Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If everyone here that is so staunch on animal rights, why don't you start paring down your populations. If you truly believed in animal rights, then what gives you the right to take their homes and hunting grounds, then kill them when they endanger your little sunshine? I love when people proclaim this staunch line of aninmal rights, but don't think twice to tear down a few acres of trees to build a new McMansion. Those trees and woodlands were the HOMES of many animals. Hypocrites is all you are. I believe in PROTECTING animals, but they don't have rights like we do, if they did and you all REALLY thought they did, you would be denying them their rights when you build on THEIR land.
If everyone here that is so staunch on animal rights, why don't you start paring down your populations. If you truly believed in animal rights, then what gives you the right to take their homes and hunting grounds, then kill them when they endanger your little sunshine? I love when people proclaim this staunch line of aninmal rights, but don't think twice to tear down a few acres of trees to build a new McMansion. Those trees and woodlands were the HOMES of many animals. Hypocrites is all you are. I believe in PROTECTING animals, but they don't have rights like we do, if they did and you all REALLY thought they did, you would be denying them their rights when you build on THEIR land.
I'm against that too though as I'm sure a lot of people are. I agree that there are too many people on this planet.
Animal's have no rights except those that humans decide to give them. I doubt that Wyoming or any other state would condone anything quite like dog fighting. It isn't a very American thing to do. Somehow, people tend to forget that it is not democracy that makes America great. It is the wonderful blending of morality and democracy. The vast majority of Americans find things like dog fighting to be reprehensible and they would never support it.
Whether or not it is American is irrelevant. Without laws, even foreigners would be free to fight their dogs, and torture their animals any way they want.
I think the situation would sort itself out, and a libertarian society would choose to create laws to prohibit it.
I suppose you advocate for animal rights. To what extent should humans protect the sanctity of animal rights within the zoo industry?
Is there a city or state run zoo?
Pretty sure most are for profit privately owned businesses.
I have no business telling another individual how to run their business. My dollars bills talk for me.
You are confused between anarcy and libertarism. Libertarians promote removal of laws only when ethically possible, but you promote removal of practically all laws, even when it would result in legalizing unethical crimes like animal torture.
Also, why would a libertarian make exceptions between federal and state laws, which is bacially an American concept, while Libertarianism is not? The principle should remain the same. You are basically saying you are not OK if federal government taxes you 50%, but you are OK, if the States do it. A libertarian wants to be left alone, and not harrassed by government, state, or federal, but they agree on necessity of law-enforcement and common sense laws. As a matter of fact, a lot of libertarians believe law-enforcement and national defence should be the only functions of the govenment. Anacists prefer the removal of all laws, and the government alltogether. You talk more like an anarchist.
No, you're confused between allowing law and order to be established on a states level for most things, with anarchy.
Anarchists believe in no law. I believe in minimal law from the federal government.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds natural individual rights, liberty and voluntary association, where government exists solely for securing, protecting and defending the natural individual rights of the citizens.
The treatment of animals is an ethical/moral belief system unrelated to the political system.
Thus, it is nonsensical to make a political judgment about a non-political, non-governmental issue having nothing to do with HUMAN freedom, liberty and voluntary association. No political system has a section of its core philosophy dedicated to non-humans, because political/government systems are human institutions.
With that said, most of the folks channeling their inner PETA warrior are speaking of the animals we commonly anthropomorphize, like dogs and cats. We humanize them, thus in our brains confer on them rights of humans. Those animals, harkening back to Orwell, are more equal than their more feral or less cuddly relatives. But this humanizing of our cute doggies and kittahs does not change them into humans, does not confer on them natural rights of humans, nor does it make them anything other than our property. Now under libertarian property rights theory, as repugnant as I might find some behaviors like Vick's doggie Fight Club etc, the domesticated animal is property and thus exists in whatever condition the owner of said property chooses.
I am a pet lover, so my "property" is well cared for and enjoys every comfort I can afford them. And I have a moral belief that people who intentionally mistreat animals will wind up in some reserved area of Hell. But as voluntaryist libertarian, I cannot and will not become authoritarian for how others must treat their property according to my anthropomorphic viewpoint. Every animal protection law in existence is codified moral authoritarianism, thus anathema to natural individual rights.
I am a pet lover, so my "property" is well cared for and enjoys every comfort I can afford them. And I have a moral belief that people who intentionally mistreat animals will wind up in some reserved area of Hell. But as voluntaryist libertarian, I cannot and will not become authoritarian for how others must treat their property according to my anthropomorphic viewpoint. Every animal protection law in existence is codified moral authoritarianism, thus anathema to natural individual rights.
And this is one of the reasons I'm not a Libertarian.
While the "animal have rights" crowd pushes pure bunk, I do not view living and breathing 'property' as precisely the same as your wheelbarrow. I don't care if you buy a hatchet and smash a new wheelbarrow every day with it. I do, if it's your horse. I, rather, insist that sentient life, as life, has some level of intrinsic value, to be decided as more or less on the level of its intellect. Mosquitos... none. Babboons, more.
If we do not value life, for the sake of life, then we don't REALLY value the life of another human, either. So, yes, communities should be free to decide whether or not and what animals have legal protection from abuse - and even in deciding what "abuse" should be. For me to idly stand by and watch the screams of agony from you using a hatchet on your cow while texting about tomorrow's dinner to the wife would be outrageous. And for you to assert that I have neither moral nor ethical justification to intervene simply doesn't work for me. It does for your wheelbarrow, but not your dog - who has life.
This is NOT based solely on rights - which is why I'm not a Libertarian - but is based on a principled respect for life itself - which is what rights themselves are based on. You present a hollow ideology, arbitrarily chosen, and are willing to follow it to the point of absurdity.
No, you're confused between allowing law and order to be established on a states level for most things, with anarchy. Anarchists believe in no law. I believe in minimal law from the federal government.
So, you don't mind government intrusion as long as it is done by State government.... Libertarianism is not an American invention, while the Federal/State levels of government is mostly an American thing, so what you are trying to do is redefine libertarianism to fit the US model. However, the Libertarian principle is more simple than that. Libertarians want to be left alone by all levels of government, while maintaing common sense law and order. It doesn't have much to do with different levels of government, but government in general. State government can be just as bad as federal government.
Without laws there would not be one live deer in the woods, and that is hardly a libertarian wish. It goes against the common welfare of the society.
So, you don't mind government intrusion as long as it is done by State government.... Libertarianism is not an American invention, while the Federal/State levels of government is mostly an American thing, so what you are trying to do is redefine libertarianism to fit the US model. However, the Libertarian principle is more simple than that. Libertarians want to be left alone by all levels of government, while maintaing common sense law and order. It doesn't have much to do with different levels of government, but government in general. State government can be just as bad as federal government.
Nobody said that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
