TheAgitator.com
Libertarian Purity Test
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004I’m sure the following is nothing new, but I found it interesting. While discussing animal rights with a couple of colleagues over happy hour a while back, we started discussing what value we ought to place on animals, and what rights animals have that ought to be protected by the state. Does a puppy, for example, have more value than an original Rembrandt? I’ll lay out two scenarios. My question: Which if either of these warrants preventative or punitive action by the state? Why might one warrant state action and not the other?
1) A real life Cruella Da Vil systematically buys up cute, furry puppies, then tortures and slaughters them solely for entertainment value. Or, let’s make it a little more difficult. She’s not buying puppies, she’s buying mice, and feeding them to her pet red-bellied pirrahna — again for sheer entertainment.
2) A modern-day evil billionaire — let’s call him Willy Fences — starts buying up some of the world’s greatest art….and feeding it to a wood chipper. Just because he can. All original art.
Which of these should we have laws against? Discuss.
Neither.
The fact that libertarians can’t see the difference between these two cases — and distinguish the inherent value of animate life vs. inanimate objects — is really imature and sad. This is the kind of stuff that fuels myths of their “lack of compassion”, and so on.
I had a pet snake for years; two mice a month was her standard diet. Frankly, people make too big a deal of death, especially the death of animals (or, at least, mammals). Everything dies eventually, generally in a horrible, lingering, painful way if nobody does for it otherwise.
I do think laws against extraordinary cruelty are warranted, if only as a way to ferret out some seriously mentally disturbed people (every pet store has a story or two), but the general cycle of death is hardly worth getting worked up about.
The major difference with the painting-buyer as opposed to the mouse buyer is that the paintings have (as defined by the hypothetical) some extrinsic value. There is no need, as apparently there is with animal life, to get into metaphysical arguments about the extent of the intrinsic value of them, because we know that they have great value even without such spiritual mumbling. Willie is clearly an awful person, committing a tremendous savagery against the world. The question then is merely whether we ought to bother with a law.
I’m inclined to say no law, if only because it seems unwise to let the government into such things. But similarly I’m inclined to say I’d punch Willie in the face if I met him in the street. We don’t need law for a basic understanding of moral conduct, and the wanton and uncompensated destruction of value is just plain wrong, however you cut it.
–G
The laws against cruelty need to be enforced. Cruelty to animals is often a precursor for cruelty to and murder of humans.
Animals may not have rights but humans certainly have responsibilities and good stewardship of animals is one of them.
TJ
Who decides what has value worth protecting and what doesn’t?
I’m sure a dirty old woman living in a trailer with 40 cats would place more value on those cats than she would on a Rembrandt, assuming she wouldn’t be aware of the riches it could bring her by selling it. It’s just colored oil on a canvas kind of “prettying up” the ‘ole trialer. While Pickles and Boots provide companionship.
I’m with Grant.
The solution to anti-social behavior, whether puppy killing or art destroying, should, IMHO, never be further government involvement. (If you can’t trust the government to balance their budget, how can you trust them with morality?). BUT, simply because theres no LAW against puppy blending doesn’t mean Joe Petstore Owner (or Jacques art gallery owner) is obligated to sell his puppies (paintings) to Cruella (Willie).
In a public speaking class in college, I watched a young woman get up and sing the praises of PETA. At the end of it, she asked for questions. I said, “Nice shoes, I assume the cow died of natural causes?”.
Remember class, whenever you see an animal rights protest, look for leather. There’s always one in the crowd, shoes, a belt, a necklace of sorts, wristband…
To think that an animal has rights is ludicrous, to think that it is acceptable to torture animals for fun is morally reprehensible. Maybe the human race should worry about the victimization of our own before we concern ourselves with animals.
Is there pay-per-view for the Rembrandt into the wood-chipper? That’d be cool.
No law. But they both just need a good ass-whoopin.
definitely no law against the second example.
I’m (slightly) conflicted on the first - while I don’t have a problem with people using animals as they see fit for food, research, etc… pointless cruelty towards animals seems to me unethical.
Of course, just because it is unethical doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
So, no laws in either case.
Anyone remember the recent (couple of years or so) story of the road raged man who jumped out of his car to yell at a lady in another car, who then in anger grabbed her dog and thew it into the middle of the street and the dog was run over by another car and died? That dude got 4 years in prison. Is that ethical? It was a dog for crying out loud. He is a person. Maybe anger management classes would have been better suited for the punishment. At least he didn’t grab the lady and throw her into the street.
No laws on either. Although, maybe we could give a heads-up to pet store owners that Cruella has a thing for slaughtering animals and let them choose to sell or not to sell cute little puppies to her?
No laws for either. However I hope the public outcry would be louder for the former (if it were puppies) as to the latter. I know someone who made money raising rats for snake consumption. What is wrong with that?
If some rich guy wants to spend pots of money to buy up expensive art and trash it; that is his right. They are, after all, his property to do with as he sees fit. If people like it they don’t have to sell him the art.
What is the difference between a wood chipper and the wall of a private collectorâs library if the public will never see it again? It seems that an argument elimination private ownership could be made to this effect if a law were past prohibiting the former.
I say we let peoples better judgment figure it out. I donât know how this hypothetical billionaire made his money, but I suspect two thing would happen once word of his wanton destruction got out.
1) Art collectors (true appreciators) would stop selling him paintings for any reasonable price, mark up would be huge. (I know he could purchase through a middle man).
2) The public would no longer support him. Boycotts, consumer activism, and other such protests would result in huge loss of revenue.
Combine 1 and 2 together and said billionaire may soon find himself loosing more money than the thrill is worth.
Consider the types of people who go into business selling puppies/Rembrandts, it seems to me a moot point as it’s unlikely people would continue selling puppies/Rembrandts to either of these individuals.
The second point seems especially moot since, even if the mad billionaire is Bill Gates, he’s not going to be a billionaire very long if he’s destroying wealth at that rate.
Ms. Dani, it wasn’t his dog. There are laws against destroying the property of others.
I don’t really consider myself a libertarian. I’m way too opinionated to agree with anyone on much of anything. But, as I understand it, the basic principles of a libertarian are personal rights preservation. Your rights for nearly anything are protected so long as they don’t negatively impact me and my rights. You know, the whole “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” argument. Both of these are cases of a swinging fist. The problem is, where is the nose? Do I have a right, under the constitution to enjoy the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the puppies and the painting? Do I have a right to prevent my own mental anguish from know that the puppies and paintings no longer exist, or were eliminated in a cruel manner. What type of harm must I personally suffer before my rights trump theirs?
first Andrew:
If libertarians cannot distinguish between the two given examples as you claim, then how come both examples were given? The reason both examples were given is that they are recognized as different! At least in some ways. The two examples have similarities, too. Two things can be similar in some ways and different in others, right?
Sternn,
Yes, it’s true that in the example Ms. Danit raised the dog was not the property of the person who in effect killed it. But that just begs the question of how to determine the nature (and reprehensibility) of the crime. If the dog had no particular market value, was killing it any worse (and any more punishable) than stealing a shoelace?
This is a very real issue/problem. People do kill other people’s pets, for a variety of reasons, and there’s usually very little punishment involved because the crime is generally considered to be akin to petty theft. I (and many others) feel intuitively that there’s something not right about that, but there’s no easy way out of the paradox. I suppose we can try to imagine how much a (typical or reasonable) pet owner would pay to not allow his or her pet to be tortured or killed and determine the level of the crime that way, since that may be way more than the amount of money the pet owner could get for selling the pet. But of course that’s vague and speculative.
And it still doesn’t solve Radley’s riddle. Luckily, as Stormy Dragon and Devin point out, the issues raised by Radley’s examples are mostly moot in the real world, which is why determining rights via the institution of private property generally works better than any other method, even if there’s always the possibility of paradoxes like these where our gut feelings contradict our laws (Frank N’s preferences notwithstanding! :). Now, sooner or later we’ll likely face real life examples such as these, as the German suicide/cannibal pact dudes showed, but luckily it’s not the way our world usually works. And while we want our laws to cover as many possibilities as possible, better to cover the rule than the exception when covering both may be impossible.
Well, for either, you have to go outside the traditional bounds of property law as, usually, one is free to do with one’s property (including destroying it) as one sees fit. Exceptions start to crop up when you use your property to harm others or commit a crime.
This then begs the question of whether either should be a crime (b/c the government can’t or shouldn’t stop you unless it’s a codified crime).
Killing puppies for sport, currently, would fall under the “cruelty to animals” crime, which, while descriptive, doesn’t tell us whether it SHOULD be a crime. TJ has it right in that we see killing animals for sport as a precursor to worse crimes. So, does the libertarian care about such crimes? Well, if she cares about murder, then by extension, she cares about murdering puppies.
As for artwork, one has to find that the state has an over-reaching right to stop the owner from destroying his rightful property. Can or should the state be able to classify works of art as somehow in a protected category such that the owner is limited in his ability to use that property? It’s almost like the owner is optioning the right to use, but now own the art as it is ultimately under the guardianship of the state. Seems unlikely, but I could see it happen.
Neither one should be illegal.
The second example is so cut and dry. The paintings are his right after he signs the check or hands over the cash. How he treats them does not impact the liberty of any living soul on the face of the Earth. Therefore, it should never be illegal.
The first is the harder one of the two. It may seem to be cruel but those nasty fish do eat all kinds of things in the wild. Feeding them a rat seems pretty natural to me.
But let’s up the ante a bit–what if she was buying kittens and feeding them to the fish? Would anyone change their minds then?
I know I probably would and to be honest, I can really give you a clear reason why I would change my opinion. Cats are just better than rats.
Neither. Was a no-brainer.
If suffering matters (and I believe that it does), the treatment of animals matters. Those who argue (like Stephen Budiansky) that animals’ pain doesn’t matter because animals don’t understand that they exist, or (like Rene Descartes) that it isn’t pain, it just LOOKS a lot like pain, respectively, illustrate the absurdity of their arguments. I’d argue that a painting can’t feel pain — I’ll even slowly shred one to demonstrate. Would anti-AR folks have done so with a squirrel? I doubt it, or at least I hope not.
The case involving feeding a pet predator pet prey is interesting, but it doesn’t get to the toughest cases that hold our feet to the fire on this. At least, in that case, you’re sort of creating a micro-ecosystem. That is, if humans didn’t exist, but that mouse did and that piranha did, it’s pretty reasonable to get to a point where one would be eating the other anyway. What really forces us to face up to things are instances where there’s no interest being served other than gratuitous, bizarre human pleasures (or convenience). Then we really have to confront the idea whether animals are property in the same sense that a diamond or (in my view) a painting is.
Tibor Machan’s new book takes a haphazard swipe at this, and I’ll have a “book review” out soon on the topic. It’s a tough case for a libertarian to make that animals can have rights (forgive the term), but I don’t think it’s a lost cause, even to go so far as to allow for legal protection. Maybe Radley’ll link to the piece once it’s available online somewhere.
In other words, support for animal cruelty laws can reasonably be seen as an inconsistency for libertarians (as Narveson holds), but one that I think can be reconciled with some honest philosophy.
Second example’s a no-brainer. No law. But a good ass-kicking would be in order.
The first one is tougher. “Cruelty to animals” is a very subjective thing. The current standard seems to be “needless” suffering…thus, we continue to use animals for food and in research. While I can’t speak to the food industry, I can say that the regulations and safeguards regarding animal cruelty in the context of scientific research are considerable. With a few exceptions, most research mammals never feel anything more painful than a needle stick. I doubt if most animals raised for food have it that well.
In the feeding mice to piranhas example…on one hand it’s an unfortunate form of entertainment. On the other, the piranhas have to eat. I don’t know if this is the case with piranhas, but many predatory animals will not eat something that’s already dead. If such an animal is your pet, then you do have a responsibility to feed it, and if it only eats live prey, well…
But even if that wasn’t the issue here, would people object to feeding piranhas live prey if the person feeding them didn’t derive any pleasure from it? Radley did say “for sheer entertainment”, after all. Is the objection to the fact that the animals are suffering, or that a person is getting their jollies from that suffering?
Since it is currently acceptable for animals to suffer “for a purpose” (see above), it would seem then that outlawing piranha feeding “for fun” would be effectively outlawing someone’s attitude, which I find a scary prospect indeed.
Personally, I think that current laws regarding animal cruelty work pretty well, though I’ll be the first to point out that the line they draw is rather arbitrary. Then again, arbitrary lines are drawn in the law all the time: drinking age, voting age, and age of consent come to mind. But just because people may disagree over where those lines should be, it doesn’t follow that we should just let eight-year-olds drink, vote, and have sex, does it?
Sorry for the rambling post…
It seems there is a long scale of opinion about the value of animals. On one end is PETA and on the other the NRA. This is the crux of the debate. Do they deserve the same rights as us (animals, not PETA)? This is one of those things that will never be agreed upon. Much like the abortion debate, when does life begin? It is speculated about way too much for anyone to agree.
I don’t think the analogy is quite parallel, as the animal is living while the painting isn’t. Perhaps if we used an analogy comparing (1) with a slave owner in the early 1800’s who tortured and killed his slaves for sport. (OK, I am stretching a LOT here! Don’t go ballistic). If I recall some history I’ve read, this kind of cruelty did NOT go over well and may have been illegal (after all, the census counted the slaves as 3/5ths a person for representation/Electoral College purposes).
In (1), since the mice are being used strictly for food for her snake, it is very easy to just go “eh, whatever.” To make the analogy tougher, I’d go with “cute, healthy puppies to a python/pirrahna tank” to make it more difficult. Don’t know about passing laws, but I’d be inclined to support having the person committed as a nutcase.
As for (2), I tend to collect ephemera (OK, comic books), so I don’t appreciate the folks who “get it and destroy it” for fun, but passing a law? No. Gets fuzzier the “more important” the art is (historic buildings, original colonial documents, monuments, etc.), and could be considered a “moral crime against humanity,” but no “real crime.”
Hence, longwindedly, no laws for either.
number one should be illegal.
The key here is precedents. Is the killing of puppies for entertainment value a precedent to the killing of humans? So should one bad apple ruin the bunch? Aaaah, here come the liberal Democrats, NO!
I agree with TJ, that while we have the right to do so as we choose with our property, we have a responsibility (in my book, individual responsibilities supercede individual rights) to be stewards to animals. We can argue this too, but I think the majority of citizens feel that way.
Chris Farley,
You’re making up rights. You have no “right” to not be upset. If you want to enjoy the intrinsic or extrinsic values of puppies and paintings, then buy yourself some puppies and paintings and enjoy.
Brian,
The “needless suffering” argument is a slippery slope. It’s abundantly clear that humans can survive quite well on vegetarian or vegan diets and vitamin supplements, but most prefer not to. So is there a real “need” for the suffering of animals for food? No, but there is an overwhelming preference for it.
Do we “need” animals for clothing? No. We’ve developed plenty of synthetic alternatives. Same with some kinds of research. Is there a “need” for cosmetics testing on animals? Surely there is not. Perhaps there once was to determine what kinds of compounds could be used, but I think we have more than enough cosmetic products out there to preclude the need for more animal testing.
I’d say that just about the only “needed” suffering of animals is medical research.
That being said, I’m all for steaks and hamburgers and fabulous leather products. The question becomes whether or not human preferences are more important than the suffering of animals. I’d say that on some counts they do, and some counts they don’t. I personally draw the line at cosmetics testing. But I realize that some people would prefer more options for cosmetics, which might call for more animal testing.
I can’t, however, quite say that someone’s preference for torturing and slaughtering puppies is more important than the puppies’ lives. It has an ickiness factor that I can’t wish away with my libertarian principles.
If we’re talking a state, then no, there shouldn’t be a law against either, although I concur with the extralegal ass-kicking each deserves.
However, if we’re not talking a state, but instead about voluntary contractual arrangements for law and defence services, we could very well see laws against both. I don’t think I want to live in a legal system where any number of animals may be needlessly tortured so long as they belong to the torturer. In that sense, I tend to agree with Nozick’s argument about animal utilitarianism in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In the second case, although I wouldn’t choose it, you could very well have legal arrangements that recognise “inestimable treasures”. In libertarian terms, although someone would be the stewart of the property, it would belong to everyone in part. Thus, your have violated your duty as stewart to destroy the property of everyone else. This is, coincidently, pretty much how the common law treats children.
- Josh
“Neither.”
Right.
“However, if we’re not talking a state, but instead about voluntary contractual arrangements for law and defence services, we could very well see laws against both. ”
That would fundamentally be agreements not to do either and I have no objection to such agreements. You would of course be free not to enter into such agreements.
I’m gonna say something really new and exciting - I don’t think either one should be unlawful! (sarcasm)
Anyway, of course the puppies and the poor little mice have got some people a little sad, they’re pulling some heart strings. But, let’s use an analogy (and I haven’t read above so I’m sorry if someone’s already used this):
Jim has a lake. Every week he fills it with rainbow trout so his friends and family can come over and fish. No one eats the fish, but they all get kicks out of smacking the fish on the rocks. Pretty messed up, but illegal? No way.
New thoughts:
1)Many to most ‘important’ cultural pieces are in the hands of some sort of authority anyway (as in, it would be rather difficult to buy the Statue of Liberty or the Mona Lisa at any price)
2) There are many different levels of government laws can be passed at. Federal? Certainly no laws. State? No laws, but it’s not quite so important. City? The law against painting chipping, no, but animal cruelty laws could possibly be acceptable.
Brooke–
Good point. It was no accident that I put the word “needless” in quotes.
The line between art and commerce isn’t even blurry any more, it’s just plain gone. I was at a gallery showing lately for some ‘up and coming’ artists and I really loved their work. All the work on display was for sale and based on the relatively large number of red dots (designating an item is sold) on the title cards it’s obvious that most of the show is headed off to private homes and will likely never be on public display again. Whether those people hang it proudly on their walls or use it for kindling is invisible to me and none of my business, at least legally.
These artists only have one main show a year and their ability to sell a year’s worth of work (at prices I can’t personally afford) is what puts food on their table and ensures that they will have another show next year for me to afford. If we start putting legal impediments in the way of private ownership of art (classic or otherwise) we interfere with a system that gives us a larger pool of artists and art for the public to appreciate, even those of us that can’t afford to own it.
I’m not going to get into the mice - I’m a conflicted meat-eater and I know it.
Very good point AronW.
I’m pleased at the number of people here who would go along with cruelty laws, but it seems to me that we need to provide some philosophical foundation for them, or else we’re just conservatives.
Brooke,
“The question becomes whether or not human preferences are more important than the suffering of animals. I’d say that on some counts they do, and some counts they don’t. I personally draw the line at cosmetics testing. But I realize that some people would prefer more options for cosmetics, which might call for more animal testing.”
Why should you get to determine which counts are okay and which aren’t? Shouldn’t there be some guiding principle at work here other than an arbitrary line drawn on the basis of consumption preferences and extreme convenience? It seems to me that “preferences” aren’t a good bottom line here, or else the entire debate is moot.
Also, I think the “ickiness factor” belies a deeper issue — it’s likely that some libertarians find certain sexual practices or other forms of voluntary human behavior “icky” but I would hope that NO libertarian would go along with banning them. There’s a reason so many of us are impelled to oppose the torture of animals.
I’m not saying that I should get to decide for anyone but myself. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I won’t use products tested on animals, but I think if other people want to, that’s their deal.
I agree that “preferences” is not a good bottom line, but in the absence of laws which I don’t necessarily think should be applied here, I think that individual choices can easily be made using preference–my preference to eat meat is more important to me than the life of the cow.
I don’t like to go around banning things that I find icky. I find lots of things icky. And I don’t think animals have rights in the same sense that humans do. Basically, I don’t have an answer. But my gut response, as much as I wish it wasn’t, is that torturing and killing kittens and puppies for fun violates something. I just don’t know exactly what.
The need to “provide a philosophical foundation” for everything is exactly why libertarianism will never get taken seriously in this country. Killing animals is not a good thing. You’ll now ask, who am I to decide, and why should the government decide? Well, animals are living creatures, and the argument that they should be considered property in the same sense a painting is considered property is entirely unreasonable.
Do yourselves all a favor and step out of the realm of pure theory for once.
The need to “provide a philosophical foundation” for everything is exactly why libertarianism will never get taken seriously in this country. Killing animals is not a good thing. You’ll now ask, who am I to decide, and why should the government decide? Well, animals are living creatures, and the argument that they should be considered property in the same sense a painting is considered property is entirely unreasonable.
It seems that you’re saying that libertarians will never be taken seriously because they tend to demand that an argument be supported. In contrast, you make an argument with nothing to back it up whatsoever (except your opinion) and think you’re to be taken more seriously?
Best of luck.
CNN had an article a couple of weeks ago in its Law section about how courts are increasingly having to get involved in pet custody issues among divorcing couples. I think it’s interesting (though perhaps irrelevant) to apply to this issue, since it seems that pets/animals are getting more and more legal consideration. Of course, there are no set laws in this arena, but if the view of animals as mere property changes in the courtroom, who knows what it might mean for the hypotheticals?
What if rather than then torturing and slaughtering puppies solely for entertainment value, someone was putting them in a blender to make energy smoothies. Would that change anyone’s position?
I think it should be against the law to waste time in a silly intellectual exercise meant to “make you think.” Screw the art and the animals, nobody cares and if they do that’s their affair, not a matter of law.
Neither. It’s a shame that the “there oughtta be law” mentality ignores the efficacy of ridicule. If someone were to do either, they would quickly become a social pariah. If their wealth were from fame or celebrity, it would dry up. If it were from business, they would face boycotts of their products.
I’ve actually always wanted to do the second, and kinda did the less extreme version of the first once.
A friend of mine had pirahna in a tank and we placed goldfish in with them for pure entertainment.
The version of the second I always wanted to do was buy a really rare and valuable classic car, like the old gull-wing Mercedes, and drive it drunk and reckless during an ice storm.
Lastly, does anyone remember the movie Brewster’s Millions where Brewster buys the world’s most valuable stamp and then attaches it to a postcard and mails it? Classic.
If animals are subject to legal protection, then they should be liable for violating said protection. If you think puppies should be protected by law, then a dog that kills a cat should be prosecuted. A cat that kills a mouse should be prosecuted. Animals are _not_ the same as humans.
The Chinese eat dogs. Maybe this is cultural?
I don’t think that it should be illegal for Cruella to do her puppy thing, but then, I also don’t think it should be illegal for me to wax her ass if she did.
Art? Meh.
A philosophical question?
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…
I somehow find all this very sad.
It is side-splitting, hilarious that one could even consider creating law to banish “the cycle of life.” Why not banish harvesting crops, next? Hey, I got a good question…. “Why is it that only humans can be arrogant enough to label life as “precious and important” to living beings that possess cognitive brains and respiratory systems? What about celery stalks? Why don’t they get a ’say in the matter.’?” Anyone who “cries foul” at the notion of a celery stalk being ‘alive’, is either an idiot, a slow-witted PETA activist, or both. If we can create legislation banning certain aspects of the cycle of life, than we are doing NOTHING but selectively choosing which life forms to save, depending on whether or not they appear cute and cuddly in cartoons.
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?
As a loving dog owner who would KILL to protect his own, I will give the only logically consistent answer.
Neither.
i can’t believe some people here wouldn’t object to the private destruction of world-class art. Art belongs to all of society and shouldn’t be for an individual to destroy
“Art belongs to all of society…”
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*.
Methinks I smell a troll…
“As a loving dog owner who would KILL to protect his own, I will give the only logically consistent answer.
Neither.”
Well said, Doug.
2) is easy–no law. The property owner has sole control over property and it’s use 1) some law, democratically decided and inevitably imperfect.
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.
can someone please explain why as Frank N put it, “To think that an animal has rights is ludicrous”
And don’t give me the how can a dog have the right to free speech argument, but lets talk about cruelty to animals
Government is best that governs least.
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.
To Brian and all the other libertarians who insist on philisophical/theoreticl/scientific method arguments to support every issue I leave you with this quote.
“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five…. ”
Groucho Marx
Jeezus Radley, I finally convince some of my leftier friends that taxation equals theft and then you go and drop this bomb on us….
has anyone seen the anti PETA adverts on the DC metros?
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.
Does Balko post these questions in an attempt to expose pseudo-classic libs?
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.
Neither.
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.
The only legitimate purpose of government is protect us from harm caused by other human beings. Passing laws to protect animals, plants, artwork, the environment, or anything else is a misuse of government power.
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.
Best deal cheap soma carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your buy soma muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. online soma is now available soma online with the best online prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire buy soma about your medical history soma or visit http://www.soma-cheap-soma.com
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22
jonny