Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it funny that people in this thread honestly believe that to call yourself a libertarian means you automatically agree with every other person who calls themselves a libertarian. There are moderate libertarians and radical libertarians; pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians; and on and on. Milton Friedman was what I would consider a moderate libertarian, and I think he gives a good explanation of the differences between moderate and radical libertarianism in this video starting at 1:10, though he mistakenly attributes the radical view to Ayn Rand, who hated libertarians, as opposed to Murray Rothbard.

[youtube]0PaN9M4WwHw[/youtube]

Just as progressives and conservatives can disagree with one another, so too can libertarians. Bern and I may not agree on this issue, but that doesn't make him or I any less a libertarian than the other.

 

[sangha]

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices.

False.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History
Etymology
The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[10] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[11][12]

libertarianism - definition of libertarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n)
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

Libertarianism definition

Libertarianism
Definition
Philosophical principle that suggests that a government's involvement in civil economical and social matters should be limited, and that the issues should be settled amongst civilians. Libertarianism seeks to provide free-will participants the ability to make decisive decisions without the government determining or influencing the outcome, as long as it does not harm other individuals

Since animals do not have free will (according to those who first came up with libertarian philosophies)

False. (shocking considering the first sentence was so accurate)

AT the time libertarianism was first being formulated, it was thought that animals did not have free will

And if you think the 1st sentence was so accurate, why does your response say it was "Wrong"

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea.

No one ever suggested it was.[/QUOTE]

SUre you did, but I won't push it. It's not important to the point

 

[Gadawg73]

Beware of those that go around telling others what they believe the opinions of someone else holds instead of telling others what THEY believe in.

 

[2Parties]

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices.

False.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


libertarianism - definition of libertarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Libertarianism definition

False. (shocking considering the first sentence was so accurate)

AT the time libertarianism was first being formulated, it was thought that animals did not have free will

And if you think the 1st sentence was so accurate, why does your response say it was "Wrong"

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea.

No one ever suggested it was.

SUre you did, but I won't push it. It's not important to the point

None of your definitions say anything about free will ENTITLING anything.

You fail to understand obvious sarcasm, and when exactly was libertarianism "formulated" and who stated anything about animals and free will?

The "Non-Aggression Principle" is at the core of libertarianism but it is not exclusive to libertarianism as you implied.

 

[Ravi]

I can't speak for anybody but myself, I find each to be barbaric and unnecessary. As these are events that seem to find their greatest following among the lowest classes of society and immigrants, doesn't it behoove those who would force upon the rest of society the need to respect other cultures as equal to our own to eat crow and justify these blood sports as something we need to have an understanding of?

But should there be laws banning it?

Booth won't answer...anyone? Hello?

 

[sangha]

False.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


libertarianism - definition of libertarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Libertarianism definition




AT the time libertarianism was first being formulated, it was thought that animals did not have free will

And if you think the 1st sentence was so accurate, why does your response say it was "Wrong"

No one ever suggested it was.

SUre you did, but I won't push it. It's not important to the point

None of your definitions say anything about free will ENTITLING anything.

You fail to understand obvious sarcasm, and when exactly was libertarianism "formulated" and who stated anything about animals and free will?

The "Non-Aggression Principle" is at the core of libertarianism but it is not exclusive to libertarianism as you implied.

1) If you don't like the word "entitled" come up with one you like. However, it is clear that libertarianism is based on the idea that people have free will

2) I never said there was a specific date, and my point is that libertarians have NEVER (to my knowledge) that non-aggression applies to animals

3) I didn't say non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians. I said the opposite.

 

[2Parties]

I can't speak for anybody but myself, I find each to be barbaric and unnecessary. As these are events that seem to find their greatest following among the lowest classes of society and immigrants, doesn't it behoove those who would force upon the rest of society the need to respect other cultures as equal to our own to eat crow and justify these blood sports as something we need to have an understanding of?

But should there be laws banning it?

Booth won't answer...anyone? Hello?

People (including you) ignore my questions. If I cared about animals having rights and being protected under the law I'd join PETA or The Sierra Club...

 

[2Parties]

1) If you don't like the word "entitled" come up with one you like.

How about Hippopotamus? I like that word.

However, it is clear that libertarianism is based on the idea that people have free will

How irrational and kooky those libertarians are.

2) I never said there was a specific date, and my point is that libertarians have NEVER (to my knowledge) that non-aggression applies to animals

The non-aggression principle does apply to animals in some ways but not in the way it applies to humans.

3) I didn't say non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians. I said the opposite.

You were creating a strawman by implying that my position was the "non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians". I never said or implied that it was.

 

[Ravi]

But should there be laws banning it?

Booth won't answer...anyone? Hello?

People (including you) ignore my questions. If I cared about animals having rights and being protected under the law I'd join PETA or The Sierra Club...

Not an answer, try again.

 

[sangha]

1) If you don't like the word "entitled" come up with one you like.

How about Hippopotamus? I like that word.

However, it is clear that libertarianism is based on the idea that people have free will

How irrational and kooky those libertarians are.

2) I never said there was a specific date, and my point is that libertarians have NEVER (to my knowledge) that non-aggression applies to animals

The non-aggression principle does apply to animals in some ways but not in the way it applies to humans.

3) I didn't say non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians. I said the opposite.

You were creating a strawman by implying that my position was the "non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians". I never said or implied that it was.

I never said that or implied it. I said the opposite. I said that non-aggression had been around for a long time before libertarianism. I don't see how my saying that others have been using the idea led you to think it meant only libertarians have been using the idea of non-aggression.

 

[2Parties]

You were creating a strawman by implying that my position was the "non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians". I never said or implied that it was.

I never said that or implied it. I said the opposite. I said that non-aggression had been around for a long time before libertarianism. I don't see how my saying that others have been using the idea led you to think it meant only libertarians have been using the idea of non-aggression.

You clearly did say or imply that is what I meant when I discussed the non-aggression principle and libertarianism. Why would you say "non-agression haz ben arund lung before lbrarianism" if you weren't responding to what I said?

 

[2Parties]

Booth won't answer...anyone? Hello?

People (including you) ignore my questions. If I cared about animals having rights and being protected under the law I'd join PETA or The Sierra Club...

Not an answer, try again.

I'll answer your questions while you refuse to answer mine.

Answer to your question: No.

What laws would you create to protect animals? What punishments would be involved? Who would gain custody of abused animals? Who would fund this? How much would it cost? What classifies as an animal? Do worms, cockroaches, mice, fish, and deer count? Should hunters who torture an animal with a poor shot and it suffers a long and painful death be sentenced?

 

[Bern80]

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Not true. animal rights could just as easily be applied the libertarian principle of non-aggression as it could be to the concept of property rights.

I don't see how and you're merely saying it's true does not persuade.

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices. Since animals do not have free will (according to those who first came up with libertarian philosophies) and since libertarianism makes no mention of animal rights, I don't see how you came to that conclusion

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea. It's been around for thousands of years and it doesn't include animals.

Where is this 'rule' that says it can't apply to animals? I guess my real curiosity is why do you and so many others here want so badly to require libertarians to say they are de facto for abusing animals?

I've read a few articles by libertarians now on the issue and the very least there is little resembling consensus on the issue.......

Rights Don't Exist

 

[sangha]

You were creating a strawman by implying that my position was the "non-aggression was exclusive to libertarians". I never said or implied that it was.

I never said that or implied it. I said the opposite. I said that non-aggression had been around for a long time before libertarianism. I don't see how my saying that others have been using the idea led you to think it meant only libertarians have been using the idea of non-aggression.

You clearly did say or imply that is what I meant when I discussed the non-aggression principle and libertarianism. Why would you say "non-agression haz ben arund lung before lbrarianism" if you weren't responding to what I said?

OK, now I understand what you're saying. Originally you claimed that I said non-aggression was exclusive to libertarianism when what you really meant was that I implied that YOU WERE saying that non-agg was exclusive to libertarianism

And you're right. I did imply that you thought non-agg was exclusive to libertarianism. I based it on this following statement of yours

animal rights could just as easily be applied the libertarian principle of non-aggression as it could be to the concept of property rights.

Your use of the phrase "the libertarian principle of non-aggression" led me to believe that you were claiming ownership/authorship of the non agg principle for libertarians. Since you say that is not what you meant, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, particularly since I now see you could merely have been referring to the libertarians' version of non-agg.

Bottom line: Neither of us has claimed any exclusivity for the principle of non-aggression. Now, can we get back to the issue?

I don't know of any libertarian group that is promoting the idea that animals should be covered by the principle of non-aggression. I could see how libertarians who are also pro-animal rights could come to that conclusion but I don't see anything in libertarianism that endorses, or even condones, such an idea. And on the other side of the coin, I have never seen an animal rights group endorse, or even condone, libertarianism

But maybe it has happened and I don't know about it. Maybe you can post some info on these libertarian animal rights people

 

[2Parties]

I don't know of any libertarian group that is promoting the idea that animals should be covered by the principle of non-aggression.

I can't shoot my neighbors horse, put an arrow through his dog, or step on his cats head. Those acts are all addressed by the NAP...

And on the other side of the coin, I have never seen an animal rights group endorse, or even condone, libertarianism

Of course you wouldn't. Libertarianism is all about cutting state control of people's lives. Animal rights groups are all about using state power to protect some supposed "rights" of animals. It takes a big state to even attempt that.

 

[sangha]

I don't know of any libertarian group that is promoting the idea that animals should be covered by the principle of non-aggression.

I can't shoot my neighbors horse, put an arrow through his dog, or step on his cats head. Those acts are all addressed by the NAP...

That's because the animals are considered property; not because the animals have rights

And on the other side of the coin, I have never seen an animal rights group endorse, or even condone, libertarianism

Of course you wouldn't. Libertarianism is all about cutting state control of people's lives. Animal rights groups are all about using state power to protect some supposed "rights" of animals. It takes a big state to even attempt that.

Libertarianism is about much more than just cutting state control of peoples' lives. And if you're so opposed to state power, how do libertarians expect to protect the rights of animals without the state passing laws to garauntee and protect those rights?

Or do you think the state has no role to play in protecting rights?

 

[2Parties]

That's because the animals are considered property; not because the animals have rights

But they are protected under the NAP.

I don't know of any libertarian group that is promoting the idea that animals should be covered by the principle of non-aggression.

All libertarians are for promoting the protection of animals under the NAP in the way I described.

The fact is human nature shows us that people take much better care of the things they actually own and earned. Humans who take things forcefully and say they control something (when they did nothing in return) have no incentive or reason to protect or care for it.

Libertarianism is about much more than just cutting state control of peoples' lives. And if you're so opposed to state power, how do libertarians expect to protect the rights of animals without the state passing laws to garauntee and protect those rights?

This is where statists, especially like you, fail. How does a state passing laws guarantee and protect those rights?

Or do you think the state has no role to play in protecting rights?

A state must violate "rights" (I support "rights" from an argumentative position, not a spiritual/natural born position) in order to defend them. A state that doesn't violate "rights" is not a state at all. To me having a body that must violate "rights" is self defeating and contradictory.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well technically the Libertarians do not support these things, They simply do not support the Governments right to legislate against them. The main reason I am not a Libertarian is because they take personal Freedom to the extreme and will tolerate almost anything in the name of keeping the government out of it.

 

[2Parties]

Well technically the Libertarians do not support these things, They simply do not support the Governments right to legislate against them. The main reason I am not a Libertarian is because they take personal Freedom to the extreme and will tolerate almost anything in the name of keeping the government out of it.

The main reason I'm not a statist is because they take government necessity to the extreme and will tolerate mass murder of innocent women and children in the name of freedom.

 

[sangha]

That's because the animals are considered property; not because the animals have rights

But they are protected under the NAP.

YOu keep saying that, but so far, you haven't posted ANY EVIDENCE to support that claim

I don't know of any libertarian group that is promoting the idea that animals should be covered by the principle of non-aggression.

All libertarians are for promoting the protection of animals under the NAP in the way I described.

We aren't discussing the protection of animals. We're discussing the protection of rights

No libertarians are promoting animal rights. The way you described is that libertarians see animals as property, and property has no rights (people who own property have rights. the property itself has no rights)

Once again, you have made a claim, and provided NO EVIDENCE to back it up

The fact is human nature shows us that people take much better care of the things they actually own and earned. Humans who take things forcefully and say they control something (when they did nothing in return) have no incentive or reason to protect or care for it.

Actually, history shows you're wrong. This is just another example of you making a claim with NO EVIDENCE to back it up.

Many primitive cultures have no concept of ownership and they take much better care of their things than the way we have taken care of our environment.

Libertarianism is about much more than just cutting state control of peoples' lives. And if you're so opposed to state power, how do libertarians expect to protect the rights of animals without the state passing laws to garauntee and protect those rights?

This is where statists, especially like you, fail. How does a state passing laws guarantee and protect those rights?

By providing criminal penalties for not obeying the law. How does a libertarian nation protect those rights?

Or do you think the state has no role to play in protecting rights?

A state must violate "rights" (I support "rights" from an argumentative position, not a spiritual/natural born position) in order to defend them. A state that doesn't violate "rights" is not a state at all. To me having a body that must violate "rights" is self defeating and contradictory.

Another nonsense claim with NO EVIDENCE to support it.

You're claiming that all states must violate rights. So explain how a libertarian state doesn't violate rights, or admit that you're for violating people's rights (which you deny in your quote above)