Thanks for the response, you guys have given me a lot to think about.
OK so you have pretty much convinced me on the poverty issue. This is something else that I have concerns about regarding Libertarianism.
I am not a vegan, vegetarian, Peta member or anything like that, but when I read stuff this like this I think of course the state should intervene and arrest these people. In a Libertarian society, there will be nothing to stop people abusing animals if it means cutting costs, or even if they just enjoy it.
I don’t think the average person will boycott a company because it abuses animals if it means their weekly shopping budget is lower, and in most cases they will not even be aware of the suffering that is caused. I think we have established that because a view is held by the majority doesn’t make it right.
Reading articles on mises.org on the subject everybody seems to agree with Rothbard’s view which was something along the lines of “I will agree to give animals rights when they ask for them.” Of course I don’t expect animals to be given the same rights as humans, but at least to be spared a life of unbearable suffering.
Ghandi (not sure you guys are Ghandi fans) said something along the lines of you can jusdge a society by how well it treats its animals, I agree with him.
Do Libertarians consider such things, or do we not care?
I don’t accept the argument that whites are collectively responsible for Apartheid because the old government based its policies on a basis of white supremacism.
I don’t think it was right for the TRC to acquit the politicians and generals who were really responsible for Apartheid and shift the blame collectively onto everyone who the new government claims the old government was acting in the best interests of. The old government always claimed that it was acting in the best interests of everyone, just like the current one does. Obviously they’re both wrong. Children can’t vote now, but the current government - like all democracies - thinks that it is acting in their best interests most of all.
I did not vote or lobby for the Apartheid state, and neither did anyone in my family. If it abused other people worse than it abused my family - which it did - I don’t see how we can be held responsible. It wasn’t on account of collaboration.
Should I also feel guilty because the new government is doing terrible things to this country’s prosperity for reasons it says are benefitting all of us? The immoveable property it claims to be ‘redistributing’ to the needy through land reform and housing projects is, in fact, a process of socialisation. People often think they’re taking the property from private hands and putting it into other private hands, which would be wrong in any case, but it’s actually much worse than that…
Applicants have to be approved by the government as genuinely needy and deserving of these houses and farms, you see, so you can’t have a situation where they become owners and sell the thing to the highest bidder the following afternoon, which would make some economic sense. Oh no, it’s just permanently leased to its tenants for free. They can’t sell it, or sublet, or indeed profit in any way from it, except that they can live in it themselves. If they leave, it goes back to the government to allocate to someone else on the “genuinely needy” list.
What is going to happen to these farms and residential communities, which are owned by an absentee landlord that can’t even fix potholes on the roads, and leased by extremely poor people at no charge? Tenants, who don’t have an owner’s incentive to maintain and protect the property?
They will disintegrate into social and economic chaos. Anyone with the gumption to lift themselves out of poverty will leave for a better life, and people who don’t will stay. It will be a race to the bottom. It will be even worse than the Apartheid locations, because at least if everyone in a race group is forced together, you’ll still have a cross-section of society within that group available to cooperate with each other. With these communities, the least productive people have the most incentive to stay, and the most productive will have the most incentive to leave, so as a result the place itself descends into chaos.
Both the old and the new governments claim that they’re ordering us around like their property in our own best interests, and both their grand schemes inevitably result in tragic failure. I don’t see a significant moral distinction between the Nats and the ANC regimes. Practically speaking, I think the current government allows us a bit more freedom for now, though the police force is as brutal as ever, but their economic schemes to lift the masses out of poverty are doomed to failure, and when that happens, I just know that the productive class is going to get blamed for it again.
Charity should not result in even greater suffering than there was before.
I don’t think healthy, happy humans are much inclined to act out sadistically against animals. Maybe that was Ghandi’s point.
The more economically powerful an individual is, the more influence they wield over the direction of the market. They can boycott a store if they have looser budget constraints. That’s why maximisation of human utility is the first step.
Hi James.
I don’t accept the argument that whites are collectively guilty of apartheid either, my poorly worded example was meant to illustrate that I don’t feel comfortable with poverty whatever the cause (but then who does), not that I feel responsible as a white South African for what happened, I don’t.
You are preaching to the converted regarding the ANC, but interesting hearing your take on things. I have been away 10 years and a lot the time feel very detached from what’s going on, but have every intention of moving back eventually.
Thanks for the animal’s comment. I don’t think I agree with the humans acting sadistically point but it’s a matter of opinion I guess, I have seen some pretty sadistic behaviour from apparently well balanced individuals. I hear you on the maximisation of human utility though.
Try minimizing your usage of “we”. Or at least track your (hopefully decreasing) usage frequency of that word in your communications as a barometer for how close you are to thinking like a free individual.
Ha ha, OK thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Where was this MFA study conducted? I’d rather not have to dig through that site on my own, if you know what I mean. 
What I would be concerned about is whether treating livestock in such ways negatively affects the quality of the food produced from them.
The notion of “abusing” animals implies that they have rights against the behaviors being categorized as “abuse”. For example, if causing “needless suffering” to animals qualifies as “abuse”, then that implies animals have a right to not suffer needlessly. One problem that arises here concerns the definition of “needless suffering”. After all, couldn’t killing livestock for their meat be considered causing them needless suffering? Why do they need to suffer death just so we can enjoy their meat? Going along this route, of course, one can only conclude that nothing ever “needs” to happen in this sense, so everything is needless.
Another way of looking at it is in terms of goals. If your goal is to raise animals for slaughter, keeping them under stress will probably make them harder to raise and otherwise impact the quality of the meat they produce. Certainly the treatment of animals allegedly documented by MFA at at least one farm puts those animals under severe stress. Such treatment of animals is also wasteful from the economics standpoint. After all, the time and effort expended in such treatment could’ve been used for other things that actually help the farm.
What’s funny is that you don’t typically see people buying brand-new cars just so they can slowly and methodically destroy them. A person is more likely to engage in such “abusive” behavior with something that will show fear and submission - which tells him that he’s more powerful than it. Of course, the only things that do that are sufficiently complex organisms. IMO, it’s a shame that so many people have such a need to feel more powerful than something else. There are other factors at work here, though, such as groupthink/deindividuation and the separation of ownership and control.
In any case, don’t underestimate the “power” of social pressure. People who aren’t sociopaths will react strongly to mere negative criticism of their actions. I’d wager that, even in a libertarian society, most people would also think that someone who sadistically tortures animals, while not committing any crime (assuming their his animals), is not a person they want to be around. They’d probably think that, if he’s willing to torture animals, he’s much more likely to graduate to torturing people than someone who isn’t willing to do that.
Thanks for the thought provoking reply, what you say makes sense.
However, if I had to see somebody stabbing, drop-kicking, sodomising or in any other way cause an animal (over which they have inherent property rights or not)extreme distress I have no doubt I would violate the non-agression principle against the person in question, and would feel quite good about it afterwards.
I fully understand that some people may not share my views, but I would have to wonder what else I would not have in common with such people. That’s my problem of course.
Oh yes, my generalisation on the views of Libertarians regarding animal rights were based on articles I read in the Mises daily archive, so you didn’t miss anything = )
No one’s going to perfectly follow the Non-Aggression Principle. While I think it’s a good goal to have, it’s like an asymptote in math - you can always get closer to it, but you can never actually get there. So what’s the point, then? I think the point is about justice - that is, about paying for harms committed. The Non-Aggression Principle provides a basis for what constitutes harm.
My point is, if you hurt a person who’s doing something that 1) isn’t a crime, but 2) is nevertheless something you don’t like, be prepared to “pay the price” should the person choose to press charges against you.
Interesting. Thanks to everybody who has replied this has been very educational, seriously.
Don’t be alarmed if I come across as an militant animal rights marxist, I am actually quite a sensible person.
Thanks again.
Indeed it does. I think you will like this if you haven’t seen it China Diapers:
Also, I got back from Hawaii recently and was surprised to find a store that did something I have imagined would come about in a libertarian society. They rated the meat they sold on 5 levels where each higher level corresponded to better animal treatment by the farmers as concluded by the stores inspectors. Stores would do this now if they could opt-out of paying for the government inspectors so they could use that money toward doing it themselves and if more people realized what a bad job the government does at inspecting.
What they advocate theoretically is a transitory state. They initially use all of the old methods of pillaging and execution and then expect the utopia commune to just happen by itself after that. By the same token Marx was an anarchist.
Known animal abusers would have a terrible reputation, in a society of non-sociopaths they would be ostracized.
Ask any anarcho-comunist: and what would you do if private property would re-emerge under staleness? No one will say “fine, we’ll leave it be than”. To them, communism far precedes anarchy by importance. Want to know some real anarcho-comunists? Check out Israeli Kibbutzim’s. Those guys live their lives as they see fit and let other live theirs.
I actually spent three months on a Kibbutz as a volunteer after high school, I thought it was awesome, seemed to work really well.
From what I gather the Kibbutzim’s are struggling now, one of the older Kibbutzniks was telling me all the youngsters these days pack their bags for Tel Aviva or Jerusalem the first chance they get, they are not interested in that lifestyle.
Regarding the ownership of property, I have been reading Ethics of Liberty I am not 100% convinced that Humans have an inherent right to own property, but I would agree that nobody has the right to tell you that you can’t own property.
Anthony de Jasay is an excellent read on the subject of “rights”. You should check him out. I think he’s written a few Mises Dailys.
Be aware that there a major, if sometimes dormant, debate going on between libertarians regarding the justification of property rights. Natural rights are just one opinion.
Ah OK, interesting, thanks.