Animal Rights

[JCFolsom]

@Deist

Mentally capable humans may disagree with rights but they are at least capable of understanding and comprehending the system of rights. An ape or any other animal cannot understand that. Yes they may defend their right to life but that does not mean they understand the abstract notion of the “Right to life” it merely means they are acting instinctually to protect their genes.

I do not think available evidence supports the idea that most people with average or better intelligence can or do understand rights. People certainly misuse the term all the time. They are actually philosophical concepts which, in my opinion, most people have neither the patience nor the insight to comprehend.

@Deist

And Player if you respond to this post please read my earlier post about the inherent differences between human reasoning and animal reasoning that goes to our very biology. I do understand that humans are a type of animal but that means nothing. Does the nature of of a wolf mean that it is similar to a bear? No. They have inherent differences. Their only similarity are that they are live and are predators. One is a pack animal to it’s genes and one is not.

Well, and they are both carnivores. And mammals. With excellent senses of smell. Who prey on many of the same animals and live in near proximity to one another.

This idea of a different “nature” is really funny. I thought most of y’all here were atheists. Bears are really just an evolutionary skip and a jump a way from wolves, not that different at all. But, then, this is an economics forum, so gross ignorance of biology should, perhaps, be expected.

There is nothing (unless you have some religious conviction otherwise) which essentially seperates us from other animals. I will agree that our reasoning is greater, and even that we are more advanced, but these are matters of degree. That we are somehow different by our very nature is an extraordinary claim, and you need to back it up with evidence. Just saying “look how big our frontal lobes are” does not constitute sufficient evidence.

Many other animals are capable of communication, tool use, affection, fear, pain, malice… I think the real reason for the resistance here is that any good Austrian is faced with the prospect of either becoming a vegan, or rejecting the NAP, should they acknowledge that animals are at all capable of self-ownership. Under such a strain, no wonder they resist the concept so very adamantly.

[Deist]

Read my earlier posts. I am relying specifically on atheist biological scientists and neuroscientists to make my argument. As far as different natures I am not talking about it in the Aristotalian sense but in the scientific natural sense.

[JCFolsom]

@nhaag

Indeed I have to say that animals have no rights whatsoever. Rights are property rights and they are set to protect the rightful owner against aggression from other human beings. Unless you make animals responsible for their actions, in some tribes there is a court that sentences a lion to death after he attacked one of the members, animals do not have rights.

Hah! What is justice, and who are you to dispense it? An animal will be killed, just as a man will be, if it poses a present danger. What is justice in an anarchist society? Who determines punishment? The justice systems of government, as even you point out, vary in their approaches to both man and beast, and “justice” systems in general are just another part of the government we hope to do away with. Sure, sure, there will be arbitration and the like, but you won’t be able to collect money from someone who doesn’t have it, whether that someone is man or beast. Please, tell me again, how in a true libertarian framework, where no one institution gets to decide what “justice” is, there is an essential difference between man and beast?

[Deist]

@JCFolsom

I do not think available evidence supports the idea that most people with average or better intelligence can or do understand rights. People certainly misuse the term all the time. They are actually philosophical concepts which, in my opinion, most people have neither the patience nor the insight to comprehend.

there is also a HUGE difference between disagreement or thinking a system cannot work, as most people think libertarianism cannot work, and not understanding them. Communist understand the libertarian argument just as we understand the communist argument but we disagree with it. Animals cannot even get these views.

[Player]

Oh, you are applying libertarianism to cows, to protect your soul and lie to youself to come with the magic word ‘the don’t have rights’.

Which is racist, you abuse weaker ones. I’m not trying to hijack anything, just following what you all should have discoverd by your own long time ago.

The current ‘official theory’ or the mainstream one, the one the mayority of libertarians agree on, is flawed in respect to animal ownership and enslavement.

The logical conclusion is the application of the non-agression axiom, not the crazy idea that they can be ‘owned’ like a rock you find in the beach. You say it’s the same, but it’s not.

I’m more libertarian than you because I don’t start the use of force, you do, against weaker owners, you use them as slaves to do your work, you organize them like a social engineer, a farmer, for the ‘greater good’. Who give you authority to use other owner’s property? the bodies of other animals? How can you explain that you are entitled to abuse however you want them? where is your contract? where does your legitimacy come to be harming these animals?

You never justified libertarianism in language or any other derivatives of higher brains functions, you did it in innate natural rights of self-ownerships and pursue of your own goals using the mediums you can, all animals do that, you modify nature more than others, but you all have goals and try to make them true as you can, you all try to minimize conflicts and if one arises you defend your life and your property, may it be an ape protecting its child, its bananas or a parrot protecting its nest and its family. You are way above the line drawed to recognice rights, but others are also on this side of the line.

It’s not about ‘giving rights’ we are not gods, it’s about recognicing them, realizing they do have and therefore respecting them.

[JCFolsom]

I read your earlier posts, Deist. You cite blowhards, atheist apologists, basically trying to run PR saying “but see, we’re not REALLY like apes”, because that concept is so distasteful to people. Again, all they’re really saying is “we have much bigger frontal cortices”, which I never denied. However, the statement that animals have only mechanical brain functions is demonstrably false. Again, the differences between our abilities and those of other animals are only by degree, and where you place that dividing line is arbitrary, and far too convenient to be assured of objectivity.

[Deist]

I have never made the argument that it is ok to toruture your dog. I think from a “humane” stand point animals have a limited duty of care we might owe to them. For instance I do think it is needless and cruel to slowly disect a mammal without drugging it up, forgive me if I think it is more cruel than to do that to an ant. Yeswe are a hell of lot like apes but still we are different and have different characteristics and hence natures.

But I believe in a hierarchy of rights and duty of care based on cognition and capacity to understand them and capability to follow them. I don’t think an Ape would totally grasp the notion of proprety rights in land. Humans may not agree to property rights but they can get the argument or somehow failing that have the potential to get it through education.

And guess what? The genetic degrees you talk about make a load of difference. They make totally different species.

Are you vegetarian or vegan by any chance? At least that would make me understand where you are coming from.

[JCFolsom]

I used to be a vegan. I am not now, but I have a huge sympathy for the position. However, I believe that, if necessary for survival, or even just health (as I believe, for instance, meat eating is), violence is acceptable.

[Deist]

Alright then I respect your position.

[Juan]

@Player

I’m more libertarian than you because I don’t start the use of force,

You clearly stated that humans can be attacked (so no NAP) to protect the imaginary rights of animals. Your position has nothing to do with libertarianism. Not to mention your belief that birds have rights but plants don’t, which is wholly inconsistent.

[JCFolsom]

@Juan

@Player

I’m more libertarian than you because I don’t start the use of force,

You clearly stated that humans can be attacked (so no NAP) to protect the imaginary rights of animals. Your position has nothing to do with libertarianism. Not to mention your belief that birds have rights but plants don’t, which is wholly inconsistent.

So, you think that humans can’t use force to defend other humans from force? Defense by a third party is a violation of NAP? Since when? His supposed inconsistency only arises because you reject his statement that animals have rights. However, his statements are internally consistent.

The plant argument is a straw man. Many animals can show signs of pain, awareness, communication, planning, etc. So far as we know, no plant does. That he chooses to draw the line differently than you does not make him inconsistent. He is not quite as masterful with the language as some, but so far, y’all are just bein’ ignant playa-hatas.

[Deist]

I think, though I might be wrong, JCFolsom that we might be closer in our views than thought. How would you classify animal rights and human rights?

It seems that you respect a certain duty of care towards certain animals. Do you think this would prevent me from chopping down a tree that various animals lived in or do you think the duty of care has more to do with the infliction of violence on the animals specific body?

I have to go for now so I wont be able to read the response.

[Juan]

@JCFolsom

So, you think that humans can’t use force to defend other humans from force? Defense by a third party is a violation of NAP?

Can you please point out where I said that ?

What I did say is that invoking the non-existent rights of animals as justification for aggression against people is by no means a libertarian position.

His supposed inconsistency only arises because you reject his statement that animals have rights. However, his statements are internally consistent.

Doesn’t matter. His premise is wrong.

The plant argument is a straw man.

It is not. All living things have a ‘right’ to life just because of being alive - so, for instance, cows can’t eat grass…according to New Libertarianism at least.

Many animals can show signs of pain, awareness, communication, planning, etc. So far as we know, no plant does.

True. But plants are ‘naturally’ alive - so you’ve no right to kill them.

That he chooses to draw the line differently than you does not make him inconsistent. He is not quite as masterful with the language as some, but so far, y’all are just bein’ ignant playa-hatas.

I’m not justifying the use of aggressive violence to ‘stop’ humans who abide by the NAP. He is.

[JCFolsom]

It matters, Juan, because you accused him of being inconsistent. He isn’t. You just disagree. You are making a false accusation, and you should take it back, and at least give him credit for being internally consisten in this respect. Otherwise, you look like you’re being dishonest.

Geez, these Argentinians…

[JCFolsom]

@Deist

I think, though I might be wrong, JCFolsom that we might be closer in our views than thought. How would you classify animal rights and human rights?

I’m not sure I would at all. Rights, to my mind, are ill-defined concepts resting on questionable premises (a highly controvertial “natural law”). I prefer to work with quasi-subjective characterizations of actions (cruel, kind, generous, miserly, etc.; I hope quasi-subjective is right, here, I’m not sure).

@Deist

It seems that you respect a certain duty of care towards certain animals. Do you think this would prevent me from chopping down a tree that various animals lived in or do you think the duty of care has more to do with the infliction of violence on the animals specific body?

I think you need to avoid unneccessary cruelty. That being said, our interests and those of animals are often in conflict, and our interests ought to be the ones we advocate for. Those animals, were they in your position, certainly would not hesitate to. If a blue jay were big enough to eat you, it sure as Hell would try. The world is not a nice place; excepting our well-controlled human environments (and sometimes those, too), it’s downright hostile. We have to live in such a world, and we are where we are not just because we are intelligent, but because we have used our intelligence to become the baddest predator that ever walked or crawled.

[Juan]

@JCFolsom

It matters, Juan, because you accused him of being inconsistent. He isn’t.

He wants to extend the NAP to animals in a way that violates the NAP for humans. That is not consistent ?

Geez, these Argentinians…

I don’t particularly like them myself =] …

[macsnafu]

@Juan

He wants to extend the NAP to animals in a way that violates the NAP for humans. That is not consistent ?

He’s saying that if animals should have NAP applied to them, then it is appropriate for humans to come to the aid of animals if someone aggresses against them. That’s not inconsistent. It’s the question of whether or not the NAP should apply to animals that’s important here.

[Jon_Irenicus]

As far as different natures I am not talking about it in the Aristotalian sense but in the scientific natural sense.

But you are. The Aristotelian argument is just more abstractly stated.

-Jon

[Juan]

@macsnafu

He’s saying that if animals should have NAP applied to them, then it is appropriate for humans to come to the aid of animals if someone aggresses against them. That’s not inconsistent. It’s the question of whether or not the NAP should apply to animals that’s important here.

Okay. If the premise “chickens have human rights” was true then yes, chickens could use force in self-defense against humans…and his system would be consistent.

But the premise is absurd. So…this is just another byzantine discussion…

If A(human) is about to shoot B(human), then using force to stop A, even lethal force if there’s no other option, can be justified.

If A(human) is about to cook B(chicken), then using force to stop A is clearly a criminal act…as far as libertarianism is concerned. However, if I got that one wrong, then I guess I’ll stop reading Bastiat and will join the sierra club…or something.

JCFolsom, I think you do have a point with respect to moral intuition. My moral intuition tells me that to enforce the ‘rights’ of chickens using force against people is clearly immoral. Player’s intuition seems to be different than mine though…

[JCFolsom]

Well, I for one eat meat, so I’m not going to stop you killing a chicken to eat it. I would stop you chopping it up, alive, from the feet up. Because that’s fucked up, and sadistic, and clearly evil. Now, if you’d already started, I’d probably have to break the poor thing’s neck (and maybe eat it) as a mercy, but I don’t think a court in the land would convict me of any wrongdoing, so long as I only did what was necessary (or maybe just a little more) to stop you.