Very true.
Very true.
Good examples of extremes.
A lot of libertarians on message boards have told me an owner should be able to do whatever he wants to a pet.
It doesn't appear to be an extreme thing in the LP. Some of the most promientn libertarians on this board and others, have told me that they think animal abuse is up to the individual owner.
Like Tiana said, this is a prime reason Libertarians are considered kooks and will never be elected on a national level. We don't practice the law of the jungle anymore.
It doesn't appear to be an extreme thing in the LP. Some of the most promientn libertarians on this board and others, have told me that they think animal abuse is up to the individual owner.
Like Tiana said, this is a prime reason Libertarians are considered kooks and will never be elected on a national level. We don't practice the law of the jungle anymore.
I think it's a sick view. Once, women were the legal property of their husbands and their husbands were legally allowed to beat them, rape them, pretty much do whatever they wanted to them.
We advanced beyond the idea that a man can own a woman. One day, we will advance beyond the idea that you can own a living creature of any kind. I don't believe that's the proper word for it.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Again, just playing devil's advocate, but should we never kill cow's for beef? Or Pigs for pork? Shoudl we do away with the inhumane treatment of cows for the purpose of creating veal? Can I step on a bug in my home? Where is the line?
The problem is Libertarian philosophy is directed towards the protection of our basic rights and does not really deal with the issue of animal rights. Actually, I think Green is the only philosophy that does deal with animal rights. Only the basic extremists caught up in political philosophy would ever consider dog fighting ok because it is 'property'. So, to deal with the issue, it should be kept as a state level issue, or we should pass an amendment to our constitution giving certain animals basic rights.
When one makes the mantra "Keep government out of our lives!" into a religious conviction, then one falls into the ridiculous logic of pet owners have the right to torture thier animals whenever they want to.
The rest of humanity understands that blatant torture of animals should be outlawed.
I was actually going to post something on this. What about squashing insects or spraying them to death with insecticde? It really is arbitrary and based on our gut feelings which I typically don't agree with in terms of enacting legislation. Where do you draw the line and why?
I know how I feel on the subject, but I'm going to play DA with Dave and say, what consistutes as torture? And what animals should be afforded these rights and why? I'd say cooking live crabs constitutes as torture. Should that be outlawed and why not?
I just think its tough to draw the lines when we condone wearing leather and eating meat - two things I absolutely love!
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Cypress, three words to describe them:
They are idiots.
It is an extreme thing because only an extremist who is caught up in the political philosophy would ever take it to that level. Usually libertarians that would answer a question on dog-fighting are extremists, because you'd have to be an extremist to take a stand on it.
I happen to be one who thinks it's not ok to kill cows so you can eat steak, but that aside, doesn't common sense come into play somewhere? Is this really that slippery of a slope?
No one is talking about the killing of animals in a commercial food enterprise.
Those cows may not have pleasant lives. But, its not like their being strung up from trees and being deliberately tortured, prior to being turned in hamburger.
I'm objecting to the Libertarian argument that an owner can do anything they want to a domestic animal - up to an including torture and mutilation.
Even among meat lovers, you'd be hard pressed to find many who think it's ok to hang a calf upside down from a tree, pour gasoline over it, and set it on fire. (this was done this week to a dog in brooklyn, possibly a vicks copycat thing, it was a pittbull).
That is what I mean by common sense.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Making any political philosophy a religious conviction would make that person an extremist. A libertarian could easily tell another libertarian 'Our founders created an amendment process because they knew that we aren't always right', just to point out that taking a political philosophy to that level can be dangerous. Sometimes what looks good on paper just doesn't apply to real-world situations.
cawacko
Well-known member
Based on the outrage across the country towards Vick I didn't realize America had so many Libertarian extremists. I wonder why these people never vote Libertarian?
evince
Truthmatters
Yes we should eat meat but not cause suffering.
That is why we have laws against animal cruelty.
Im dont think man NEEDS to eat veal if it cannot be done without creulty.
This is an example why the libertarian philosphy is inadequate to deal with modern society.
There is no problem with federal laws against the cruelty to animals , why would it be a problem?
Which was my point. In this case it can, and often is, argued that there is a direct victim. While animals are not afforded "rights" as humans, there are laws that many libertarians would agree with that have penalties for simple cruelty. Humane treatment of pets is not contrary to a libertarian philosophy. While there would be "purists" who would argue this, regardless of how they think of people who would do this to pets, as a whole libertarians would not be out there saying it is okay to just buy and kill animals in the most inhumane ways.
I'd say most of our laws that protect animals are based on commen sense and a general acceptance of shared ethics regarding animals. I'm just questioning where you would draw the line on certain animals versus others that are are afforded this type of protection under the law. I agree with them though.