Animal Cruelty vs Property Rights

[nirgrahamUK]

@GilesStratton

door

[:P]

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

@GilesStratton

door

Not what you meant to quote?

[nirgrahamUK]

Giles, it doesnt happen all that often, but I am immature enough to enjoy you making a typo

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

Giles, it doesnt happen all that often, but I am immature enough to enjoy you making a typo

I still don’t get it.

[nirgrahamUK]

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

[liberty_student]

@nirgrahamUK

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

He’s hell on windows too.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

you find the beating of doors to be morally reprehensible

Oh, right, I see that.

Well, I’ve come to the opinion that the differences between inanimate objects and peoples is a social construct a la Roderick Long.

[Charles_Anthony]

@liberty student

@Charles Anthony

@liberty student

Perhaps you did not read the thread?

– or perhaps I see a difference between what a person does and what acts of retaliation a person believes he can successfully repel.

What does this mean? 99% of the discussions here are not based on what people do, but rather what their ideological positions are.

It means I do not care to discuss it further with him because I think it is a dead end by virtue of his revelation that he has no interest in libertarianism. You may find discussions with him interesting, though. Have at it.

@liberty student

@Charles Anthony

As such, I find his advocacy uninteresting.

Well it’s good you no longer claim to relate to him as a libertarian. Because there is nothing libertarian about aggression or arbitrary justice.

What does this mean???

All justice – whether libertarian or not – is arbitrary. Perhaps you need to go do some more homework.

[Juan]

@Charles Anthony

All justice – whether libertarian or not – is arbitrary. Perhaps you need to go do some more homework.

What about your homework ? Your usage of the word axiom clearly shows you don’t know what an axiom is.

[Juan]

All justice – whether libertarian or not – is arbitrary.

Wow. The voice of wisdom has spoken.

[nirgrahamUK]

@GilesStratton

I’ve come to the opinion that the differences between inanimate objects and peoples is a social construct a la Roderick Long.

im sure Vichy would agree

[Juan]

I wonder if some chemicals in tap water are causing people to have these weird ideas ?

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

I wonder if some chemicals in tap water are causing people to have these weird ideas ?

I’m guessing that’s a “crankish” comment.

[Juan]

Rest assured it is =]

[tabularasa]

I don’t think so as animals would not have rights in a libertarian society. However, it depends on if that libertarian society. There are no set rules because we do not live in a libertarian society. I would assume that if we did and a majority of people within that society saw the need to give animals rights as well as humans then their basic rights would be protected as well. If a man beat a child in a libertarian society they would still have that child taken away (or more likely they would be taken away to jail). It’s not a free-for-all, that would be anarchies. And anarchies, on the rare occasions they occur, do not last. Human nature leads to their inevitable destruction.

[liberty_student]

@tabularasa

I would assume that if we did and a majority of people within that society saw the need to give animals rights as well as humans then their basic rights would be protected as well.

A libertarian society will not function as a democracy. You cannot give rights by fiat.

@tabularasa

It’s not a free-for-all, that would be anarchies. And anarchies, on the rare occasions they occur, do not last. Human nature leads to their inevitable destruction.

We’re seeking to improve on that so anarchy persists.

[Conza]

@Conza88

I emailed Professor Block and he was able to find the article I was referring to earlier! 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.

@liberty student

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.

1. I am not really seeking to “justify” the violation by working an excuse or mitigating factor / lifeboat scenario / extreme case into the NAP - thereby my actions being “justified” would result in me being free from persecution and punishment. I am not contending nor attempting to “justify” myself free from persecution or punishment.

In this extreme case I state, I will accept my fate. “I am guilty as charged.” Just as was the case with an earlier example I quoted from Walter Block about him pushing someone out of the way of a falling boulder - saving their life, but in the process, he broke their arm.

If there are violations of the NAP in other instances, they too would be dealt with in exact same way. Following Libertarian law.

“Can the NAP have meaning if you would deliberately violate it?” - Yes, of course. Necessarily, the NAP would still have meaning even if I didn’t deliberately violate it. Actions are what matter. Intent is not really a factor. What matters is applying the NAP, in the use of punishment theory.

2. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Or I’m not communicating it effectively enough. I gather you think I am trying to wriggle out of the NAP, or insert some scenario in to justify it being broken. I’m not.

Aggression is possible in ALL circumstances, no? It is wrong however and violates the NAP. Punishment and restitution etc should be accorded to the victim, proportionality etc.

3. Nope. Because I’m not “justifying” it. If by justify, you mean - it doesn’t violate the NAP and therefore I am scott free of punishment.

Not to sound rude, but did you read the journal article? I’m not sure how you could have and not have come to an agreement with Walter Block? That quote outlines my case explicitly and “justifies” it.

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.

[TheOrlonater]

@wombatron

And rights are not derived from the fact that one has emotions and senses.

It’s not about rights, it’s about who gives the right to extreme torture.

@wombatron

Which presupposes that non-human animals have rights. They don’t

You’re not really answering giving a good point out. Torture is unacceptable.

[Conza]

@Zavoi

@Conza88

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.

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.

Wrong. You are guilty of murder. You have violated the NAP. Walter Block also addresses this very well. It’s called negative homesteading and is contained within the Abortion lecture, in the second half I believe. As it roughly correlates with evictionism.

In that case the ONLY proper action is to try get the gun and kill / defend yourself against the individual (alien), forcing you against your will. You can’t pass on the negative to someone else.

@Zavoi

@Conza88

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?

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.

Who the responsibility lies with, doesn’t actually address the issue though. You, an outsider, have no obligation too protect the child. That’s the point. ‘Negligence? Reasonably foreseeable.’ It doesn’t really matter, nor does it matter if that person was a child, or not - it could be an adult.

What matters is the punishment. You violated the NAP, you trespassed. The victim can choose to punish you or not. That’s all I’m really getting at.

I guess negligence etc, would matter if the child died though.

@Zavoi

@Conza88

You are standing in the path on an onrushing boulder…

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.)

Wrong. They CAN argue that the rescuer should not have saved their life. Block also addresses this.

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.

@Zavoi

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.

The point is erroneous because I’ve never said that. Strawman. I’ve said the exact opposite in fact.

“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.”

And if they do, fine. If there is a jury / judge from private law courts, following libertarian law, I respect their descision and punishment either way. If I was disregarding them, I would say if HE injured me for trespassing, then HE should be punished etc. But I am NOT. Which is what I think is causing confusion.

[liberty_student]

@TheOrlonater

Torture is unacceptable.

So is loneliness. And sickness. And starvation.

Are you a libertarian?