I wonder if, given the choice and the ability to choose, where animals would prefer to be. Take it as a given they’re going to be eaten, would they rather live on a farm or in the wild? It seems to me the natural state of most if not all animals in the wild is one of severe agitation and nervousness. “Crap, I need food!” “Damn, someone ate the kids!” “Damn, there’s a predator in my house!” “Damn, winter is almost here and I don’t have enough nuts stored!” “Damn, someone just ate me!”
I think most animals would trade the inevitable execution for the knowledge that they have no other predators to deal with, their kids will be well fed, and it will be relatively painless to be killed by us, most of the time, than it would be to be eaten in the wild. And the domesticated pet animals? I think it’s a no brainer. What’s a poodle going to do in the wild, without salons and couches to pee on?
It does not seem that you have read the other words which Mises wrote adequately carefully. Read the these quotations:
In the quotation which you responded to, Mises used the word “animal” to describe the nonhumanlike animals. If a certain species of animals further evolved and developed sufficient reason and variability of skill so division of labor and therefore so society became evolutionarily viable, his term “animal” would not anymore refer to that species. The above quotations show unambiguously that Mises does not believe that humans are “special” and instead that he believes that humans are merely more evolutionarily advanced but not somehow categorically different than other animals.
The quotation which you responded to represents the first two paragraphs of a section in “Human Action” which he entitled “The Work of Animals and of Slaves”. The reason that he began that section via those two paragraphs is because he wanted to explain that animals do not realize the benefits of the division of labor and therefore we must either (1) allow them to ‘go their own way’ and therefore allow them to leave society or (2) forcibly integrate them into our production processes but that humans do indeed realize the benefits of the division of labor and therefore if we allow them to ‘go their own way’, that does not imply that they would therefore leave society; instead, they would most likely continue to live within society.
You evidently do not understand what the term “sarcasm” means. The term “sarcasm” describes a phrase which literally means X but figuratively means the opposite of X or, at the least, categorically different vis-a-vis X. If you did not truly mean what you said, what you said would be an instance of exaggeration, not sarcasm.
There is market demands for cruelty free products and vegetarian/ vegan food.All of my grocery stores supply these products not out of compassion but for profit.The consumer rules-its up to them.
I am a Vegan and a Libertarian. As a Vegan I have done research on the health aspects of a Vegan diet and was surprised to learn that a Vegan diet is one of the most libertarian things a person can do.
This is so because it promotes health. In Canada, if I fall ill with Heart Disease,Diabetes,Obesity,etc,etc I would be a major drain on our healthcare system.It is better to take control of your own health.I find this article by Dr Douglas Graham to be very interesting.
Animal rights would only be legitimate if animals have free will (meaning they act meaning they reason) .Science nor reason has proven this-contrary to claims by alleged advocates of both.
How would it work in anycase?
Ok so humans could enforce rights violations against other people.But what about rights violations among animals?(it seems somewhat contradictory to claim it is part of animals nature to have rights yet part of their nature is that they eat or attack other animals) would we have to arrest a bat for eating a fly? which animals would have rights and which wouldn’t? how do we decide?
’ As a Vegan I have done research on the health aspects of a Vegan diet and was surprised to learn that a Vegan diet is one of the most libertarian things a person can do.’
“As someone who believes in them, what effective market forces would there be to prevent widespread battery farming and animal rights abuses?”
Boycotts. Animal lovers could refuse to do business with animal abusers. Animal loving workers who work at animal abusing companies (or anywhere really) can organize and form the United Animal Lovers Union and refuse to work until their employers stop abusing animals. If the United Animal Lovers Union isn’t big enough, they can form an alliance with the United Anti-Child Labor Union and strike until both of their demands are met. If that’s still not big enough, they can keep making alliances with other causes (like the United Minimum Wage Union, the United 40 Hour Week Union, and the United Workers Rights Union). That’s right, unions would exist in a free market.
As an advocate it would be up to you to convince people that they should care, communicate that to the providers of child products, and have them act accordingly. That is at least until the children made a statement of their rights and demonstrated intent to enforce them, at which point we’d have to recognize them as equals in that sense and stop eating them. At least if that’s what they wanted of us. Until then, they are property. And as such the only acceptable way to influence someone as to how to use their property is through convincing.
Regardless of whether or not he can defend it on propertarian grounds, he doesn’t like what you’re doing. He’s saying he’d be willing to bear all the costs of forcing you to stop tortuing animals.
If he doesn’t like what I’m doing, then he is free not to do business with me. He is free to make some kind of deal (as in $$$) for me to stop doing it. He is not free to “force” me unless I have violated natural law.
