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.
And this is one of the reasons I'm not a Libertarian.
The "I have occasions where I simply must rule over others" is why most people are not libertarians. The vast majority of the population has at least a few areas where they simply must tell others what to do, how to behave, etc, even if those areas do not harm anyone, violate their rights, or confer obligation on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
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.
Moral perspective based on an anthropomorphic scale. Problem is, not everyone shares your scale or morality associated with it. I happen to agree from a moral perspective, but I cannot dictate the morality of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
If we do not value life, for the sake of life, then we don't REALLY value the life of another human, either.
Need to rid ourselves of the meat, poultry, dairy and seafood industries then.
Probably need to outlaw abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty.
Might want to drop the ban on DDT (since you don't consider mosquitos to be life, but clearly think higher life forms they kill with malaria are).
Work animals should probably get outlawed, since your average work horse probably didn't volunteer for the gig.
Obviously stuff like leather and fur should be outlawed, as well as every form of animal testing used in R&D of anything.
And really, given this rather absolutist moral stance of yours, we should probably adopt Janist buddhism as the moral code of the nation, and the rest of the world really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
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.
back to my point before where you simply must rule me or take authority over my actions which cause no harm to you or your rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
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.
I present nothing of the sort. I said a political/governmental philosophy concerns itself with politics and government, neither of which has anything to do with the animal kingdom. Asking what the libertarian stance on animal treatment happens to be is like asking what the American Medical Association's stance is on whether Lady Gaga is better than Madonna.
In a libertarian state, the STATE would never be doing anything like this.
Ok ~ change that to PEOPLE in the state of Wyoming decide that dog fighting is a wonderful, fun activity. Would a liberterian government in the state make any laws against this or just close their eyes?
I'm just trying to figure out how libertarians would govern and if they are willing to enact laws.
And if the state of Wyoming wishes to promote dog fighting? Or animal torture for the select group of audiences that likes to see that kind of thing?
That's A OK with the Libertarians?
The people of Wyoming are not about to legalize dog fighting.
And you're completely missing the point. The real point of Libertarianism: Laws are fine and good, but the vast majority are supposed to happen at a state level. We also oppose overregulation. We oppose having huge lists of unnecessary pointless laws. We believe that the federal government should follow the United States Constitution and stop enacting laws on the basis of the flimsiest "interstate commerce" excuse they can contrive.
For the most part, Americans have very similar ideas about what is moral and what isn't. The people of Wyoming are not a pack of bloodthirsty psychopaths. Just another bunch of Americans. Dogfighting is just as disgusting to them as other Americans. And just like the rest of America, there is undoubtedly a tiny minority of them that thinks that dogfighting is fine and good. Some of that tiny majority probably have illegal dogfighting rings the likes of which we saw with Michael Vick.
You're stance on animal rights -- no matter how extreme to either side -- has absolutely nothing to do with how Libertarian or non-Libertarian you are. I favor animals being treated with dignity and respect. That has nothing to do with my being a Libertarian.
The thing that makes me Libertarian is where I think laws against things like dogfighting should originate.
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.
I said that the state can decide animal rights. That's not an intrusion into your life when you can
A. Move to another state that more closely resembles your political and social beliefs
Or
B. Change the rules in the state you live.
Libertarians believe in small federal government first and foremost. I believe in limited government as the best political path, so I would strive to have less state involvement. In my state. I don't want to tell California or Texas what to do
I said that the state can decide animal rights. That's not an intrusion into your life when you can
A. Move to another state that more closely resembles your political and social beliefs
Or
B. Change the rules in the state you live.
Libertarians believe in small federal government first and foremost. I believe in limited government as the best political path, so I would strive to have less state involvement. In my state. I don't want to tell California or Texas what to do
Exactly. And I don't want California or Texas telling me in Ohio what I can do. I would rather let states decide as well. Is it perfect solution? No. But government on a local or state level I feel can be controlled or held more accountable to their constituents than an overbloated Federal goverment.
Libertarians believe in small federal government first and foremost.
They believe in small government. You insert the "federal" into it because you happen to live in US. You are still under the impression that Libertarianism is all about the US, but it is not. The federal goverment aspect is not "first and formost" since it is completely irrelevent in most countries. Like I said, State governments are in position to violate every belief Libertarians believe, and could become worse than federal government ever was. Yes, all of them could. Your argument is fine from the Constirutional POV, because that's how US was designed, but it doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't care about which level of government is the worst offender, because they want all levels of government to leave them alone.
Like I said, the animal rights issue would resolve itself in a libertarian society, because practically all people oppose the abuse of innocent animals, and a law would be created to make it illegal. Only an anarchist would argue for the right to abuse animals.
Exactly. And I don't want California or Texas telling me in Ohio what I can do. I would rather let states decide as well. Is it perfect solution? No. But government on a local or state level I feel can be controlled or held more accountable to their constituents than an overbloated Federal goverment.
It's fine, and it is in line with the Constitution, it just doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism. I suppose you could call it a Constitutionalist argument.
Animals don't have rights. A right is something can only be claimed or possession of asserted by the individual to whom the right falls to. Animals can't do this - they can however be protected by human advocacy.
Regulation that intrudes on private property rights is wrong - protecting animals can be done through education and policies that promote the proper care and treatment of animals under human stewardship.
The golden rule applies - and it is true that a society can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
I think that we can agree on common sense standards of treatment of animals that respects their life and promotes property rights.
That sounds more like liberal utoptian lunacy than reality. The real reality is that government cannot protect animals, because the most egregious abusers are corporations that own government.
Nevertheless, all sentient life have a right to not be abused and tortured, and it is our obligation as humans to protect those animals from those who brutalize and abuse them, lest we lose our collective soul as a race.
The question is not should we, but how can we. The current structure and efforts are an abject failure, so simply adding more laws and regulations will not solve the problem. We first must restore the integrity of our system of government, and stop torturing and abusing other humans before we can ever expect to extend that protection to animals.
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.
