TheAgitator.com
142 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- Advertise
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- Traffic Stats
- RSS Feed
Buy One- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
No jail time, he disposed of his personal property.
RE: Fireman
I can’t pass the liberterian purity test myself but this a-hole needs to experience a nice violent jailhouse raping. I know that’s wrong but still…..
“I can’t pass the liberterian purity test myself but this a-hole needs to experience a nice violent jailhouse raping. I know that’s wrong but still…..”
Yup. Because more violence is always the correct response to violence.
I am libertarian, but I think that animals are more than personal property, just as my wife and kids are more than personal property. I think that there is a legitimate state interest in preventing animal cruelty, child molestation, and wife beating: in each case, limiting the ability of one who is in control from infringing upon the rights of the other.
From a purely property perspective, his ex-wife and kids may have a property interest in the dogs: his acts deprived them of legitimate use of their interest in the property.
#3
Never said “always”, just seems very appropriate here tho
SJE,
Umm, why would you conflate dogs with other human beings. I’m not a libertarian, so obviously I think the guy should do jailtime, but why would you assume a comparison between dogs and your wife/kids. That’s just weird.
I do not feel that dogs are purely personal property. So seeing as this was especially … egregious, yes jail time.
Lets be clear what this guy has done. First he hanged em, laid out plastic, and then shot them 11 times because he wanted to go on vacation. He’s a psychopath and society would be better off if he were dead, I just prefer it be as violent as what he put those 2 harmless animals through.
“Society would be better off if he were dead, I just prefer it be as violent as what he put those 2 harmless animals through.”
So you’re just as much a sociopath as this individual. Would “society” be better off if you were dead?
It never ceases to amuse me how people get driven to irrational anger by animal abuse while tolerating all manner of violence against humans.
I”ve know people who had a dog or cat put downsiple because they didn’t want to care for it any more.My vet has done it many times.It’s entirely legal here.I live in the country and putting a animal down with a gun is not unusual.Many here butcher their own beef or hogs and use a .22.No jail time.
This is not a libertarian purity test, for exactly the same reason that abortion is not a libertarian purity test. Libertarian theory demands that we not forcibly violate the rights of other rights-holders, but it does not address the issue of what beings do or do not hold rights.
If you believe dogs have no rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to let Santuomo walk. If you believe dogs do have rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to punish him for violating those rights. But libertarian theory, as such, is silent on the question of whether or not dogs have rights.
Ding, Ding, Ding
You beat me to it, sir.
I don’t think the fireman should go to jail.
I would prefer that he should be hanged laid out plastic, and then shot them 11 times.
But I prefer cats.
(Yes, I am being snarky. But just because I feel that way doesn’t mean I would do it.)
He should have just called the police. I’m sure they would have been happy to shoot his dogs for him. Then we don’t even need to waste time with a trial; the P.D. can just release a statement that the officer acted with courage and professionalism and that’s the end of it.
The asshole fireman is a tough one. Where do you draw the line on animal rights? Does a pet dog have more rights than a beef cow? Would we boil lobsters alive if they were cute and fuzzy? As a meat eater, I don’t have a good answer. Either way, the guy deserves to run a nut kick gauntlet.
I just assumed the fireman was training to be a cop.
But seriously, another + for Gabriel.
…
BTW, that movie review was awesome. Excellent writing, almost Dave Barry-esque. “[...] every single performance is so ridiculous that it looks down on ‘over the top’ as if from a great height.” :D
What’s the reason given when the humane society euthanizes dogs? Isn’t it essentially to save on boarding?
It should cost money to prescribe horrible violence as punishment on the Internet.
@ S.M Olivia # 3 & 8
While non-violent solutions are generally preferable, there are times when violence and force are necessary. In general these situations may be summarized as situations in which failure to act with force will have worse consequences.
In the case of animal abusers, I would predict a very large overlap between those who are cruel to animals and those who hurt or kill other human beings.
Be careful with that “sociopath” label. If you do not have sufficient empathy to be willing to condemn cruelty to animals, you might qualify for it yourself.
Jail? Yeah. But it’s clear that the guy is a sociopath. Not only did he dispose of the dogs in a fairly brutal manner, he then proceeded to *brag* about it. Based on his actions at the trial, he couldn’t figure out that most people might, just might, have a problem with this. In other words, he can’t fathom that he might have done something wrong.
Classic sociopathic behavior. Get this man off the streets and into treatment before he starts, ahem, moving up in the world.
MDGuy –
You hinted at what I was going to say; If you think this guy should walk, then you have NO place to argue against police shootings of pets, except for a small monetary compensation for the lost ‘property’ depending on its value.
If you (like me) think arbitrary police shootings of pets is abhorrent, then this guy should go to jail. Personally, I think 90 days is adequate, but not in this ‘2-weeks-at-a-time’ bull$hit.
Should this asshole go go jail?
Yes. He broke a lawfully enacted law that while not extending “rights” to animals, reflects a general consensus of that community that companion animals are afforded reasonable protection from arbitrary cruelty.
Did I pass?
No jail time, he disposed of his personal property.
I never ceased to be amazed at how adherence to dogma (even one with which I am 98% sympathetic) causes some people to divest themselves of simple, common decency.
That was indeed a scary link. It makes Madoff’s scam look like a pick-pocket offense in comparison.
Do animals have rights? It’s hard to say. Most people won’t get upset if he shoots a deer, but dogs and cats seem to get a very different response. Especially if a cop is involved. Which just goes to show, if an individual wants to destroy a pet on their own…NOT ok to the government. When a government agent wants to destroy an animal, then it’s necessary.
Keep in mind that pets are property. We buy them, pay the vet to maintain them. We don’t buy kids or wives.
The more I think about this, the complex it gets.
Where to I mail my decoder ring? This guy deserves two in the head.
I realize there are more important things to discuss from this morning’s links, but the article on the old Hollywood Squares was wrong. If you read the small print in the old show they say the questions were shared with the celebrities before hand and writers worked with them to come up with those funny quips.
That doesn’t make them less funny, mind you, just that this is not an example of how much better games shows used to be compared to today’s offerings.
Match Game was more spontaneous, but then less funny, but I guess that’s my point.
Groucho on “You Bet Your Life” is a totally different story. Spontaneous and hilarious, but how many Groucho Marx’s can the world expect in one millennium?
He’s an asshole, but it shouldn’t be a crime.
Animals are property.
“It should cost money to prescribe horrible violence as punishment on the Internet.”
Anyone who suggests fines for what you say on the internet should be beaten.
The fireman story sounds made up to me. Or at least seriously embellished.
He must “…pay $4,500 to cover the cost of his investigation.”
“He must not have pets or weapons in his house for five years and must undergo random home inspections.”
I don’t buy it.
Absolutely: no jail time for the asshole.
Freedom doesn’t mean that everyone has to like you.
@ Mo # 26
Thanks, Mo.
I needed that laugh.
#21 B: He broke a lawfully enacted law that while not extending “rights” to animals, reflects a general consensus of that community that companion animals are afforded reasonable protection from arbitrary cruelty.
Unfortunately, this stance fails the libertarian purity test. Under libertarianism, “general community consensus” creates no ethical burden. If the action you wish to perform does not violate any rights, then the community has no right to infringe on your liberty to perform it.
Put another way: Do you think it is libertarian to jail the owner of a bar for allowing smoking in his establishment if there is a lawfully enacted law that reflects a general consensus of that community that cigarettes are icky?
I’d have to agree here.
I’ll add that dogs are killed very regularly by various groups and individuals. I don’t understand why the fact that this particular instance of killing a dog was more gruesome than the normal dog-killing procedures makes it okay to lock the guy in a cage. Both ways, a dog ends up dead. And I didn’t think people here liked the idea of locking people up on the premise that they *might* commit crimes in the future (all the references to locking up the “sociopath”). He may or may not be a sociopath, but are we okay with throwing people in cages for that reason alone?
Except that things can be worth different amounts to different people. A photo album might be worth more to it’s owner than, say, their car (imagine they had to choose between the two), but to everybody else, it’s worth next to nothing. If that photo album is destroyed or stolen, I think reasonable compensation to it’s owner would be a hell of a lot higher than the raw materials.
If a dog is like a family member to a particular family, and somebody goes and kills it for fun, that’s a lot of damages that I think need paying. If a dog is merely a guard dog, and somebody kills it for fun, it seems to me that the restitution ought to be a lot less.
You can’t simply say “oh you can buy a new [dog|photo album] for $X, here you go. Sentimental value is real, and ought to factor into restitution. Of course, that sentimental value would need to be reasonable and proven, but that’s another issue.
Sean,
You can’t compare a dog owner killing his own dog on his own property with police killing a dog that belongs to someone else on someone else’s property. The man is clearly an ass but he should not go to jail.
Yes
I don’t think society should simply turn a blind eye to wanton cruelty. In this case he didn’t kill the dogs because they had attacked a person, or because they had rabies.
He killed them out of malice. He claimed he didn’t want to shelter the dogs, but neighbors had offered to take them in for free. He could have simply given them to Animal Control in a worst case scenario. But instead he choose to string them up and shoot them several times, lie to his family about what happened to them, and then went around bragging about what he did.
If people in the town responded to this kind of behavior with ‘oh well, dogs are just property’ it would be high on my list of places never to live.
I do not believe that a dogs life is equal in value to that of a persons, but it has some value beyond mere property. If you can’t give them a good life at the very least they deserve a humane death. I do not think this asshole deserves to own a weapon or pets, hes already demonstrated that he lacks the competency or decency to be trusted with either.
Im not sure about the jail time, or the fines, it seems that the other punishments combined with his actions being exposed to the community at large, are punishment enough.
@ Mattocracy #23
Yes,it is a complex issue, but you might be overthinking it.
Dogs are special – clearly beyond personal property. As proof, I offer the following quote from the linked movie review.
“The more pathetic Sam gets, the more Fox’s lips pout and her nipples point, like little Irish setters.”
So, dogs are like Meagan’s nipples. Asshole fireman would go to jail for assaulting them, right?
I have a feeling this guy learned a lesson, but not the right one. Next time he tortures an animal, he’ll just keep his mouth shut. I don’t think he’s going to suddenly feel remorse.
Moreover, the Libertarian in me says that people are going to shoot dogs no matter what, and smoke dope, and drive without a seat belt, consume fatty foods, etc. Yet, this is cruel shit. Really, awful, cruel shit that happaned to an animal capable of experiencing paralyzing fear just like a human being.
We are walking a tight rope between nanny state anger and tolerating a double standard for cruel behavior. Fuck. FUCK! There is no good answer!
Because research has shown that people who treat animals that way typically also treat humans badly. Most of your noted psychopathic killers tortured and killed animals when they were younger.
Get the guy’s wife alone and ask how she’s treated by him. I doubt I’d be surprised at the answer….
Nice Tim. I gave you a thumbs up.
#9
Not to gang up on you but are you suggesting that violence is never an appropriate response? I would never equate the life of a dog to that of a human, for one thing I happen to like dogs too much to make the comparison. I know I’m twisted but that’s the way it is, I’d rather see a little kid get run over in the street than a dog. BTW, saying that in public is the quickest way I’ve found to end a date. First they give you this look of horror, then look at their watch “boy, it sure is getting late”.
#31–Do you think it is libertarian to jail the owner of a bar for allowing smoking in his establishment if there is a lawfully enacted law that reflects a general consensus of that community that cigarettes are icky?
No, I don’t think that is libertarian. But I also don’t think it’s wrong, the same way tying up a companion animal and shooting it repeatedly for kicks is wrong.
For the record, I could give a fuck about passing a libertarian purity test. Bright lines and ideological purity are poor substitutes for moral intuition.
#40:
“For the record, I could give a fuck about passing a libertarian purity test. Bright lines and ideological purity are poor substitutes for moral intuition.”
QFT.
BTW, that is the most awesome movie review I’ve ever read. It ALMOST makes me want to go see Trans2. I’d like to keep my hearing, though, so I guess not.
#6: Sam. I am not saying that the rights of a dog=wife=kids.
Each of dog, wife and kids was once considered personal property of the owner, and that the husband/father owns and can do more or less as he pleased. Society and the law now recognize that each of these have rights that are protected under law. Society and the law do not recognize similar rights in a table or other inanimate object.
Dogs, spouses, kids etc have rights that vary, as do my responsibilities towards them. I cannot lock my wife in a room if she doesnt follow my instructions, but I can force my toddler into time out.
how did this firefighter become a test of libertarian views?
he may get jail time because he broke the law. he broke the law, not as an act of civil disobedience, but because he wanted to. so far that could be interesting, but only if there is discussion that the laws he broke unnecessarily compromised his personal freedom.
i did not know that animal cruelty laws were infringing on people’s rights. perhaps they are, in terms of property rights, i don’t think so, but perhaps they are. but what if his only crime was the manner in which he disposed of his property, literally, in the dumpster, would we have this debate? can he dump the carcasses in the public waster receptacles? Is that an ok disposition of his property?
I suppose I’ll just have to fail the purity test. This guy deserves jail time.
I couldn’t do that to my pets if you held a gun to my head.
Props to the reviewer for the obscure Un Chien Andalou reference!
Suppose dog breeders could be persuaded to require their customers to sign a contract ensuring the animal will be treated humanely and won’t be arbitrarily harmed as long as it has a viable life. Local humane societies could award “Humane breeder” or “Humane Pet Store” status on those who meet their guidelines. If subsequent evidence emerges that there was abuse, a penalty could be levied for breach of contract.
No one would be forced to purchase animals from such vendors, but if public outrage about animal cruelty is enough, market pressure could drive non-comply-ers to the margins. I mean, suppose there were no animal cruelty laws — would you buy a dog from a place that would sell animals to sadists?
no jail time!
I love dogs (and cats!) and would never harm one, or witness cruelty without intervening, but, once you decide that animals have “rights” all bets are off, we will all have to become vegans, and be subject to animal welfare inspections.
@Sam:
A hypothetical example. You are visiting my house. During your visit, someone breaks in and shoots either you or my dogs, and then drops the weapon and surrenders. In the first case, I would accept his surrender. In the second, I would ventilate his ass, because I like and love my dogs.
No jail time for the fireman, but being ostracized by society for his actions would be acceptable.
Give him a reality show.
being a fireman, I was proud of the other firemen who were disgusted enough to call this clown on the carpet for his questionable behavior.
I’d hate for us to be seen in the same light as cops are…
#22, couldn’t have said it better myself
“I never ceased to be amazed at how adherence to dogma (even one with which I am 98% sympathetic) causes some people to divest themselves of simple, common decency.”
Pets are property; we buy them, sell them, and control their lives and fate. If they’re not property, then they must be slaves (and damn poor ones at that, because my five dogs and two cats are notoriously unproductive!)
As for the movie review, I felt the same way about the first Transformers movie.
For the record, I could give a fuck about passing a libertarian purity test. Bright lines and ideological purity are poor substitutes for moral intuition.
If the bright lines are a poor substitute for moral intuition, it’s because you’ve done a poor job of drawing those bright lines. The point is not to use bright lines in place of moral intuition, it’s to take moral intuition and put it into words so that we can communicate about where the bright lines are which our moral intuition draws.
All of us have boundaries about what seems ok and what doesn’t. The goal is to accurately describe where those lines fall. If the verbalized bright lines don’t match your actual intuitive feelings on morality, then you just haven’t adequately translated your intuitive feelings into words.
tying up a companion animal and shooting it repeatedly for kicks is wrong.
Great. Now we know how you feel about this particular issue. Now, can you elucidate a principle that will help us accurately predict how you will feel about other similar ethical questions? If you can, then we have a bright line which reflects your moral intuition.
It would be pretty hard to be sympathetic to the guy who shot the dogs. But, regardless of any fine, jail time, or community service he got, I strongly disagree with the judge ordering him to publicly apologize. It comes too close to being forced to publicly admit to being a heretic or be burned at the stake.
Just for the record I also strongly disagree with judges who get celebrities to make public service announcements against drugs as penance for breaking drug laws. The state should force people to say the state is right regardless of whether the state is “right” or not.
Boy this just not a game show crowd is it?
I think Peter Marshall’s son died of a drug overdose. Does that help?
I also read once in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe called out his S.W.A.T. team to bust a peaceful group of senior citizens who were placing bets on who would get the Center Square, X or O. No one was arrested, but the cops accidentally shot Madame in the back who was there with Wayland signing autographs.
Anyone wanna talk Hollywood Squares, now?
#21 says “You hinted at what I was going to say; If you think this guy should walk, then you have NO place to argue against police shootings of pets, except for a small monetary compensation for the lost ‘property’ depending on its value.”
The difference here is who places the value on the dog? In the case of the police shooting your dog it is the police that decide the value of your property. In this particular case it was the owner of the property who decided the value. So I wouldn’t consider them related. If we let the owner of the property decide the value of the dog when it is shot, and actually compensated them, then there would be far fewer police shooting dogs.
For the record I certainly do think he is an asshole but it is tough to decide on jail time. How much crueler was it than killing a cow/pig/chicken for meat?
And I’ll never cease to be amazed at how people insist on attributing disagreements to the other side simply being willfully evil/indecent/immoral/bad people
I see no transgression against against Libertarian ideals with laws that punish animal cruelty.
Being a Libertarian doesn’t mean having to live with un-civilized behavior.
Animal shelters (pounds) routinely kill dogs because they lack the money to keep them indefinitely. Why are they legally permitted to do so if this guy is facing jail time?
As usual, legality and morality are two separate things. The charge of using a silencer only makes this distinction more obvious–just because bad guys (more so in movies) use silencers to avoid detection doesn’t mean that anyone who has a silencer is doing anything wrong.
I think what he did was callous, and if I knew him I’d want nothing more to do with him. And, I would wonder if he had a greater potential to hurt innocent people. If it were clear that he posed an unreasonable danger to other people, that would be justification to decide whether he could be trusted with a weapon (not the silencer crap). Who would decide is another matter, as it’s clear that LEOs are incompetent to do so honestly and sensibly.
I see the extreme animal rights positions as ridiculous. Those people haven’t made the transition from the child playing imaginary games with talking animals to the state of adulthood. Humans evolved as omnivores, so a vegetarian diet is quite unhealthy.
Still, I’m uncomfortable with designating intelligent animals as simply property with no rights, end of story, full stop. My feelings for my pets clearly bias my thinking on this, but I’ve not seen a full explication of the argument that all animals should be property. For example, I don’t see how torturing animals could be morally neutral. For one thing, the animal wouldn’t do that to you.
Does anyone have a good, thorough argument for zero rights for all non-human animals, which would take such things into account?
Correction to the last line in #56:
The state should NOTforce people to say the state is right regardless of whether the state is “right” or not.
The goal is to accurately describe where those lines fall. If the verbalized bright lines don’t match your actual intuitive feelings on morality, then you just haven’t adequately translated your intuitive feelings into words…
Now, can you elucidate a principle that will help us accurately predict how you will feel about other similar ethical questions? If you can, then we have a bright line which reflects your moral intuition.
Fair points, all around. I think I have resorted to “intuition” here precisely because I find it difficult to translate that intuition into a coherent principle, at least verbally. Something to ponder. So thank you for that (really).
My criticism of “bright lines” was really aimed more at people that seem to have decided where their “libertarian” bright lines are, and then mold their moral reasoning to fall within those lines. Which strikes me as getting it exactly backwards. “Libertarian” reasoning is a path to the good. It isn’t the good itself.
Good discussion. Thanks again.
#9 S.M. Oliva “It never ceases to amuse me how people get driven to irrational anger by animal abuse while tolerating all manner of violence against humans.”
Nor me.
I’m glad that people sit up and take notice of dog murders by LEOs. I just wish more people would similarly object to LEO abuse or murder of human beings who have done no harm, instead of rationalizing that the victim “shouldn’t have broken the law” and “got what he deserved” because he had drugs or a scary looking gun.
@ Zargon–you have nothing but my word to go by here, but I assure you I wouldn’t bother arguing with anyone I honestly thought was “willfully evil/indecent/immoral/bad”. People can have substantially overlapping values and still reach different conclusions about certain things. I’m appealing to what I think is the common moral ground among most (if not all) people here, not condemning them for the (relatively small) differences.
Okay, the guy’s an asshole, we all agree. But pigs are as intelligent as the smartest dogs (though, unfortunately for them, so much more delicious). If he had killed his pigs, would there be this debate?
From the story about the fireman shooting the dogs:
“This was an isolated event not to be repeated and totally out of character for him,” Shamansky said after the hearing.
Yeah, I bet this guy has been truckin’ along for 43 years just as normal as everyone else and then BAM!, like a bolt of lightning, this happens. He probably watched himself from an out of body experience, terrorized by his own actions. A
nd then, of course, he went and bragged to his buddies.
“He is extremely remorseful.”
Well, yeah. He’s probably “extremely” sorry he got into trouble. He’s probably extremely sorry he trusted his friends enough to tell them the story. Hell, if that’s the way those guys are gonna repay him, then he’ll fix their asses. He just won’t share any of his really cool adventures with them anymore. That’ll teach ‘em.
“This was an isolated event not to be repeated and totally out of character for him,” Shamansky said after the hearing. “He is extremely remorseful.”
In the courtroom, Santuomo raised a middle finger to the reporters assembled to cover his case.”
Niiiiice. As others have said, he’s scum and should not be allowed to posess firearms or pets. BUT I don’t see any purpose in him going to jail.
I wonder how many on here have killed a animal?Including ducks,geese,crow,grouse,quail,deer and upland game I’ve killed hundreds,maybe thousands.Many could not pull the trigger and that’s fine,but,killing a animal to suit your needs is a way of life for some.I’ve watched with joy while my labs chased a wounded bird across a marsh or field and brought back the game with hardly a feather ruffled for me to kill.I had one lab,Buck,who enjoyed fighting a wounded goose.I think there’s a big gap between rural and city people on killing animals
I have to say I’m perplexed by people who compare what the firefighter did to hunting or slaughtering for food. Clearly you realize that certain actions can be justified by their intent, right? If I punch you for no reason I can be convicted of battery, but if I punch you because you are about to shoot my wife it’s justified. Hunting and slaughter likewise have justifications: food, thinning of herds, etc. While you can certainly conclude that such justifications are insufficient to permit or prohibit certain behaviors, you have to at least acknowledge that a fireman taking the lives of two dogs for sheer kicks is quite distinct from killing animals to obtain food, make clothing, euthanize a suffering animal, etc.
My criticism of “bright lines” was really aimed more at people that seem to have decided where their “libertarian” bright lines are, and then mold their moral reasoning to fall within those lines. Which strikes me as getting it exactly backwards. “Libertarian” reasoning is a path to the good. It isn’t the good itself.
I absolutely agree with you on this one. When the label doesn’t fit the content, you change the label, you don’t change the content. If arguing from libertarian principles leads logically to the defense of positions which feel immoral, then the stated principles you’re arguing from must not accurately describe your intuitive moral sense.
On the other hand, I’ve also found that examining my moral intuition in light of a few simple and consistent rules, and examining where dissonance arises, can lead to the useful conclusion that moral intuition is not entirely consistent, and that things I’ve believed without examination might not be true after all. Sometimes the formalized rule statements need to change, but sometimes the moral compass needs to change too.
In this particular case, my moral intuition says that it is wrong to kill a dog simply for being inconvenient, unless other options for care or transfer of the dog have been investigated and dismissed as unfeasible. I haven’t fully drawn out a principle which justifies this stance: I don’t feel like dogs are entitled to the same rights of life and liberty as people, but I do feel that an owned pet has *some* rights which I don’t yet have language for. “Dignity” might be close but too vague for useful discussion.
If you believe that human rights are natural, occurring in nature rather than granted by some human authority, than animal rights can be drawn from nature as well. It’s a part of nature for one species to kill another if it directly benefits their survival as food or whatever. A human killing an animal for his own benefit (food, self defense, medical testing, etc.) is acceptable. I can even accept killing an animal to end it’s suffering (euthanizing animals that are sick or face starvation) as it’s motivated by our sympathy and enabled by our unique intelligence. But there’s no place in nature for causing unnecessary suffering in another species. This freedom from unnecessary suffering is a right within nature held by all species. Even our ownership of animals as property doesn’t override this right. That’s why a libertarian can fully support laws that prohibit cruelty to animals. What constitutes a benefit worthy of killing can be a subjective issue, but one criteria would be that there was no other reasonable way of achieving the benefit. There are clearly other options this guy could have taken, so the suffering he brought on these animals was unnecessary, and therefore cruel. The guy should go to jail.
#70–
I would assume you’ve also never strung your dogs up in the basement and shot them to death because you’re a sick fucking asshole too cheap to put them in a kennel for the weekend.
To me, your quote implies that people who don’t want that guy locked in a cage lack common decency. I suppose with a generous reading, we could soften that to people who don’t see a problem with what the guy did.
Well, I’m one of those people who considers animals to be property. Property that can have extremely variable value, from very high, as in the case of family pets, to very low – perhaps chickens on a farm. I’m of the opinion that if we grant some animals “rights”, how do we draw the line between animals that get rights, and animals that don’t? Are we going to give rights to animals based on fluffiness, or cuteness, or domesticated-ness? For the record, my basis for giving rights to animals that happen to be human and not others because humans have the cognitive processes required to demand rights. There are, of course, edge cases.
Now, I can’t say I’d go have a drink with the guy. I’d not want anything to do with him. But by my way of thinking, he ought not be locked in a cage for killing some animals that, at the end of the day, do not have the right to not be killed. That he deliberately killed those dogs in a much more gruesome way than other people kill dogs is rather disgusting, but being disgusting is also not an offense I’d like people to be locked in cages for.
Humans evolved as omnivores, so a vegetarian diet is quite unhealthy.
You realize there’s millions and millions of vegetarians in the world, right?
Killing for the sake of killing, which is the case with the fireman and the dogs, is sick behavior. Killing your animals for food is a normal behavior. There is no way one can make a case for the fireman killing his dogs for any reason OTHER than to kill them. “Because I didn’t want to pay for boarding” sounds like a 5 year old lying.
As a good Libertarian I know the dogs are property but Jesus the man is a monster.
I will gladly fail my purity test and lock the basterd(thanks Tarintino) up for at least 10 years.
“Humans evolved as omnivores, so a vegetarian diet is quite unhealthy.”
o.O Wow…. that’s a rather uninformed opinion…. speaking as an enthusiastic omnivore myself.
#74,no I haven’t .I have tracked a deer for three hours after shooting him with a arrow to find him dying in a pool of his blood.I’ve also field dressed wounded birds by removing their entrails through their anus with my fingers.In the woods many shots are not clean kills and the prey goes some time between being shot and dying.I’ve had my dogs chase a wounded bird for over 20 miniutes before bring it it bag.Hunting is much closer to the natural world then many want to be.
Frankly, hunting seems about as far removed from the natural world as possible. The natural world is killing things with your body alone because you have no choice if you want to eat and keep others from eating you; hunting is just recreation.
That said, I guess I at least respect your acknowledgment of the brutality involved.
Regarding the fireman who killed the dogs… Has he enrolled at the police academy yet? Hes definitely cop material.
Jail time for the firefighter. Not even a close decision.
daaaamn, 2 things really get agitator folks riled up..abortion debates and dog killings. So, does this mean that the folks who think this guy shouldn’t get locked up make them pro-choice on dog killings?
j/k
If he had paid a vet a few hundred to put them down, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
He is a dumbass, for sure. But that’s all.
Pets are property.
Here is a hint for any poor person who needs to put an animal down cheaply. Cage it. Then sink the cage in water.
Oh, and Matt D … hunters have always used the best weapons they could find. You don’t like hunting or eating meat … too damned bad. I will continue to do both.
Maybe I’ll fail the libertarian litness test, but I’m having a hard time deciding against making criminal this sort of killing of pets.
I don’t think it’s the kind of behavior that we, as a society, should have to accept, and I’m not sure there’s not a natural law argument to be made.
Regarding hunting, domestic animal euthanasia, killing of livestock: aren’t our laws riddled with determinations of intent? (mens rea) Surely a distinction can be drawn between types of animal killings, as it is with types of human killings (some of which are even justified i.e. self defense).
Maybe I’m stretching, but I can’t reconcile a lack of consequences here. I’ll admit, as the owner of 2 adopted dogs, it’s hard to offer a detached opinion.
Oh, and Matt D … hunters have always used the best weapons they could find. You don’t like hunting or eating meat … too damned bad. I will continue to do both.
Blah blah blah blah you enjoy the protections of social norms and you’re rubbing that in my face blah blah bliddy blah.
The dog killer should not do jail time. They were his property. Though animals do have a right to humane treatment.
That being said, however, I would likely look the other way if his neighbors decided to throw an old fashioned blanket party in his honor. If you think you have a good reason to violate someone’s rights, don’t do it by proxy: take the risk yourself and wallow in it. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Claude wins the thread.
I’m a cat person, but I somehow think that we need a way to devise a theoretical basis for setting a higher standard for the treatment of dogs than for any other species.
The relationship between humans and dogs goes beyond owner / property. It’s hard for me to articulate how, exactly, in a way that squares with libertarian theory, but it does. Several thousand years of species alliance should stand for something. Dogs aren’t cognitively equal to humans, but dogs appear to, as part of their fundamental nature, treat humans with good will and loyalty. To respond to that with abuse seems morally outrageous to me, regardless of the cognitive abilities of dogs.
Would a pig give its life to save a human being? Get back to me about the moral equivalence of dogs and pigs when the pigs start doing that.
Dogs deserve to be a special category because we owe them.
And yes, before anyone asks, I happily admit that I look down on cultures where the eating of dogs is common, the same way I would look down on a culture where the traditional way to repay hospitality was to take a dump on someone’s couch.
While you can certainly conclude that such justifications are insufficient to permit or prohibit certain behaviors, you have to at least acknowledge that a fireman taking the lives of two dogs for sheer kicks is quite distinct from killing animals to obtain food, make clothing, euthanize a suffering animal, etc.
People hunt “for sheer kicks” all the time.
If he’s fired from his job and not allowed to own animals again, what is the benefit of jailing him? Obviously it would make a lot of people feel good to see him imprisoned (hell, some folks here would feel good to see him murdered, it would seem), but what’s the benefit of spending thousands of dollars to lock him up?
Weapons are part of the natural world.They spring from the most deadly weapon of all.The human,the same thing that makes this debate possible.
Weapons are part of the natural world.They spring from the most deadly weapon of all.The human mind,the same thing that makes this debate possible.
Against my gut reaction I’ll say the fireman should not do jail time, even though if I saw him crossing the street, I’m not sure my foot would find the brake.
If animals have rights then it it must be lawful to use force to defend them. Libertarians, of all people, should know the importance of minimizing and carefully defining when force may properly be used, and when it comes to animals, it is hard to do that in a coherent way.
Many of the comments compare what he did with killing an animal for food or hunting. Fair enough, there is hypocrisy there. But I’ve known a whole lot of hunters in my time, from from deep woods rednecks to weekend warriors, and I’ve never once heard any of them brag about causing unneeded pain to an animal (much less needing to shoot something 11 times, unless it was a bear). You don’t have to love animals to realize this guy is probably dangerous to those around him. Jail time.
“daaaamn, 2 things really get agitator folks riled up..abortion debates and dog killings. So, does this mean that the folks who think this guy shouldn’t get locked up make them pro-choice on dog killings?”
Hmm. So what if the issue was abortion rights for dogs? He’d probably get 300 comments.
I class myself as a libertarian socialist, though I don’t precisely fit the profile. What I mean by that label is that virtually all human freedom of consequence exists and has meaning only in a social context; and to me libertarianism is a strategy for maximizing worthwhile freedom in a heterogeneous society where only a small fraction of people can agree entirely on anything.
The problem with moral judgements is that they provide no basis for a shared strategy. If I believe that abortion is an exercise of the sovereign right of a woman to control her own body, and you believe it is the murder of an innocent child of God, there is no objective test, no argument, no experiment that can resolve our disagreement. There can be no answer to this question (save in a theocratic society).
From this I conclude that within a libertarian strategy, moral considerations are not sufficient to justify coercion. We have every right to condemn this man, to ridicule him, even to hate him. We should need more, though, to take away his freedom.
The best criterion I’ve come up with to date — and I admit it is not as compelling as I would like — is that to be justified, coercive prohibition (e.g., criminal law) must be directed against activities which, if tolerated, would produce a dysfunctional society. Rape, murder or burglary cannot be accepted without undermining the essential social covenants by which we live together in peace. This is not true of abortion, nor of cruelty to animals one legally owns. We are free to abhor these things, but I don’t believe we can use violence (including the violence of law) to suppress them without opening the door to an arbitrary tyranny of whatever the majority believes is moral and good.
As I see it, it is a fundamental axiom of libertarian thought that the moral responsibility of each actor belongs to himself. It is not the place of others to fabricate an illusion of justice by imagining that two wrongs can make a right. If there is justice, it lies in the domain of something greater than humankind; it is not something that we can create. We can hope only to build as free a world as possible, and that means accepting that others will do things we believe to be wrong, and we will do things they see as immoral. We can speak all we want, but we must interfere with as light and infrequent a hand as possible, because others will be tempted just as we are to champion their ideas of right and wrong with force, unless we all agree to keep the peace and each be responsible for ourselves.
Not a big fan of animal cruelty or violence. It’s given me a $60 Michael Vick jersey that will never see the light outside my closet.
What I would like to see is anyone that thinks he should go to do jail elaborate on where we draw the line on animal rights. Be specific. I don’t think there exists a good distinction. Is it that household animals like dogs and cats have rights? What gives them priority over livestock? Is it the intent of killing, like what was mentioned earlier? Then why is hunting for sport okay? Is it the fact that he did it in such a cruel way? Again, we do boil lobsters alive. It all just seems a little hypocritical to me.
The same people that think someone should go to jail for doing something ambiguously wrong, go and laugh at Brickbats of someone getting fined for stapling something to a tree. There are people out there that honestly think trees have feelings and rights too – but arguably they are living and maybe they should have rights too. Defending animal rights isn’t that far away from that.
“You don’t have to love animals to realize this guy is probably dangerous to those around him. Jail time.”
Yes, let’s jail as many people as possible who did something that *probably* makes them dangerous to those around them!
#20 Salvo
Do you believe “sociopathic behavior” itself should be a crime requiring incarceration? Who would define this behavior? And if you include “bragging” among its indicators, would that be a punishment on speech?
#22 B
The reason Radley called this a libertarian purity test was because of the pure, emotional nature of the subject. Here you accuse another of lacking “simple, common decency” for not giving in to an immediate visceral call for revenge when asked for his beliefs about legal policy.
His personal views on the fireman and his dogs have no bearing on his notion of whether an animal has rights or not. And they have no place in the legal system. Those who enact laws based on their emotional reactions outlaw consensual activities that harm no one, start witch hunts for nonexistent threats, and pass laws named after children. It’s how you get ordinarily rational people to fully support torturing other human beings, if they think their family might be safer because of it.
By all means, if you wishe to argue that animals should be a protected class of individuals with well-defined rights, then you should do so. But to denegrate someone for not basing his legal opinion on his own personal moral judgements is a lower class of political debate I’d expect to find elsewhere.
#62 Steve Jean
If you believe legality and morality are separate, than it is up to you yourself to find an argument to bridge the gap on why something you consider immoral should be legal.
#75 Zargon
Very thoughtful defense of those of us without common decency.
Correction for #62 Steve Jean:
If you believe legality and morality are separate, than it is up to you yourself to find an argument to bridge the gap on why something you consider immoral should be illegal.
“Yes, let’s jail as many people as possible who did something that *probably* makes them dangerous to those around them!”
That’s exactly what we do all the time. But hey, it sounds better when you dress it p in hyperbole like that.
#98 Coises: Great post, well thought out, and an interesting perspective on the topic.
Here’s my issue. When you write:
Rape, murder or burglary cannot be accepted without undermining the essential social covenants by which we live together in peace. This is not true of abortion, nor of cruelty to animals one legally owns.
Who is the “we” who must live together in peace? The answer to that question, under your system, determines who gets rights. But in and of itself, this premise does not define who “we” is. Does “we” include women? It need not; a culture which granted rights to men and treated females as property could run perfectly well under your principle as stated. Does “we” include children? If it is decided that it does not, then perhaps a parent could perform a post-delivery abortion up to the age of majority, however majority is defined, still without breaching your rule. How about the mentally incompetent? Mentally incompetent children? Comatose with a 50/50 of waking up? Comatose with 1% of waking up? 0%? Dogs?
Your rule doesn’t actually answer many questions; it just pushes them back a layer. The fundamental issue still boils down to whether or not any given category of beings is going to be assigned rights.
Yes. And I ind most of them delicious barbequed.
;)
Well, I would fail the ‘libertarian test’ because I think animals should be treated humanely, with ‘companion animals’ given higher consideration.
So… I have a question for you die hard, true blue libertarians:
How can an ethical, humanitarian dog breeder compete with a Puppy Mill?
Wouldn’t Market Forces eventually drive out the ethical breeders?
And don’t answer “Well! The ethical ones would be licensed / bonded, etc.” Pure libertarian deal… no regulation, licensing, etc. both breeders can stand there and swear left and right that their dogs are the best in the world.
Arrgh!
“And I find most of them delicious barbequed.”
Like the story said, he could’ve dropped off the dogs at a shelter. Not only did he kill them, but he actually bragged about it, like it was an accomplishment!
Jail? No. But the guy clearly has mental issues to deal with.
Bob
The simple answer to your question is that people would choose to go to the ethical breeder for a better quality dog and/or because they care about animal welfare.
Will there still be unethical breeders? Yes.
But that is a function of the fact that many people are lousy pet owners who choose their dog based on a fad or other superficial feature. I tend to prefer unpapered mutts because they are less subject to the problems of inbreeding.
Areson,
“…people would choose to go to the ethical breeder…”
How would they know? Unless they had the luxury of knowing them personally. The Puppy Mill guy isn’t going to show you the cages out back, just the demo puppy in the showroom.
Also, blaming the customer for their ignorance doesn’t stop the market advantage of the unethical breeder.
#20 Salvo: “Get this man off the streets and into treatment before he starts, ahem, moving up in the world”
Agreed on getting Ted Bundy Jr. off the streets. However, if he is a true sociopath/psychopath, treatment is unlikely to be effective. In fact, according to experts on psychopathy like Dr. Robert Hare (author of “Without Conscience”), psychopaths will simply interfere with the treatment of others, and attempt to manipulate therapists and or corrections staff for their benefit. He probably will not change unless he believes changing will benefit HIM. He may also become less dangerous when he ages, like other criminals.
#76 | Matt D “You realize there’s millions and millions of vegetarians in the world, right?”
Yes. A well-balanced diet that includes meat but not junk food is far superior to the same diet without meat. You need protein, and getting it from vegetable sources is difficult and a poor substitute. You also need a healthy omega 3/omega 6 ratio, and the hyper-processed “vegetable” oil crap pushes that ratio in the wrong direction, as well as adding chemicals which are of negative nutritional value.
#79 | XI “Wow…. that’s a rather uninformed opinion…. speaking as an enthusiastic omnivore myself.”
Quite the opposite. I have studied the issue in great detail and don’t accept the Standard American Diet (SAD) myths. Scientists routinely ignore the results which don’t conform to SAD.
Learn about metabolism. If animal fat you ingested was converted directly into fat deposits in your body, wouldn’t you expect cows to be made of grass? Sugar is the real culprit, particularly HFCS.
You need muscle mass to be healthy and fit, and vegetables, fruit and grains are a poor source to build muscles.
#98 | Coises “I class myself as a libertarian socialist,”
Let me guess, you’re also a pregnant virgin, a giant dwarf, and an honest liar.
*rolling eyes*
What we have here is the stolen concept fallacy. Socialism is anti-liberty, by definition.
It really doesnt make one not libertarian to believe that animals being living creatures are entitled to more rights and consideration under the law than say… a bookcase or a chair.
#101 | Spleen “If you believe legality and morality are separate, than it is up to you yourself to find an argument to bridge the gap on why something you consider immoral should be legal.”
That’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said about legality and morality. My comment was a criticism of a legal system which punishes innocent people, not an expression of intent to further entrench the ethically problematic separation of objective morality from mob-rule legality.
Looks like not all communities or states treat pets as property…
“The semantics of regarding people as pet guardians vs pet owners is closely aligned to these issues. Several communities have tried to change the general mindset regarding pets by passing “pet companionship laws.” San Francisco, CA, passed a law officially recognized “pet guardians” as opposed to “pet owners.” Similar laws are on the books in San Diego, CA, Berkeley, CA, and in the state of Rhode Island. In 1993, legislation was introduced in the State of Colorado which would recognize pets as companions, rather than property. The law would have allowed lawsuits against veterinarians and other entities with damages up to $100,000 for loss of companionship.”
http://cats.about.com/od/advocacy/a/petsasproperty.htm
#102 | Spleen “Correction for #62 Steve Jean:
If you believe legality and morality are separate, than it is up to you yourself to find an argument to bridge the gap on why something you consider immoral should be illegal.”
OK, that makes more sense. Except I’m not a legislator or dictator, so I have no responsibility to do a damned thing about laws.
My remark was a commentary on those who do presume to establish a moral framework through laws, since obviously they make such a horrible mess of it all.
//From a purely property perspective, his ex-wife and kids may have a property interest in the dogs: his acts deprived them of legitimate use of their interest in the property.//
I’m surprised this point wasn’t raised more. Even from a pure libertarian standpoint, depriving another person of their property interest would be wrong.
“So… I have a question for you die hard, true blue libertarians:
How can an ethical, humanitarian dog breeder compete with a Puppy Mill?
Wouldn’t Market Forces eventually drive out the ethical breeders?”
Where would you buy your dog from Bob?
Do you not think that others would want to seek out a breeder with an established reputation for well bred and cared for animals?
There are puppy mills now, and there are top notch breeders now.
How do the top notch breeders survive now?
There is your answer!
I do not think he should GO GO jail, because that either makes no sense or involves go-go, which might be fun.
Dave,
I’m not trying to be difficult… But to be honest? I can’t tell one dog from another, so I would be unable to tell bullshit from truth. And I’m not alone! People can be pretty dumb, or easily fall prey to a smooth sales pitch.
Note also, for the purposes of this discussion… I’m assuming no regulation, no protection of law. Pure libertarian utopia. Even the most unscrupulous con man would be able to set up a Puppy Mill and lie through his teeth about how good the dogs are, complete with fake references and whatnot.
So… beginner dog breeders need not apply? How do they compete? How would I know? His references could be fake. He could be lying. Will I have to hire a doggie lawyer and a doggie investigator to buy a dog?
Puppy Mills are selling inferior dogs (And I hate to use that term, sorry dog lovers) right now to unwitting buyers. The only thing slowing them down? Laws! Laws that are being passed right now to curb this practice. With this slim protection, ethical breeders can make promises that stand up in court… Puppy Mills cannot.
This extends to virtually everything. How do you know that contractor is legit? Oh! He’s licensed and bonded! It’s ludicrous to say “Only use a contractor known to you”… How many contractors have you hired? Your friends?
While I will certainly agree that laws and regulations can, do, and in many cases are, over the top and unnecessary, that’s what it is, that’s what the population needs. Let’s face it, as a race, we ain’t too smart on average.
I’m surprised Radley hasn’t chimed in here and given us his opinion.
ps, one would think the spell checker in your own comments section would recognize your name =)
[...] The Agitator » Blog Archive » Morning Links [...]
The humane society routinely kills animals for the same reasons, money. Still, they were his property (NOT YOURS and NOT THE STATES), to do with what he wishes. There is a particularly brand of animal rights folks you are siding with otherwise, (and they aren’t gonna stop at dogs and cats, nor even hamsters and fish). Where do you draw the line? Either it is arbitrary or it isn’t? If he had ate the dogs would it have been ok with you then? It can be said with the utmost assurance that the fish you had for dinner were killed in a far less humane manner.
“This is not a libertarian purity test, for exactly the same reason that abortion is not a libertarian purity test. Libertarian theory demands that we not forcibly violate the rights of other rights-holders, but it does not address the issue of what beings do or do not hold rights.
If you believe dogs have no rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to let Santuomo walk. If you believe dogs do have rights, then it is consistent with libertarian theory to punish him for violating those rights. But libertarian theory, as such, is silent on the question of whether or not dogs have rights.”
#11 Gabriel,
I just have a question of clarification: does libertarianism posit that all human beings are rights-holders? And abortion is not a libertarian purity test because libertarianism is silent about whether unborn fetuses are human beings?
Thanks,
Marta
I think what he done was OK.
“Should this asshole go to jail?”
Well, two choices: Either yes because animals are not property and no we can’t all just do whatever the hell we want: or no because animals are property and we can all do whatever the hell we want. Of course if it’s B, the next time the Mrs goes on vacation she should just tie him up in the basement and shoot him because he is no better than an animal.
“Should this asshole go go jail”
no, and people should be permitted to fire him, discriminate against him and generally ostracize him.
#98 | Coises — “The best criterion I’ve come up with to date — and I admit it is not as compelling as I would like — is that to be justified, coercive prohibition (e.g., criminal law) must be directed against activities which, if tolerated, would produce a dysfunctional society.”
This is Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
From the article: “In Kant’s view, a moral act is one that would be right for any person in similar circumstances to those in which the agent finds themselves when they execute it.”
My mother is a Kantian. When I was growing up, she would always scold me, “What if everyone did that?”
At inflated prices.
I am a firefighter, and an animal lover, and have been a card carrying, voting member of the Libertarian party since 1999, and I would gladly put him down in a similar manner, given the opportunity.
Jail ??? Abso-fucking-lutely.
A good prison shanking ??? Even better.
Call me what you will.
Yup, using #4 SJE’s justification, I would like to kick his ass all over the county. Violence isn’t the answer to every question, but it is definitely the answer to some questions.
I don’t like the idea that all animals are property and you are within your rights to abuse them as you see fit. In this case if there is not a law against such action then there should be one created. I don’t want people going to the shelters to get dogs and kittens then take them home to torture and kill them. Hunting is a act that should be done humanely. When you hunt you kill with as little physical pain as possible. Even if you hunt for trophy, not food. There are reasons to kill. You shoot suffering horses and Old Yeller. This isn’t one of them. He’s mentally ill and needs psychiatric care.
I just have a question of clarification: does libertarianism posit that all human beings are rights-holders? And abortion is not a libertarian purity test because libertarianism is silent about whether unborn fetuses are human beings?
In answer to Marta, in case Gabriel is no longer reading, I would say yes, that’s right (although there is no official libertarian dogma to consult). Libertarianism works well in providing straightforward answers that mostly comport with our moral intuitions, but it assumes a world of autonomous adults. When that assumption breaks down, I think you’ll see libertarians diverging in their answers as they are forced to fall back on some other underlying philosophy (e.g. someone above mentioned the categorical imperative).
Gee, the categorical imperative sure sounds familiar. Why, yes, I think that’s just the Golden Rule given a fancy, new-agey name.
The bad thing about regulation based on morality is that people forget that regulation has limits. What if Canada doesn’t have our moral regulation? Are the puppies there less deserving of protection? Do you care if they suffer and die? Do we have to impose our morality on Canada, or are you happy to let them torture all the puppies to death that they want?
Tokin42: “First he hanged em”
Did you read a different article than the one now linked? It just says he tied them up, which is something people do to dogs every day.
Then he laid out plastic and shot them. That’s also not an unusual method of humanely disposing of dogs that are suffering from illness or injuries, or simply unwanted. A shot through the head is far less cruel than dropping the dog off to be caged by strangers, then gassed.
Now, shooting them 11 times and bragging about it, that’s starting to sound like a psychopath. But psychologists who have had many opportunities to interview and observe a subject have often turned psychopathic killers loose again, so I have no faith in our ability to identify a psychopath in advance. If this guy is a psychopath, all a short jail sentence, loss of a job, and community service does is warn him to camoflauge himself better – and give him some targets.
About animal cruelty laws and libertarianism, there can be more classes than just people and property. Animals cannot think like humans do, but they clearly do feel pain and fear. They deserve some protection, although not as much as humans. E.g., you may tie a dog in the backyard with food and water accessible, and you may humanely kill it when it becomes inconvenient, but torturing it should be illegal.
So the real question in this case is whether the fireman’s method of killing the dogs was unnecessarily cruel, and the article does not make the facts clear. Maybe he shot each dog once in the head, then mutilated the corpses. Since they were then inaminate property, there should be no crime. Maybe he deliberately tortured them with multiple wounds that weren’t immediately fatal – crime. Maybe he was just a terrible shot – then bragging about it isn’t a crime but shows a lack of character.
matth: thanks.
best,
marta
markm, the article says he suspended his dogs from a pipe — do you think that is a conventional way to tie up a dog?
[...] … though not of the best movie–by far. (HT: The Agitator) [...]