You guys are missing an easy solution for vice: Just boycott this fellow. Protest his behavior, never trade with him, disassociate from his ilk.
There is also that. Make a publication that announces who this man is then dog dealers know they are selling their dogs to an abusive owner.
“People often say to me: Professor Rothbard, how do you know that business cycles are caused by fiat currency and other intervention in the market by governments? I tell them that I don’t really know. But that the only other cause is probably puppies. Aggregate demand goes down because all of those damn dogs people have distract them from their consumption habits with their big brown eyes! If only we could find a way to buy puppies but also make them less distracting aesthetically! Of course, if this is true, I have to go back to being a statist. But no one must know this side of me. Did I just write this outloud! Dang!”
- Murray Rothbard (What has the Capitalism Done to Our Dogs? pp. 12039)
You suggested alternative punishments. I gave you some. Why are you now accusing me of sadism? Are reparations not acceptable to you?
Reparations to whom?
the article could be fake.
the ‘owner’ of the dog could have done this or someone else could have done this to an unowned animal.
animals are capable of rather startling acts of pain an cruelty to each other.
for some, human to animal ‘violence’ is particulary disturbing - i guess especially among domesticated animals.
i personally dont believe a human can judge or should punish another human for animal cruelty - especially if the animal isnt property. if thats the case then humans should seek redress in some way for property damage.
for me…i would be curious about why a human, outside of hunting or religious cermony, would just harm beasts.
maybe they have emotional or human problems that could be tended to, who knows? maybe they are just weird or different but wouldnt harm anythig else?
this should be an advocacy issue rather than a government penal or the aforementioned punishment issue.
if teh DDT issue of years past was true alleged eagle egg thinning was of great concern but a million plus abortions in the us was freedom to choose.
Nice try.
Veterinary bills for a start. And how about the costs of looking after the dog for the rest of it’s life.
If a father bashes his baby and then goes to prison, who are the reparations for?
The reparations are for the sane and moral people who find this behavior sickening and abhorrent.
What was done to this dog is a terrible thing, and a good example of Man’s capacity for indifference to suffering, which is one of the big problems faced by our species. Libertarian philosophy, however, does not support punishing the perpetrator, because no rights have been violated. The puppy is property, not a being with rights, per se (a dog cannot enter into a contract, social or otherwise).
However, libertarian philosophy is what it is because it values reason over emotion when it comes to using coercion (the law) to limit human behavior. Indifference to cruelty, as much as it may incense a decent person, isn’t something that can be fixed by coercion. You cannot awaken empathy with a fine. Fortunately for us, as well as others made to suffer, the respect for reason that would govern a libertarian society’s thinking would probably have more effectiveness in propagating an attitude of respect for the well-being of animals. Compassion is, ultimately, the fruit of reflection.
The Rev
You are making the mistake of an artificial distiction between cruetly that occurs in so-called “nature” and that which occurs in human civilisation.
I make no such distiction. Humans evolved like any other animal. Every object, act and living thing on this earth is nature. But within nature, there is right and wrong. There is good and evil.
I don’t accept any form of cruelty, whether it occurs in the humanless jungles of subsaharan africa or on the streets of the Melbourne suburbs.
I reject environmentalism as illogical lunacy. And in this way you can see how environmentalism and animal rights are diametrically opposed.
For what? You haven’t answered my question: to whom shall the reparations be paid? And why are you still confusing aesthetics with morality? And why haven’t you come up with some punishment other than sadism?
This seems to imply that the reparation is to the victim (the owner) for the damage done to the property (the dog).
And you’d be right in implying this.
You don’t know what the word “reparation” means.
reparation |ˌrepəˈrā sh ən|noun1 the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money toor otherwise helping those who have been wronged : the courts required a convicted offender to make financial reparation to his victim.• ( reparations) the compensation for war damage paid by adefeated state.2 archaic the action of repairing something : the old hall was pulled down to avoid the cost of reparation.
If you are saying that society-as-a-whole has been wronged, then you are stretching words to a ridiculous extent, and are a rather collectivist “libertarian” to boot.
So magically, coercion is useful if a mentally retarded human has their ears cut off, but its not for a puppy.
Not all libertarians think the abstract homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom constitutes anything based on reason.
It is an abstract flight from reality. True philosophy should be based in reality.
Animals evolved as we evolved. Hence you cannot ASSUME differences. You can only ASSUME similarities based on the existence of a common ancestor.
Differences must be objectively proven via observation and experiment, and that includes all interaction with animals, not just men in white lab coats. Emotions draw from the observations of normal people. They are not subjective unlike the homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression axiom.
I totally agree with you, the dog deserves reparations!
Does the family of a murdered ant deserve reparations as well? That would be quite expensive considering the size of ant colonies…
Puppy justice!
4 legs good!
If his behavior bothers you and others like you, don’t talk or deal with him, and then encourage others to do the same.
Yes. Humans are indowded with rights by their highly emotional and rational nature. Dogs are not. Nice try.
All libertarians do. It’s just that not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian actually is one (hint, hint).
Analogy: Damn that Pythagoras! In creating these abstract theorems he is involved in a flight from reality. True geometry should be based in reality.
See how meaningless the drivel you’re spewing is?
Humans are rational moral actors with unique abilities to reflect on our condition. There are only a few animals that can even be argued to have anything compared to this (some monkeys, dolphins and squids). Guess what? Dogs are not moral actors. Dogs do not have an emotional ability to reflect on pain. Dogs do not have rights.
Emotions aren’t subjective? Really? Do you know what subjective means? Emotions are definitionally subjective. My emotional reaction is not the same as yours and both of our emotional reactions are different from a third person. Antithetically, it is a NAP and the related doctrines that develop objective standards for moral obligations.
Forget ants. How can we get justice for dogs attacked by other dogs? PUPPY JUSTICE!
So you are saying that a murderer going to prison doesn’t constitute ‘reparations’ in some way because you cannot possibly make amends to someone who is already dead?