s. etc.

Free market environmentalism - Walter Block Interview

Banning the Ivory Trade - Walterblock Interview

64

Once you justify the first violation, then what is to stop the next, and the next? Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?

The dog is not a person. But that aside, I don’t understand how you are reading Dr. Block and coming to the conclusion that you are ethically justified to violate a right. Am I misunderstanding it?

65

I emailed Professor Block and he was able to find the article I was referring to earlier! [:D] 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. [:)]

66

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.

67

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.

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.

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.)

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.

As far as animals are concerned: If it is shown scientifically that the animal in question has reasoning faculties like humans (which may be the case for dolphins, gorrillas, etc., as Wombatron mentioned), then a case could be made for according them the same respect for rights shown to humans. And as Conza88 mentioned before, animal-dealers would likely stipulate that buyers treat their animals well. But otherwise, animal cruelty is no more a crime than murder in a video game, and if animal cruelty is to be frowned upon, it is because of the psychological effects it has on the animal-abuser, not because the animals have “rights” the same as humans.

68
69

Being able to suffer does not imply rights.

70

No, they do not.

Rights are not derived from the capacity to feel or the abundance of nerve endings.

Indeed, but those traits do not constitute rights.

71

Why not? If one party does to another party purposefully, then why shouldn’t it?

72

TheOrionater, though animals don’t have rights, hopefully you understand this does not mean you can’t care for animals. You most certainly can care for animals in numerous ways as long as you are not violating another’s natural property.

73

I don’t see where there is a supposed right to torture.

74

What is torture? Smacking your dog on the noise with a newspaper for crapping on the floor? Caging a bird? Tagging a whale? Declawing a cat?

I’m absolutely stunned by the people who think that animals have the same rights as people. Seriously mindblown.

75

The same arguments can be made for what is acceptable with regard to a parent and its child. Is hand smacking ok? What about hitting the child with a strap? What about hitting the child with a 2x4 plank of wood? What about an iron bar across the shins?

Animals don’t all have the same rights. They have rights based on their objectively observed differences. We all have a common ancestor and therefore it is incorrect to assume differences. You must assume similarities and then prove the differences objectively and then base the rights for each species on those observations.

For example, an orangutan in a zoo here in Australia recently short circuted a security system and escaped:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25456799-2,00.html

If you take the evidence that we are closely related to orangutans in an evolutionary sense, and combine it with these observations it tells you something that you have to be intellectually lazy to ignore. Even if your name is Murray Rothbard.

Clearly you do not have the right to torture and orangutan no matter if it is your property or not. That tells you that animals have some rights. Of course the rights exist to a different extent for each animal, but none the less, they do exist.

76

Absolutely. Children are a messy loose end in libertarian theory. Animals however, are not human children with the capacity to exercise rational judgment.

If you own the orangutan then you would have the right to torture it as it is property. So are you saying that animals cannot be owned? Is it slavery to cage a bird, to chain a dog? Is it a rights violation to spade, neuter, declaw cats?

Now let’s presume that it is a rights violation to domesticate and enslave an animal. When an animal enters your garden and eats your food, is this any different than a human entering your garden and eating your food? Can you use deadly force to reject the animal the way you would resist a thief? If the animal damages your property, can you take it to court for restitution?

I think the pro-animal folks here need to try to break this down rationally. I had a hard time coming around on abortion, but ultimately, if you’re going to be rational and not emotive, sometimes you have to reconcile what feels right with what is objectively right.

77

You’ve contradicted yourself. You’ve clamied that your supposedly objective theory cannot deal with children and you then cite it for abortion.

Your problem is that your initial rigid assumption is not based in fact, but is arbitrary, hence your overall theory is not objective in the absolute. It is only objective relative to your initial assumption. Any moral theory must be grounded in facts or else is arbitrary. Hence you always begin with the facts and theory should follow from it. Not the other way round.

Because we do not have perfect knowledge of the universe, any moral theory is going to have gaps and grey areas where common sense needs to be applied. Your problem is that you reject the fact that there is imperfect knowledge of the universe and you try to fill the gaps and grey areas with contrived, arbitrary and indeed scientifically discredited axioms. This is also the downfall of Murray Rothbard and the libertarians who base themselves on him.

78

No, I said it was a messy loose end not that there was no way to deal with children. Before challenging me on it (trying to find a slip in my argument) it might be wise to know the more popular libertarian arguments about children. Heck, go gonzo and find out what my position is!

And which facts do I have wrong?

Perfect knowledge of the universe is not necessary for a priori deduction.

Besides the obvious strawman, which contrived, arbitrary and scientifically discredited axioms am I filling gaps with? Be specific.

Well, I don’t consider myself a Rothbardian (and have already made that clear), so I’m not sure how Rothbard is relevant to this discussion.

You have still not explained if animals are ownable or not. I think you should first reconcile that question before trying to tell me I am wrong because if you can’t answer it, then it would seem to me you are making baseless assertions even if your conclusion is accidentally correct. And that is poor form.

79

No, no, not that. The neglect is torture in my opinion. I’ve seen a film where some people on a pig farm actually hanged a monster pig and kicked it. There was also a scene where some of the employees smashed some baby piglets on the wall instead of shooting them for whatever reason the piglet had to die(I’m not against killing an animal if it is for a good purpose). I was discussing about cases like that, and they aren’t all hypothetical. You’re assuming too much on my position. Essencially you built a false impression that I think your above examples are torture.

80

So you’re saying that your “objective” theory cannot deduce a way to deal with children so you are going to use common sense instead? You are proving my point.

You assume a difference between homo sapiens and other species, when this difference needs to be proven objectively. You are, in fact, engaging in the logical fallacy of “begging the question”. Considering the objective facts discovered under what could be termed “evolutionary biology”, you can only assume similarities, not differences.

Exactly. Which is why the specific conclusions drawn in such arguments are not perfectly valid. They are only objective relative to your initial assumption. Once again you’ve proven my point.

I answered this above.

I’m saying it is objectively true that you cannot morally pour gasoline on an orangutan and set it alight. You apply what words you will to that.

Fair enough. Some people i’ve come across generally cite him as if his words are those of the deity and unarguable.