2 legs better!
No, it doesn’t.
He deserves punishment. “Reparation”, as can be seen from the definition above would be an incorrect term for it.
I’m not a Rothbardian in my theory-of-ethics first principles, so I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you about the dog (although I definitely don’t buy your “crime against society in general” nonsense). I’m saying you are using the wrong word. Your continued incorrect use of that particular word hurts you in this debate, because it reflects a lack of understanding of the Rothbardian position: that justice is about reparation in the true meaning of the word (restitution).
Good point.
CHICKEN JUSTICE!
You may be able to make the case that certain animals live by territorial codes (urine markings for example), and that some have developed minor divisions of labor; but you cannot say that these beasts have any respect for life or property! So animals can be aggressive towards humans but humans have to exercise some sort of higher clemency? Bullshit. I have a gopher trap in my yard which suffocates the little critter if it does not impale it first. Is that so terrible? Some may say yes, most will say no but will agree with you on the “cute little puppy” case. Why? Because if something is aesthetically pleasing and arousing of sympathy it seems to get extra protection from the crowd. What about the ugly gopher in my trap? So its okay to kill an animal by your vote, just so long as it is done as ‘humanely’ as possible, or in this case, as long as it is not done to anything you find pretty? Be consistent.
I don’t find any joy in the death of life or the needless waste of energy in this universe, but time and energy are all we have, and in ever less usable quantities. I try to share and work as best I can with others, human or otherwise, but I will not tolerate the gopher in my yard. The gopher is free to fight back, but I doubt it will win. =]
I live with other humans peacefully out of mutual respect, the gopher shows me no respect.Pretty soon the argument dwindles down to “The gopher was there first!” Haha…
-
This is a statement of faith not fact. This is your bible.
-
Even if you assume this statement is true, it would mean mentally retarded humans are not endowed with rights. Some pretty weird scenarios could arise from this. For example, if I fall of a horse and the ‘rational’ functioning of my brain is damaged, somehow the rights are magically zapped out of me.
So you alone, user ‘Nerditarian’ on the mises.org forums, have the authority to decide what constitutes a libertarian. Impressive.
Geometry has a basis in reality. Time and three-dimensional space. The homo-sapien-exclusive non-agression-axiom has no such basis.
-
You can’t prove things by merely using subjective words like ‘rational’ and ‘moral’.
-
Many humans are not rational or moral. For example the mentally retarded, murderers etc
But there are reasons for this. We just have not found them yet.
Puppy gulag’s for all the noncompliant ones!
Exactly. Hence you believe there needs to be punishment beyond reparations, because you do think murderers should go to prison right?
In any case, I do think reparations are possible in this case, as I mentioned, veterinary bills can be paid. But even if the dog was killed, the person still should be punished.
No. Prison is just a school to teach people to be better criminals.
Bills can be paid…to whom? And what punishment (other than sadism) do you suggest?
Animal rights is hardly worth splitting up a libertarian movement over. It’s a second-order issue. So long as we agree on the central bank and foreign policy, it’s all good, you can keep your animal protection legislation.
We must retrain the puppies to be responsible doggies.
You’re quite wrong. The foundation of this argument is property rights. Do they exist, are they necessary etc?
Without a notion of property rights for conflict resolution, how can any libertarian hope to construct a society based on voluntary contract and individual liberty?
Central banking and foreign policy are second order issues at best. Animal rights is like an 18th order issue.
Many people don’t have respect for such things. For example, plain old thugs and the mentally retarded.
If a mentally retarded person punches you in the gob, should you punch back or try and resolve the situation using common sense? The mentally retarded person does not realise what he is doing after all. Common sense is required.
Well i’d use common sense here once again. If the gophers are killing your crops and casuing your family to starve to death, and there is no more humane way to kill them, then fine. But if that is not the case, as I suspect here, then what you are doing is awful.
The aesthetic appearance of the animal is irrevelevant. I am consistent.
Excellent. This is common sense.
Interesting. For me, I’d want to get murderers off the street so they don’t kill anyone else. but that’s just me.
Well in this particular case many people have already volunteered to take the dog. So you pay the money to whomever is looking after the dog.
When I was younger my old man hit me with the strap to reinforce the point that what I did was wrong. It definitely made me think twice about doing it again.
He’s correct in his core argument, guys, and we ignore the weakness he’s pointed out at our own peril. The concept of “rights” is just a utilitarian shorthand. We need to get this straight or we’ll be vulnerable to criticisms like this, which are easily answered by unpacking the meaning of “rights” - something that people seem wont to do because of some mystical view of rights.
A mentally retarted person physically resembles a human being, despite cognitively not being capable of human action. In that regard, my personal opinion is that they do not technically have human rights. However, that is only my opinion, I can understand that others may desire that others may get hung up over an animal in human form – Going back to sympathy inducing objects. So human rights for all humans regardless of their capability to perform the requisites of human action!
Also, If a thug is mugging me, one might say he has voided his legal protections in the same way. Naturally, we must attempt to prove this beyond the doubt of the court.
I might add you are being lose with your term “common sense”, which is purposely vague. Thoughts and actions that the majority of persons will undertake for a given situation? Is that knowable? If so, then from my perspective the majority of persons would favor death for the gopher in the event it was being a pest.
EDIT: I would like to make one further comment as to being beaten by a thug or a retard, I personally would try to resolve the issue as peacefully as possible, but I will not look down on someone, except perhaps as being a bit rash, if they were to kill the offender in defense. Of course, they would have to prove that it was justifiable defense to others.
If all other animals have the same rights as humans, then should anyone who kills an ant be prosecuted for murder? What about someone who kills a cow for food, murder too?
That’s because rights are utilitarian at their foundation. =] There is no “natural law”.
If there is no objective natural law (the is-ought gap), then there is also no objective utility because all utility is just an expression of subjective preference (the is-ought gap).
I hope that makes sense, I am borderline comatose.