Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[Bern80]

It's my opinion. that seems to be all we're posting here. Facts, references, support of any kind is now unncessary, thanks to Manifold.

The observation of this thread that you would be in that group that doesn't provide those things either.

You're either stupid or lying. Which is it?

Where again was your link showing libertarians support animal torture that you said you weren't going to provide?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Would that not be a de facto government?

How would private courts be a de facto government?

Because it is group authority over an individuals behavior which it seems anarchy oppossses.

That's where you're making the mistake, assuming that an anarcho-capitalist believes in no laws whatsoever. Anarchism doesn't mean everybody can all of a sudden do whatever they want.

 

[Bern80]

A "purist" Libertarian would let market forces rule any transaction. Let the buyer be ware.

Uncut heroin to gradeschool kids? Why not?

That's pretty much my thought. If someone wants to torture animals then by golly we'll just tell them they are wrong headed and boycott them.

Kind of like the entire not serving blacks at a restaurant thing.

Which again assumes that libertarians support the abuse of animals.

As far as not serving said group at a restaurant, that is entirely different. Both parties are free to choose. An animal is not. It's kind of irrelevant on top of that in this day an age. Sure libertarians would say that is okay to do, but I think we also know how impractical it would be in terms of maintaining a successful business. Non racists far outweigh racists in this day and age and it is likely that the restaurant would be boycotted by many, not just the minority. Enough that the restaurant would likely not stay in business long.

 

[Ravi]

More lies from Ravi

Nope..he did.

 

[kwc57]

Well, Rabbi...I normally consider you a moron but I do believe you have handed manifold his ass.

Evidently you have someone else's glasses on.

 

[Bern80]

How would private courts be a de facto government?

Because it is group authority over an individuals behavior which it seems anarchy oppossses.

That's where you're making the mistake, assuming that an anarcho-capitalist believes in no laws whatsoever. Anarchism doesn't mean everybody can all of a sudden do whatever they want.

Then who has authority when, inevitiably, someone in that society does something detrimental to it? How do you exert authority over those people when one of your central tenets is there be no authority?

 

[Ravi]

Well, Rabbi...I normally consider you a moron but I do believe you have handed manifold his ass.

Evidently you have someone else's glasses on.

Nope. If you can figure out his statements (I admit, it is difficult), the Rabbit is actually saying something that is probably true.

Libertarians don't support laws that limit personal freedoms regarding owned property.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, Rabbi...I normally consider you a moron but I do believe you have handed manifold his ass.

Evidently you have someone else's glasses on.

Nope. If you can figure out his statements (I admit, it is difficult), the Rabbit is actually saying something that is probably true.

Libertarians don't support laws that limit personal freedoms regarding owned property.

That of course is the bottom line. It isn't that they support animal torture. But they oppose laws that would criminalize it, in effect condoning it through their lack of opposition.
I think I wrote that about 10 pages ago.

 

[Bern80]

Well, Rabbi...I normally consider you a moron but I do believe you have handed manifold his ass.

Evidently you have someone else's glasses on.

Nope. If you can figure out his statements (I admit, it is difficult), the Rabbit is actually saying something that is probably true.

Libertarians don't support laws that limit personal freedoms regarding owned property.

Okay let's just stop asking the dumb questions, because I think we can all agree that it is extremely unlikely that libertarians support animal cruelty and would be against it. If anyone wants to have a real conversation about this then the issue is of two potentially conflicting beliefs. Libertarians don't support animal cruelty, but what happens when someone, who has the right to do whatever they want with their property, owns an animal(s) and is cruel to it. Does the belief in not being cruel to animals supercede the belief in the right to do as you please with your property? Does it and/or should it?

There would understandably be some gray area and as has been mentioned before probably differeing opinions. But having one opinion over the other doesn't make that person less of a libertarian, or not a 'real' libertarian. One could argue that since an animal is a living thing it should be entitled to it's freedom as well. That of course opens a bigger can of worms where the cruelty of nature is concerned.

 

[Contumacious]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

You can do with YOUR dogs and chicken whatever your heart desires.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

The animal is the owner's property. He can do what he wants. What if the owner wanted to crash his car against a brick wall so that no one else can be hurt? A narco-libertarian would support his right to do so. The animal is also his property so no different.
What about children? Children in common law are property of their parents. So the narco libertarian position ought to be that whatever the parent wants to do is fine. Unless they want to say that children are in fact people with all the attendent rights. In which case they would have to support children suing parents for not giving them ice cream and the like.

There is no end to the absurdities inherent in the narco-libertarian world view when properly explored.

 

[manifold]

Libertarians don't support laws that limit personal freedoms regarding owned property.

There you go, trying to make it a black and white thing when it suits your failed position.

If you actually believe that, then you must also think libertarians would be fine with property owners building nuclear power plants in their back yard. Or putting in a landfill. Libertarians are for LIMITED restrictions, not no restrictions. And again, suggesting that laws restricting the torture of animals would be rejected by most libertarians is complete bullshit. And of course they wouldn't, and you know this. You're just being a disingenuous agenda whore.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

 

[manifold]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

dude is a fraud

I thought you knew that

Ask Paulie what he thinks about animal torture, back yard nukes and landfills, if he's ok with them then I'll publicly eat crow right here in front of god and everyone.

 

[2Parties]

That's pretty much my thought. If someone wants to torture animals then by golly we'll just tell them they are wrong headed and boycott them.

Many forms of animal torture are very much legal.

Kind of like the entire not serving blacks at a restaurant thing.

This is also legal. A restaurant can refuse service to any person for any reason.

 

[2Parties]

The animal is the owner's property. He can do what he wants. What if the owner wanted to crash his car against a brick wall so that no one else can be hurt? A narco-libertarian would support his right to do so. The animal is also his property so no different.
What about children? Children in common law are property of their parents. So the narco libertarian position ought to be that whatever the parent wants to do is fine. Unless they want to say that children are in fact people with all the attendent rights. In which case they would have to support children suing parents for not giving them ice cream and the like.

There is no end to the absurdities inherent in the narco-libertarian world view when properly explored.

Why you, and numerous others, somehow think that the government is protecting children and animals is pretty much laughable.

Memphis mother awaits action in foster-care death of daughter, 3 The Commercial Appeal

Dead child under state custody and the murderer is free. It's sad. It's because of failed "government will solve more problems than it creates" ideology that disgusting acts like this happen all the time.

In this scenario the child was essentially property of the state. We know how they treat their property. Look at how the treat their own military.

Why you, and the majority of people think that a giant government monopoly that is funded by force will somehow solve these little "issues" you bring up is laughable. Thinking a group that has control over the worlds largest military, numerous courts, banks, and businesses would attract people with integrity who have a heart for children and want to protect them is more kooky than those who think Obama is a reptilian.

 

[2Parties]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

I'm sure there are random people all over the world who have nukes in their back yards and no one in government knows about it.

 

[2Parties]

They support kids using drugs, they support nukes in people's back yards, they support child abuse, they support animal abuse, they support greed, they support immoral behavior

We had to drop a nuke on the Japanese women and children. There was no other way

I wonder who is deranged.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

dude is a fraud

I thought you knew that

Ask Paulie what he thinks about animal torture, back yard nukes and landfills, if he's ok with them then I'll publicly eat crow right here in front of god and everyone.

Pauli is only a cafeteria libertarian.

 

[Bern80]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

They couldn't because? As a liberal do you not find it all humorous when the opposition tells what you have to believe?