No. That doesn’t seem quite as cruel. You could still have a level of empathy that would qualify you as human.
So basically, is the argument, my libertarian (or whatever ‘rad’ sounding label you apply to yourselves) chums, that people have the ‘right’ to cruely torture animals?
People have a right to do with their property as they wish.
Don’t waste my time.
I agree with the general sense of what you are saying.
Natural rights of human nature are “of” humans (universally human). Something, like health care as a poster muddying the waters mentioned, is “for” a human. Natural rights are projected out of the individual whereas health care is given from one person to another.
Animal rights would need to come from the animal, not applied by a human upon the animal.
You lack understanding liberty. Liberty is unbiased. Non-initiating physical coercion against a person is liberty and thus each person is able to actualize their potential in liberty.
Ah, the Captain Luke Collingwood defence. I don’t buy it, and no people do not have the right to do with their property anything they wish. ‘Rights’ are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending ‘rights’ to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the ‘right’ to do what you like with your property.
You confuse rights with privilege
I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.
Rights are not granted by society. They may or may not be recognized, but that is beside the point. Rights are not created; they are discovered.
I just did explain. You are lacking in definition of what is a right and what is a privilege.
No, I think he is English, in England you have no right to defend yourself, but the social privlilege of curling into a ball and crying for the police to save your sorry ass, as not even other people are allowed to intervene on your ass whooping…
I thought it was because he is a “Lord” and wants to feel special about granting privileges. Like when the free market does good the politicians take credit for what is obviously not of their doing, but when the free market buckles under their statist regulations the politicians want to blame the free market. I mean the politicians are still lingering pharaohs that haven’t woke up to reality yet - they bleed red like the rest of us.
Was it only me that read that in Ben Stein’s voice?
That’s quite a statement. Please elaborate.
The British are not to be trusted. [:P]
I know what you are saying. Some people may not however.
You gave a strawman argument. Anything else?
That reminds me of the man who criticqued Rothbard’s Gold Standard lecture before the civil war. He stated: ‘There is no shortage of scapegoats when the government is to blame.’ Rather insightful, I think his last name was Timberlake.
I am still puzzled how they became allies after 1812…
ok [:)]
If you mean in the U.S. culture for I saw a news bulletin at Campaign for Liberty about the Federal Administration is trying to make the case health care is a right, but I know Obama is purposely muddying this issue. I’ve heard Obama explain negative and positive liberties (rights) before and he clearly understands the difference. He went to school for Constitution law. He even admits the Constitution is about “negative liberties” (rights), but Obama stated he thinks more positive rights should be provided cause the government can do what’s best for people and in the same breath he said this is why the Constitution is flawed.
Negative rights: “of” an individual
Positive rights: “for” an individual
Negative rights are natural rights.