Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[Bern80]

One cracked argument from an obviously insane person.

Could you be more specific as to why he is incorrect?

 

[The Rabbi]

One cracked argument from an obviously insane person.

Could you be more specific as to why he is incorrect?

Because animals have no free will and thus no rights.

 

[sangha]

a wild (unowned) animal can be captured, killed, or be subjected to any kind of treatment, no matter how cruel and barbaric

So are you against hunting and fishing?

Nice diversion, but we're talking about libertarians beliefs, not mine

but there's nothing stopping the owner from killing the dog by putting it in a dogfighting ring with a much larger aggressive dog.

There is nothing stopping it now. I could go to the pet store today buy 2 dogs and put them in a dogfighting ring. Just because there is a law on the books it won't stop it from happening

[/quote]

This is just another diversion. We are not talking about what people are capable of. People are capable of committing crimes. We are dicussing whether libertarianism allows for law banning dogfighting and cockfighting. It's right in OP.

Maybe you can discuss the issue? Maybe you could answer some questions?

Does NAG protect an animal from its' owner? Does libertarianism allow for laws which prohibit the owner of an animal from killing it or treating it cruelly? If yes, could you provide some explanation?

So far, all you've shown is that NAG protects an owned animal from people other than its' owner, but it does not protect that animal from its' owner.

 

[sangha]

Here is at least one argument that the concept of animal rights is not contradicted by libertarian principles (previously posted a couple pages back as well).

Rights Don't Exist

Thank you very much for that. It was very interesting. However, I do find one fault with it, and that is that it either gives animals all the rights humans have. This means no eating meat or animal derived foods. No raising animals for food. No pets.

If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response?

Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel. But how can you try a squirrel when it is incapable of defending itself or even assisting in its' own defense?

Basically, the link you gave is ideoogically sound. However, it breaks down when such a concept is applied. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about this.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you very much for that. It was very interesting. However, I do find one fault with it, and that is that it either gives animals all the rights humans have. This means no eating meat or animal derived foods. No raising animals for food. No pets.

If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response

Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel. But how can you try a squirrel when it is incapable of defending itself or even assisting in its' own defense?

Basically, the link you gave is ideoogically sound. However, it breaks down when such a concept is applied. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about this.

I had that thought as well. The website it came from is the Animal Liberation Front after all. While the source may be what some would call an extremist group I thought the arguments presented were well reasoned.

As you noted, though I don't believe specifically stated in the piece, it would seem it would extend all the rights that humans have to animals. Which probably the case considerng the source (the ALF). I guess I would deal with arguments that deal specifically with cruelty to animals as oppossed to the rights they may or may not have. I don't believe it's okay to be cruel to animals, but I do hunt and fish and believe in killing as humanely as possible and only what I'm going to eat. In that sense I don't think that makes me any different than any other meat eating predator, and I doubt libertarians have some aversion to concepts like the food chain.

 

[Bern80]

One cracked argument from an obviously insane person.

Could you be more specific as to why he is incorrect?

Because animals have no free will and thus no rights.

Then, as the the article states, which you apparently didn't actually read, even new born babies have no rights or the severly mentally handicapped. If your position is that one must possess the ability to reason or possess free will, a lot of human beings would not have rights either.

 

[sangha]

Thank you very much for that. It was very interesting. However, I do find one fault with it, and that is that it either gives animals all the rights humans have. This means no eating meat or animal derived foods. No raising animals for food. No pets.

If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response

Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel. But how can you try a squirrel when it is incapable of defending itself or even assisting in its' own defense?

Basically, the link you gave is ideoogically sound. However, it breaks down when such a concept is applied. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about this.

I had that thought as well. The website it came from is the Animal Liberation Front after all. While the source may be what some would call an extremist group I thought the arguments presented were well reasoned.

As you noted, though I don't believe specifically stated in the piece, it would seem it would extend all the rights that humans have to animals. Which probably the case considerng the source (the ALF). I guess I would deal with arguments that deal specifically with cruelty to animals as oppossed to the rights they may or may not have. I don't believe it's okay to be cruel to animals, but I do hunt and fish and believe in killing as humanely as possible and only what I'm going to eat. In that sense I don't think that makes me any different than any other meat eating predator, and I doubt libertarians have some aversion to concepts like the food chain.

Well said. I basically agree. Libertarian philosophy most definitly allows an individual libertarian to be a vegan and pro-animal rights (under it's banner of allowing individuals to make their own choices), but I don't see anything that would justify a law that would prevent other libertarians from eating meat, hunting, etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you be more specific as to why he is incorrect?

Because animals have no free will and thus no rights.

Then, as the the article states, which you apparently didn't actually read, even new born babies have no rights or the severly mentally handicapped. If your position is that one must possess the ability to reason or possess free will, a lot of human beings would not have rights either.

That's actually true: they don't have rights. The ability to reason is your own invention. I never said that.

 

[Bern80]

I had that thought as well. The website it came from is the Animal Liberation Front after all. While the source may be what some would call an extremist group I thought the arguments presented were well reasoned.

As you noted, though I don't believe specifically stated in the piece, it would seem it would extend all the rights that humans have to animals. Which probably the case considerng the source (the ALF). I guess I would deal with arguments that deal specifically with cruelty to animals as oppossed to the rights they may or may not have. I don't believe it's okay to be cruel to animals, but I do hunt and fish and believe in killing as humanely as possible and only what I'm going to eat. In that sense I don't think that makes me any different than any other meat eating predator, and I doubt libertarians have some aversion to concepts like the food chain.

Well said. I basically agree. Libertarian philosophy most definitly allows an individual libertarian to be a vegan and pro-animal rights (under it's banner of allowing individuals to make their own choices), but I don't see anything that would justify a law that would prevent other libertarians from eating meat, hunting, etc.[/QUOTE]

I guess the real question is would it be hypocritical of any libertarian to support laws against animals abuse. And I think the answer is maybe yes, maybe no. I think as you mentioned there are lots of shades of libertariansim because everyone draws the line somewhere as to what people should be allowed to do. What I don't get is the oppositiion it's like they want to be able to tell libertarians you must believe this or that.

How about it rabbi? You want to embarrass yourself on a different issue now, like drugs perhaps? You certianly seem to have a problem with them.

 

[Bern80]

Because animals have no free will and thus no rights.

Then, as the the article states, which you apparently didn't actually read, even new born babies have no rights or the severly mentally handicapped. If your position is that one must possess the ability to reason or possess free will, a lot of human beings would not have rights either.

That's actually true: they don't have rights. The ability to reason is your own invention. I never said that.

Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Then, as the the article states, which you apparently didn't actually read, even new born babies have no rights or the severly mentally handicapped. If your position is that one must possess the ability to reason or possess free will, a lot of human beings would not have rights either.

That's actually true: they don't have rights. The ability to reason is your own invention. I never said that.

Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?

Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?

 

[The Rabbi]

I had that thought as well. The website it came from is the Animal Liberation Front after all. While the source may be what some would call an extremist group I thought the arguments presented were well reasoned.

As you noted, though I don't believe specifically stated in the piece, it would seem it would extend all the rights that humans have to animals. Which probably the case considerng the source (the ALF). I guess I would deal with arguments that deal specifically with cruelty to animals as oppossed to the rights they may or may not have. I don't believe it's okay to be cruel to animals, but I do hunt and fish and believe in killing as humanely as possible and only what I'm going to eat. In that sense I don't think that makes me any different than any other meat eating predator, and I doubt libertarians have some aversion to concepts like the food chain.

Well said. I basically agree. Libertarian philosophy most definitly allows an individual libertarian to be a vegan and pro-animal rights (under it's banner of allowing individuals to make their own choices), but I don't see anything that would justify a law that would prevent other libertarians from eating meat, hunting, etc.

I guess the real question is would it be hypocritical of any libertarian to support laws against animals abuse. And I think the answer is maybe yes, maybe no. I think as you mentioned there are lots of shades of libertariansim because everyone draws the line somewhere as to what people should be allowed to do. What I don't get is the oppositiion it's like they want to be able to tell libertarians you must believe this or that.

How about it rabbi? You want to embarrass yourself on a different issue now, like drugs perhaps? You certianly seem to have a problem with them.[/QUOTE]

Are you so defeated now that you need to change the topic? Start a new one if you want. Drugs have been done to death. So to speak.

 

[sangha]

That's actually true: they don't have rights. The ability to reason is your own invention. I never said that.

Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?

Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?

So much for the conservatives respect for the Constitution. It goes right out the window when a conservative wants to win an internet debate

Conservatives respect the constitution the way chickens respect Col Sanders

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

Since Im fairly libertairian in my views I decided to click the thread.

Maybe if you want one of us to answer your question you should not start by insulting us in the opening post.

Bye

 

[The Rabbi]

Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?

Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?

So much for the conservatives respect for the Constitution. It goes right out the window when a conservative wants to win an internet debate

Conservatives respect the constitution the way chickens respect Col Sanders

Cop out any?
I ask again, what rights do babies have?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?

So much for the conservatives respect for the Constitution. It goes right out the window when a conservative wants to win an internet debate

Conservatives respect the constitution the way chickens respect Col Sanders

Cop out any?
I ask again, what rights do babies have?

Babies have the same rights as any other american citizen.

The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (or our progressive version from the early 1900's when we decided to change property to persuit of happiness).

 

[sangha]

Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?

So much for the conservatives respect for the Constitution. It goes right out the window when a conservative wants to win an internet debate

Conservatives respect the constitution the way chickens respect Col Sanders

Cop out any?
I ask again, what rights do babies have?

All of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

So much for the conservatives respect for the Constitution. It goes right out the window when a conservative wants to win an internet debate

Conservatives respect the constitution the way chickens respect Col Sanders

Cop out any?
I ask again, what rights do babies have?

All of them.

Thje right to vote? To assemble peaceably? The right to keep and bear arms?
You are losing the laugh test here.

 

[sangha]

Cop out any?
I ask again, what rights do babies have?

All of them.

Thje right to vote? To assemble peaceably? The right to keep and bear arms?
You are losing the laugh test here.

1) No one has a "right to vote". If you think differntly, please quote the constitution where it says you have a right to vote

2) Which part of "All of them" did you not understand?

 

[The Rabbi]

Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?