Vick / The libertarian view

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRGLDTE
  • Start date Start date
T

TRGLDTE

Guest
Given that Vick's actions did not deny any person their rights, or use force or fraud against any person, how does a pure liberatarian view dogfighting?
 
The law allows you to purchase the dogs. You should be able to do whatever you want with your own property as long as it doesn't directly damage someone elses property.
 
That's one of my biggest beliefs in pure libertarians. They are so bogged down in idealogy, there is no room for compassion. At least from a lot of the one's I've seen on the net. I'll be a liberal for life.
 
Blackflag said:
The law allows you to purchase the dogs. You should be able to do whatever you want with your own property as long as it doesn't directly damage someone elses property.
Click to expand...


I don't think a dog is quite the same thing as a refrigerator.
 
Blackflag said:
They are both your property. It is a basic property rights issue.
Click to expand...

So, if your neighber, on his property - but in full view of you, your children, and the neighborhood children - strung his dog up from a tree and lit the dog on fire...you wouldn't have a problem with that?
 
I understand what he's saying in that animals aren't afforded the rights of people and are considered property. As a society that eats and wears animals, its tough to draw the line. But having said that, I think some animals should be afforded certain rights which is quite arbitrary.
 
Darla said:
It's a basic load of bullshit.

You can "buy" a child on the black market.

I guess it's ok to set them on fire too.
Click to expand...

No because you cannot legally buy a child so if you get one off the blackmarket it is still not legally your property. A dog is.
 
The difference is the instance of victimization. There are laws on humane treatment of animals because there is a victim. That they are not as severe as the laws on human mistreatment shows that there is a level of difference between the two.

If one could remove the fact that it is a living creature, then one could say that it is just "property", but it is impossible to remove such because it is reality.
 
But, I have the right to dispose of my property as I see fit.


Is the borderline that there is no valid purpose to the action?
 
Troglodyte27 said:
But, I have the right to dispose of my property as I see fit.


Is the borderline that there is no valid purpose to the action?
Click to expand...
No, the borderline would be that there is a victim. While animals are not afforded "rights" they can be clearly victims of inhumane treatment. Hence we have such laws. While the penalties are weaker than those of cruelty to humans, they are afforded some protections under our laws. Even in a libertarian society they likely would be afforded the same. One could even look upon it as preventative, as those who are into animal cruelty often expand their cruelties later.
 
BTW condidering human nature a libertarian society is not possible. Just as a purely capitalistic nor socialistic society is possible. Well for any real length of time anyway.
 
Don't listen to any one person for the 'libertarian viewpoint' on this. This would most likely be an issue that libertarians would be mixed on, but most likely the majority would think the decision should be left at the state level, and states should make it illegal.

Some Libertarians would simply view the pet as property and you can do what you wish with them. They would argue about killing animals for food, and where to draw the line. But dog fighting is simply cruel and if a libertarian is way too caught up in political philosophy, might actually try to defend dog fighting.

It's a mixed issue among the libertarians but I'm gonna have to say that the ones who defend dog fighting are the bottom of the barrel in the Libertarian world. They are the extreme. It would be the equivalent to the Liberal who says we should be locked up if we own a pet, or the Green that thinks its ok to use terrorism to attack 'polluters' or the Republican that thinks its ok to drop a nuclear bomb in the middle east for our own 'security'. These are just extremes and are people too caught up in basic philosophy with whats on paper and can't get past that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top