How does the proof for this go?
Oh. Then maybe someone else?
No, I have not read the whole thread to see if you eat meat. So, do you eat meat? Even if you do not, have you ever entered an animals territory without getting permission? If so, then your arguments will be inconsistent. Animals do not have the ability to make contracts or to consent or withhold consent to anything. The purpose of law is to settle disputes between adults, period. And no, I am not talking about the current government definition of “adult”.
A belief in natural rights is subjective, but the notion of natural rights itself is based on a supposed objective truth of existence.
So why are you complaining about cutting the ears off of dogs? This is not an attack question, but rather, I am curious to see how you defend your position. I agree with you in that a lot of the things you are bringing up need more debate. Fundamentally though, from my viewpoint, some sort of non-aggression principle needs be accepted by those who are interacting. This is not to say it needs to be a ‘right’. It is a ‘must’ if humans are to interact in society.
What if they continue to return and act violently? Is there no point in which death becomes an option?
How would they return?
Curlz, I will await your answer to this question.
Ad hominem. I would really like to read your non-fallacious and non-emotional response to this question.
That’s curlz style. Just ignore him or mess with him. His only interest is in arguing from fallacy. You must have seen him on RPF before.
Ummm defining natural law based on the thought of those who developed natural law is not an argument from authority. I’m sorry, but I can’t be expected to simply change all the definitions of words to whatever Curlz wants. You’re not that important.
Yes I have. And even serious cases of mental retardation and toddlers can feel when something is “unfair” or “bad”. What proof do you have that dogs feel this kind of emotional pain? Newborn babies I excuse on the basis that they have the potential to reason upon the actualization of their human potential. There is no way to prove that someone is permanently unconcious. There have been miraculous stories of people waking up, ergo they still have a human potential for reason and reflection somewhere.
AND you believe in violating the property rights of individuals in animals? At the very least you’d be a blatantly self-contradictory libertarian if not a rejecctor of the entire creed in favor of a non-libertarian anarchy
That’s funny. I was just on RPF. I saw someone arguing that FRB isn’t fraud. However, what the person described wasn’t FRB so his conclusion didn’t follow. Typical of RPF.
Hans Hoppe is not a celebrity at all LoL. I’m sorry I’m not gonna spoon feed you every argument writen on things tangential to our discussion.
Yes, yes I can. Morality is an understanding of the world, like geometry. It does not need to be explained on the physical plane but rather can be communicated through the minds of men.
There are times when people are diseased or otherwise unable to control their actions. However:
A. even the person with Tourettes has the power to reflect on his deed in a way the tiger doesn’t after it rips another tiger or a human or whatever limb from limb.
B. there is still a degree to which people can and do try to morally aid the people around them to deal with this. People with Tourettes inform people they are diseased so they don’t get shocked when they blurt out profanities in the middle of a sentence. People with physical ticks have the ability to tell people that their left arm randomly swings so they avoid it. The fact that people can and often do takes these steps reflects their moral and reasoning nature.
So you’re one of those people who would sacrifice a human being for a dog? GTFO. Only a sick, perverted excuse for a human could propose something like that.
As noted by another poster, if you disagree with the treatment of the animal/retard/baby/etc. then buy it. If you don’t have enough money of your own and you know lots of people will sympathize with your cause, start a charity and raise the money to buy these abused creatures. The problem is not your desire to intervene but that you want to socialize the cost of intervention.
You’re the one who addressed this thread to Rothbardians.
Yes, the fetus and very young child is parasitic upon its mother and parents, respectively. This is not an emotional statement, it is a statement of fact. Please reference any introductory textbook on reproductive biology.
I have no idea what the origin or progression* of the universe is. I welcome any evidence you might have in that regard.
As for the non-aggression principle you clearly do not understand its foundation in argumentation ethics. Go read Hoppe. Emotion has nothing to do with it.
Clayton -
*beyond the evolution of the state of the universe according to the laws of physics
But it’s not arrogant or lazy to simply assert his theory is a failure without extrapolating his philospophic point and brush off refrences to the historic thinkers of which he derived his ethical system from as an appeal to “celebrity philosophers” simply because you refuse to take the time to research points of view that don’t confer your own? How enlightening.
And please describe how babies are not parasites. Rothbard was, of course, calling them such in an economic sense, as the baby or fetus does not produce wealth, while at the same time consuming the savings of the parent.
Well, I guess I would be one person to agree with you more on this forum, but you’re coming at it the wrong way.
Look, this is awful. Thinking about it makes my eyes start to tear up. I have a real soft spot for animals, but at the same time I have a real distaste for the state.
Now, of course all of these conversations are moot - because most of us will never live in a society without a fairly large nation-state dictating rules - but in a world absent those rules, I don’t think you’d see these people going unpunished for their treatment of pets.
If it were in my neighborhood and there were no police to stop me, I’d very likely take the dog away from the owner myself and I wouldn’t be too sad to see his ears cut off for double measure.
In the context of this particular human in this particular article? Oh yes, in fact, I don’t even think it would require a thought to think about sacrificing a creature with obviously no empathy for anything for the benefit of another creatures safety.
I understand this is a slippery slope, but I can’t accept that someone who is so cruel to animals possesses equal “rights” and worthiness of empathy as other men.
I used to know this one kid years ago- he was a pretty cruel kid, he’d find ants and kill them in all kinds of ways, sometimes he’d rip them apart, sometimes flood their colony entrance with water, or just plain step on them. I’d never think of sentencing him to death because he wasn’t concerned with the ants safety.
If you do then I think you’re crazy- if you don’t then when is cruelty to animals punishable? Which animals? Do only certain mammals receive this type of justice? Does it have to do with how cute the animal is? If you only give dogs this right- then do you think I should be punished for killing a dog for food? For clothing? Or is it only punishable when you don’t like the reason the dog was killed?
This curlz guy completely avoided any question regarding stepping on ants. Why don’t insects deserve the same rights as dogs? Is it because they’re not as visually appealing? It all sounds way too arbitrary.
One can’t ask a well-formed question using the word “deserve” (or “should”) without specifying for what purpose something “should” or “deserves to” be. Not “Do insects deserve rights?” but “Do insects deserve rights in order to achieve X purpose?” Or “Should insects have rights in order to achieve X purpose?”
I suspect Curlz’s moral sense (probably mostly the sense of empathy) is offended by cruelty to dogs (as is mine), but not so much offended by cruelty to insects. For whatever reason doesn’t really matter. So for Curlz, dogs should have rights in order not to offend his sense of empathy. The benefit to him of lessening animal cruelty apparently outweighs the costs of assigning dogs legal rights and enforcing them. That is fine, and he should not have to explain why dogs should have rights and ants should not, because the purpose the word "should’ refers to is “not offending Curlz’s sense of empathy.” So it’s subjective, and in AnCap you (and whoever or whatever you care about) de facto get the rights you pay for. It’s a non-issue.
What is this supposed objective truth? Or link to something I could read? I think the time has come to resolve this issue.