Vick / The libertarian view

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRGLDTE
  • Start date Start date
who do you hold responsible?

The dogs are forced to harm each other, anyone taking part is a criminal.
 
Well, I think that might be a good focus point Desh. Check to see if Nevada makes spectating at a dog-fight a misdemeanor or a felony, or illegal at all.

If it's a felony, then you are good, and want to focus on enforment of this law. Otherwise, you want to bitch and bitch to your state officials to make it a felony.
 
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...

As a libertarian, I believe very firmly that the Constitution allows the power for States to have their own laws on criminals acts, and I personally wouldn't want to live in a state without animal welfare laws.

Animals have lives, and it's important to distinguish in the law which animals are for agriculture and human survival and which are considered wild, protected, or domestic animals that should not be abused or killed senselessly.

It is not just a property issue.
 
Here Desh, this info is old but its the least i could find on spectating:

"Spectating is illegal in all states except Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, and Virginia. It is considered a felony to be a spectator in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin"

Since then, I know Virginia has made spectating illegal, but not a felony.
 
Its just silly to cite the General Welfare clause, with respect to animal cruelty. Its a dilution and misrepresentation of the general welfare clause. It would make a mockery, of how the General Welfare clause had been interpreted and applied for the last century. Social Security, Medicare, and Environmental protection can certainly be justified as legitimate national general welfare cases.

Cruelty and inhumane treatment of household domestic pets? I think not. This is best left to the States. I don't think there's a single state where an overwhelming majority of citizens don't support animal cruelty laws.
 
Damocles said:
General Welfare is not a power, it is a descriptive phrase. They are allowed to promote the General Welfare, but not without restriction hence the listing of the powers each branch can use. Specific powers are mentioned. The Amendment 10 was specifically designed to limit the means the government could use to promote the "General Welfare" by presenting that any power not specifically mentioned was a right of the state or the individual.

It is limited by that Amendment. Just as Bush's FBI is limited by the Interstate Commerce clause, so too is the "General Welfare" clause so limited.
Click to expand...

Well, that's interesting, Damo, to go against 99% of all legal scholars and judges for the past 200 years and deny the Hamiltonian definition.

It's actually been speculated that one of the causes of the civil war was the fact that Madison, during his presidency, refused to develop the area because he didn't believe in the Hamiltonian definition. It's been proven through history and accepted that Hamiltons definition was the best and most correct one, and certainly the best for the nation. I personally don't give a fuck about states rights. A state has no more right to abuse you than the government, but there are too many "constitutionalists" who believe that states should be able to do whatever the hell they want, whenever it would make you no freer.
 
Watermark said:
Well, that's interesting, Damo, to go against 99% of all legal scholars and judges for the past 200 years and deny the Hamiltonian definition.

It's actually been speculated that one of the causes of the civil war was the fact that Madison, during his presidency, refused to develop the area because he didn't believe in the Hamiltonian definition. It's been proven through history and accepted that Hamiltons definition was the best and most correct one, and certainly the best for the nation. I personally don't give a fuck about states rights. A state has no more right to abuse you than the government, but there are too many "constitutionalists" who believe that states should be able to do whatever the hell they want, whenever it would make you no freer.
Click to expand...
The Hamiltonian definition works with my interpretation. Developing those areas can easily be defined within interstate commerce.

And states can't just do what they want, hence we have Amendment 14.
 
Cypress said:
Its just silly to cite the General Welfare clause, with respect to animal cruelty. Its a dilution and misrepresentation of the general welfare clause. It would make a mockery, of how the General Welfare clause had been interpreted and applied for the last century. Social Security, Medicare, and Environmental protection can certainly be justified as legitimate national general welfare cases.

Cruelty and inhumane treatment of household domestic pets? I think not. This is best left to the States. I don't think there's a single state where an overwhelming majority of citizens don't support animal cruelty laws.
Click to expand...

I was just pulling stuff out of my ass. I don't care how it's done, I want it done. The only way I can think of would be to use economic force against states that refuse, like you clearly believe in doing for the prohibitionist 21 drinking age.
 
Watermark said:
Why not, BF? Give me one logical reason.
Click to expand...

Because the law doesn't allow you. There are many things you are not legally allowed to own. So then you have no property rights regarding them. But when we are lawfully allowed to own something then we should be able to do what we wish.
 
I'm serious. Why do you think people should be citizens? What natural law defines human beings as anything above those pit bulls, or the cement on your floor? You're trying to pretend like there's a set amount of natural, logical laws about this. But there aren't. Why was citizenship made? Because people felt that humans needed to be protected. It was a gut feeling. It can't be made logical. By the same token, we all have a gut feeling that animals shouldn't be treated cruelly, and we shouldn't dig ourselves down into some logically fallacious philsosophical hole and say that all animals are property and deny our emotional feelings for them whenever your entire belief in rights is just as emotional and illogical a process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top