Libertarians, What's Your Stance on Animal Rights?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I suppose you advocate for animal rights. To what extent should humans protect the sanctity of animal rights within the zoo industry?

Animals have the right to encounter death and fire on their way to my dinner plate.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

An interesting phenomena in this area is the use of private enterprise to build endangered species populations. It's a huge success story in Texas.

Can hunting endangered animals save the species? - CBS News

Yes, I have heard about it. It doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by nicet4

I don't classify myself as a libertarian but more of a strong right wing conservative republican not of the republican party bent but a believer in a republican form of government.

Animals don't have any rights and I find the whole idea as stupid approaching the level of idiocy.

Animals can't have rights because they are incapable of entering into a social contract. An example would be the hungry Cheetah who brings down an innocent gazelle for lunch. The Cheetah and gazelle obviously never had a social contract.

But this is not to say we humans don't have obligations to treat animals in a humane manner because that is an obligation we have. As humans we should do all we can to minimize the suffering of animals but the idea animals have rights is laughable.

Baloney. We have already agreed that animals have rights (at least domestic animals), and have laws protecting them from abuse. These laws are just difficult to enforce, as most laws do not actually prevent criminal behavior, but only provide a means for punishing offenders.

Consequently, what we face is a moral dilemma, and based on the responses to this topic, a significant and disturbing bit of moral relativism has taken charge over many here.
oTo re-emphasize a great point made earlier, this matter relates to the value we place on life ... not just human life, but all sentient life ... sentient in this case to be measured in intelligence, in the ability to feel pain and pleasure, fear and loneliness, etc. Most people who have experience with animals already know that they possess all of these emotions, and those with a soul immediately understand that it is wrong to inflict suffering upon another creature, needlessly, and without compassion. The distance between inflicting pain on an animal and that of another human are short steps away, and it is a well established trait of the psychopathic serial killer who first tortures animals. That's a clue that we ought to really think hard before dismissing other living things as inconsequencial, and nothing more than personal property to be treated as the owner sees fit. Once upon a time not that long ago, the same argument was used to justify slavery.

Moral relativism is simply a measure of how far one has fallen into the pit of immorality, and whether or not their souls are lost or redeemable.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

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.

I see you were unable to answer the question. The issue is NOT about the good people of Wyoming.

This is clearly a hypothetical: IF the people of Wyoming in a strange and most uncharacteristic way ~ decided to dogfight on a large-scale basis ~ what would the reaction of the State government be?

Would they:

(A) simply close their eyes and look the other way? OR would they
(B) pass a law banning dogfighting?

How would a state run Libertarian government address this situation or would they address it at all?