If animal suffering bothers you, do something about it that doesn’t involve the invasion of the property rights of others, or the involvement of government coercion.

I’m baffled why so many are struggling for an answer here.

Both cases involve private property. If the behavior becomes known to the community, the perpetrator will be shunned, subject to opprobrium. They will be watched for signs of doing similar things that might cause harm.

Government cannot fill the void created by a lack of real community – in the sense of neighbors who are knowledgeable about the behavior of other neghbors. Laws won’t prevent cannibals from advertising on ebay. If you want to improve behavior, develop true community.

If so, great job. I’ve read enough garble on the thread to make me stop visiting this site.

If not, great job. I’ve read enough garble on this thread to make me stop visiting this site.

Great. Now I feel like shooting a puppy and wiping my ass with a Van Gogh.

Thanks Balko.

I think in with #1 that some very basic standards for behavior to animals is best. There are some pro vegan ads up around DC that have a picture of a dog on a dinner plate and asks Why Not? (eat a dog) Why not indeed, I have no problem with that, but abusing an animal is harmful to society as a whole.

“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five…. ”

Groucho Marx

Do we need laws to prevent either example from occurring? Hell no. We have too many laws already. Including the laws that would penalize me for kicking the beejesus out of Cruella and/or Willy.

Then again, we have juries to decide matters like that.

Let’s say Cruella delights in torturing cute little puppies for the perverse enjoyment she recives. Is that cause for a law? Not to me. Let’s then say that I find out about Cruella and apply a liberal coating of whoop-ass to her person. Is there a law against that? Yes there is. Is that law just? Yes and no. When is it not just? When a jury of my peers decides that the law (in my case) needs to be set aside. Remember, juries have the right (the DUTY, IMHO) to judge not only the case before them but the validity of the law being applied in that case.

If I delighted in torturing women named Cruella I should be locked away in a cell where I would be some burly inmate’s bitch. If I smack the piss out of someone who delights in torturing animals I should be given a medal. I would happily stand in front of 12 individuals and say the same thing.

Apply everything I just said to Mr. Fences.

Shortly after the Vietnam War one of the effects of Vietnamese emmigration to Westminister California was the sudden “disappearance” of stray cats. The city council eventually passed legislation to deal with this problem. Was it a perfectly just law? Of course not, my guess is that in Vietnam a city council would be more likely to protect the chickens and let the cats fend for themselves.
Even though such laws will reflect a cultural bias they still codify an important moral point. Specifically that no one has “pure ownership” of life other than their own. It seems to me that this is a cornerstone of “individual liberty” and why slavery and abortion is wrong.

I have spoken.

Neither.”

Well said, Doug.

No it doesn’t. It belongs to whoever created it or whoever the creator sold or gave it to. Enuffa this “it belongs to us aaallll” stuff. It most certainly does *not*.

Neither.

The concept of banning feeding mice to any creature(entertainment or not) is as ridiculous as banning breathing. Any person who considers them a libertarian, and actually considers this as a question, is either an idiot, a poser, or a closet-hiding democrat.

And what the hell is with the art thing? Who thinks this stuff up?

Radley poses a question or rather two which challenge libertarian thinkings. Both the post and the comments below are most interesting and thought-provoking. Nothing like a bit of excercise for the ole’ grey cells to wake one up in the…