Vick / The libertarian view

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRGLDTE
  • Start date Start date
Cypress said:
Feds can only promulgate regulations pertaining to commercial animal operations. Interstate commerce authority. Feds do indeed have regulations for humane treatment of animals in confined animal facilities, hog lots, and other commercial enterprises.

Domestic pets are a state matter. I think all 50 states have anti-cruelty laws. How well they're enforced is another matter.
Click to expand...

This site outlines the states and their differances.

A few very Red states dont seem to care very much about what people do to animals for fun.
 
DigitalDave said:
Desh said:



This statement dealt with ALL animals cypress, so you see my response.



I told you, there really is no single Libertarian response to this. I am a Libertarian and I object to the torture as well. Only extremists would tell you its ok.
Click to expand...


There are regulations for the welfare and humane treatment of commercial animals - cows, pigs, sheep, etc. So, as far as I could tell, the argument you were making is unmerited. Even cows and pigs aren't simply treated as property, with owners having the right to do whatever they want to them.
 
Right there are laws defining pets vs meat animals.
But some keep snakes as pets and some eat them as with pigs.
I was questioning the basis for the laws not the laws.
 
Cypress said:
There are regulations for the welfare and humane treatment of commercial animals - cows, pigs, sheep, etc. So, as far as I could tell, the argument you were making is unmerited. Even cows and pigs aren't simply treated as property, with owners having the right to do whatever they want to them.
Click to expand...

The arguement I was making is where to draw the line on animal cruelty to Desh. Most certainly there are Federal laws on commercial businesses that deal in animals. However, that does not mean they aren't considered property, when you simply raise them just to kill them, you obviously don't think of them as pets! They are considered property.... but yes you are right that you can't just do what you want with them. I'm just asking where is that line.
 
uscitizen said:
Right there are laws defining pets vs meat animals.
But some keep snakes as pets and some eat them as with pigs.
I was questioning the basis for the laws not the laws.
Click to expand...

Some people eat Cats and have Fish tanks too.. lol. Its one of those areas that you really can't define a standard, and have to do it issue by issue. (IE. Dog fighting, Slaughtering Commercial Animals, Flushing Goldfish) Which is why I think anyone who takes an extreme stance with a basic philosophy is an idiot ;)
 
Troglodyte27 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You have no right to abuse dogs for your own personal pleasure. They are not property, per se, they are living things, and we only ascribe to them the definition of property for convniences sake.
 
DigitalDave said:
Some people eat Cats and have Fish tanks too.. lol. Its one of those areas that you really can't define a standard, and have to do it issue by issue. (IE. Dog fighting, Slaughtering Commercial Animals, Flushing Goldfish) Which is why I think anyone who takes an extreme stance with a basic philosophy is an idiot ;)
Click to expand...


for now that is true, but at one time dogs and cats were not covered under law, where will we go in the future ?
 
DigitalDave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd say it should be banned at federal. Indidivual rights trump states rights.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is really an LP libertarian thing. Most of the "libertarians" you'd associate me with don't even call themselves that.
 
DigitalDave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd say protect animals from slaughter for food purposes before you allow them to have what Vick did to them done.
 
LadyT said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think every convention of our society really has some kind of base in that, LadyT. I really realized that on the abortion debate me and IHG had. We were arguing about the logical definition of personhood... and it became very apparent that personhood just isn't something that can be "Logiced" out. It's just an instinct human being have.
 
Watermark said:
I'd say it should be banned at federal. Indidivual rights trump states rights.
Click to expand...

How can you ban it at the Federal Level? You'd have to pass an amendment that deals with Animal abuse and the word 'abuse' would be so broad that I doubt it could get passed. Boiling Lobster in Maine isn't cruel, but if see Darla's thoughts, it is cruel to her. It's a broad area and might be better left up to the states.
 
DigitalDave said:
The 10th Amendment Desh states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Our constitution does not deal with Animal rights either Desh. So its a state issue until and amendment to our constitution states otherwise.
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
DigitalDave said:
How can you ban it at the Federal Level? You'd have to pass an amendment that deals with Animal abuse and the word 'abuse' would be so broad that I doubt it could get passed. Boiling Lobster in Maine isn't cruel, but if see Darla's thoughts, it is cruel to her. It's a broad area and might be better left up to the states.
Click to expand...

Naah , just another Bush executive decree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top