Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Libertarian property rights and animal cruelty

  • 26-04-2012 6:24pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭


    This was a key point brought up in a separate thread, which I've been mercilessly (and unintentionally) dragging off topic, so I'll make this separate thread here.

    Libertarian views on property rights, seem to be so absolute, to the extent that it should not be made illegal to treat an animal cruelly (with an animal being the persons property).
    This is one of the more stand-out moral problems I've encountered with Libertarian views thus far, so rather than get the discussion shut down in another thread for going off topic, I think it's worth discussing on its own.


    Do Libertarians support the view that animal cruelty should not be illegal? (note, that this does not mean anyone supports animal cruelty)
    If so, what solutions are proposed for animal cruelty?
    If those solutions are not good enough to prevent it, is that viewed as a problem that needs resolving? (and may that resolving involve any kind of state intervention?)


    My own view, is that nothing short of making it outright illegal is a good enough deterrent; if it's not illegal, people (as sadistic and deranged they'd have to be to do this) can try to justify it "ah sure, it's not illegal, mind your own business", and its pretty easy to get away with.


    An additional point worth making here:
    Animal cruelty is obviously an emotive subject, so I don't think it is right to judge people for supporting these Libertarian views, by saying "they support animal cruelty"; that is not true and it is a simplistic/emotional argument.

    However, I think it is justified to criticize/judge if advocating a system which people know would allow such messed up things to happen, while also knowing that their solutions are not adequate (in the face of better solutions not compatible with their ideals).


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Firstly, I'd like to know what you mean by animal cruelty? Torture? Hunting? Farming? Fur? I ask because there is bound to be disagreement as to what exactly constitutes cruelty.

    Secondly, a key part of this discussion is whether animals have rights? What sort of rights?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    A good delineation of what I mean by animal cruelty, in the context of when it's ok to kill animals, would be this reply I put in the previous thread:
    This post had been deleted.
    Heh, fun article; in that case, there's a clear justification for killing the rats, and while the methods used to kill them are debatable in how 'humane' they are, the killing was justified on many grounds and was not purposefully cruel.

    While there is a necessity to kill animals sometimes, when they pose a wide scale agricultural, economic or societal (health wise) threat, it should not be legal to do so in a cruel way, when there is a practical alternative.

    Another example is livestock; it is allowed to breed and slaughter animals for economic/agricultural purposes, but to treat them cruelly is wrong and should be illegal (there's much debate over this when it comes to the living conditions of factory farmed animals).


    At what point do you draw the line on animal cruelty in general? (clearly there are a lot of pretty big grey areas)[/quote]
    (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056605246&page=10)

    So basically, where there is a good purpose, i.e. necessity for agricultural, social or economic health (and for food production) it should be legal to kill animals.

    However, it should not be legal to kill them in a cruel or inhumane way; sometimes, in the case of wide-scale pestilence (like the rat plaque in the above article) it may not be practical to kill them in a humane way, and cases like that would be one exception.

    If there is a necessity to kill an animal, it should be done in a humane way, where that is practical (what is considered 'practical' is something open to interpretation if you like).


    So while I acknowledge the grey areas involved in the above, a clear and unambiguous case though, is it should never be legal to torture an animal just for the sake of it.
    If an animal is to undergo cruel treatment, there must be an overwhelmingly good reason for it, and there must be no practical alternative.

    One such case (which is very controversial in itself, and debatable on whether practically necessary) might be lab rats (just an excuse to link that pic :)).


    Laws enforcing this stuff could probably be considered de-facto animal rights, though not necessarily explicit animal rights.

    As to what constitutes cruelty: A starting definition, would be any kind of extreme physical or psychological pain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Are animal rights necessarily incompatible with private property rights? If so, why? If it is the case that animals do not have rights because they are not rational beings, are vegetated humans, similarly, denied rights?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Animals would be property same as a car or a chair. The owner can do as they wish to them. Dogfighting etc would not be banned. Hopefully there would be boycotts of such people but then again how would one know it was happening?
    There would be no inspections of farms or slaughterhouses, supermarkets would not be obliged to state where meat came from.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I think there's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to animal cruelty in that it's far more cruel to force feed animals and slaughter them but few have a problem with that because it's seen as neccessary, but when it comes to household pets people get up in arms. This is one area of libertarianism where I would be a bit apprehensive, but I think on the front of animals being farmed which I think is a far bigger issue than dogfighting rings the market can make a difference, and is making a difference through the popularity of free range eggs.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Are animal rights necessarily incompatible with private property rights? If so, why? If it is the case that animals do not have rights because they are not rational beings, are vegetated humans, similarly, denied rights?
    Judging by the other thread, it seems people deem the enforcement of animal rights as state intervention on private property.

    So, I'm curious how flexible the Libertarian principals on property rights are; are people willing to compromise, and say that state intervention in the protection of animals rights is ok?

    If so, then the state can legitimately set a limit on property rights under certain circumstances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Debtocracy


    matthew8 wrote: »
    I think there's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to animal cruelty in that it's far more cruel to force feed animals and slaughter them but few have a problem with that because it's seen as neccessary, but when it comes to household pets people get up in arms. This is one area of libertarianism where I would be a bit apprehensive, but I think on the front of animals being farmed which I think is a far bigger issue than dogfighting rings the market can make a difference, and is making a difference through the popularity of free range eggs.

    The major market drive is for food to be produced at a lower cost. This typically involves inflicting greater physical pain (e.g. cheaper slaughter methods, castration methods etc.) and psychological pain (e.g. restricted, unstimulating conditions to maximise space) on the animal. The consumer does have some level of concern for the welfare of animals but the vast majority will not be prepared to spend money on their ethics or will find the connection between their consumption and animal welfare too vague. The market also motives the food industry to keep consumers as uninformed as possible about the nature of farming and slaughter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    20Cent wrote: »
    Animals would be property same as a car or a chair. The owner can do as they wish to them. Dogfighting etc would not be banned. Hopefully there would be boycotts of such people but then again how would one know it was happening?
    There would be no inspections of farms or slaughterhouses, supermarkets would not be obliged to state where meat came from.

    strawman


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    strawman

    MOD NOTE:

    Do you think this is a more useful contribution to debate than the picture of the strawman you posted earlier? Don't post in this thread again, and I would strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with the norms of this forum before posting anywhere in Politics again - particularly in the Political Theory sub-forum.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I don't follow the topic or keep informed of animal cruelty/rights at all, but happened on this article about the recent case of mad cow disease in the US, which (forewarning) makes for utterly depressing reading:
    article

    Personally, to prevent the worst of stuff like that, I think a Libertarian society would have to reach a compromise between state intervention/regulations and property rights.

    Do Libertarian supporters agree that a compromise of some kind is preferable? (I can't see how else this kind of stuff would be curtailed personally)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Debtocracy wrote: »
    The major market drive is for food to be produced at a lower cost. This typically involves inflicting greater physical pain (e.g. cheaper slaughter methods, castration methods etc.) and psychological pain (e.g. restricted, unstimulating conditions to maximise space) on the animal. The consumer does have some level of concern for the welfare of animals but the vast majority will not be prepared to spend money on their ethics or will find the connection between their consumption and animal welfare too vague. The market also motives the food industry to keep consumers as uninformed as possible about the nature of farming and slaughter.

    The issue of information and information flow is very important.

    I think I would be more supportive of libertarian principles and of letting the market decide, i.e. by people chosing to buy or not buy a product if libertarians were willing to compromise in the area of state regulations requiring a free flow of information from producers so consumers.

    In broad principle this would mean that it should be EASY for a consumer to find out exactly how the product they are consuming came to be. I.E. The working conditions of those involved in producing the product, and the process by which the product was produced, with obvious consideration to things like propriety technology, corporate privacy but not to the extent where it may obfuscate or conceal abuse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    What about hunting? Do I have a right to kill deer and grouse? Does anyone have any more specific ideas than the vague "more regulation" or "compromise" or "middle ground". Where is the middle ground and who gets to decide what it is? The definition of a compromise might differ radically depending on whether you ask a fur-trapper or a vegan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    What about hunting? Do I have a right to kill deer and grouse? Does anyone have any more specific ideas than the vague "more regulation" or "compromise" or "middle ground". Where is the middle ground and who gets to decide what it is? The definition of a compromise might differ radically depending on whether you ask a fur-trapper or a vegan.

    Why try to change the topic to something more contentious than the questions asked in the op? Simple questions, trying to define cruelty and describing what happens now doesn't really answer them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    20Cent wrote: »
    Why try to change the topic to something more contentious than the questions asked in the op? Simple questions, trying to define cruelty and describing what happens now doesn't really answer them.
    I don't think this debate will go anywhere constructive if we don't define explicitly what we mean when we speak of animal cruelty. If we can't even agree on what it is then there won't be much point in arguing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    I don't think this debate will go anywhere constructive if we don't define explicitly what we mean when we speak of animal cruelty. If we can't even agree on what it is then there won't be much point in arguing.

    To make it easier then.

    An animal is property which the owner can do whatever they want with:
    yes or no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If the answer to the below is yes then how anyone defines animal cruelty is irrelevant.


    An animal is property which the owner can do whatever they want with:
    yes or no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Valmont wrote: »
    I don't think this debate will go anywhere constructive if we don't define explicitly what we mean when we speak of animal cruelty. If we can't even agree on what it is then there won't be much point in arguing.
    I gave a starting definition here:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78356610&postcount=3

    20Cent's black/white presentation of the question as above is quite fair by the way, because we're trying to see if property rights are absolute.

    If they aren't absolute, then just answer 'no' and we can try to find where to draw the line; if you think they are absolute though, please say as much, otherwise we are just dancing around the issue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    On the livestock farming aspect the absolute property right over the animals would not necessarily mean that animals would be treated any worse than they already are.

    In libertopia, it is said, there would still be voluntary organisations that would ensure animal welfare standards for consumers who were interested in that kind of thing.

    With animal welfare grading it would then be up to the consumer whether he wanted to buy the 'anonymous' chicken or the one with the guaranteed high standard of welfare traceable to farm.

    Libertopia would work on reputation and informed consumer choices rather than sanction (a bit like E-bay).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    It's certainly a plausible idea, but I don't think a voluntary organization could manage such a wide-scale task, particularly if e.g. in such a large country as the US, and you also have imported meats as well.

    It also depends on how much of the industry volunteers to be graded; if the industry simply refuses to work with the voluntary group (or creates their own biased grading authority), and they supply most of the market, there's little customers can do about it (especially if they simply don't know what their providers are like, and if their providers claim they are ethical).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    It's certainly a plausible idea, but I don't think a voluntary organization could manage such a wide-scale task, particularly if e.g. in such a large country as the US, and you also have imported meats as well.

    I'm not all that well informed on the food standards business but don't we already have such organisations for meat and the like (farm to fork traceable etc)?
    It also depends on how much of the industry volunteers to be graded; if the industry simply refuses to work with the voluntary group (or creates their own biased grading authority), and they supply most of the market, there's little customers can do about it (especially if they simply don't know what their providers are like, and if their providers claim they are ethical).

    Well you're kinda predicting problems before they have even been tried. We are talking about a proposed future here so you can decide whether you think it will not work or decide otherwise.

    Let's face it - if you were going to buy a chicken in a supermarket will you buy the anonymous chicken that could have been flown in from Tacrueltystan or will you pick the chicken with the label that guarantees it had a decent life and was produced locally?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I'm not all that well informed on the food standards business but don't we already have such organisations for meat and the like (farm to fork traceable etc)?
    I think so yes, though I don't think they are voluntary; don't know much about it myself.
    Well you're kinda predicting problems before they have even been tried. We are talking about a proposed future here so you can decide whether you think it will not work or decide otherwise.

    Let's face it - if you were going to buy a chicken in a supermarket will you buy the anonymous chicken that could have been flown in from Tacrueltystan or will you pick the chicken with the label that guarantees it had a decent life and was produced locally?
    Heh, ya I do take quite a skeptical approach I admit :) my first approach is usually to search for problems, just as its a good way to set limits.

    Ya I'd take the local/ethical one over others certainly, just not sure the label would be trustworthy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Heh, ya I do take quite a skeptical approach I admit :) my first approach is usually to search for problems, just as its a good way to set limits.

    That's one of the reasons I tend to stay away from these debates. What usually happens is the libertarian debates polarise into 'but what about...' (asking about all the horrible things that might happen)
    A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action.

    Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions.

    Parade of horribles as a rhetorical device

    I guess if people approach these threads as a conversation rather than diving into the trenches and taking up the rifles we might have more reasonable debates.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Valmont wrote: »
    I don't think this debate will go anywhere constructive if we don't define explicitly what we mean when we speak of animal cruelty. If we can't even agree on what it is then there won't be much point in arguing.

    Unnecessary pain or torture on an animal. ie; leaving a horse unattended in a field, having 30 dogs in a small pen with no care.

    It might be unnecessarily complicated to take the animal rights fundamentalist view of animal cruelty and go with what normal folk would consider cruel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    That's one of the reasons I tend to stay away from these debates. What usually happens is the libertarian debates polarise into 'but what about...' (asking about all the horrible things that might happen)

    I guess if people approach these threads as a conversation rather than diving into the trenches and taking up the rifles we might have more reasonable debates.
    Well (in my case anyway), it's skepticism mixed with (warranted) cynicism (i.e. assuming profits > all is a warranted cynicism); submitting examples of things that may potentially go wrong, and how to deal with them, is one of the best ways of showing fault with the theoretical society.

    You're right though, sometimes it does turn into a 'Parade of the horribles'; got to be careful not to diverge into emotional argument, but also got to be careful not to stroke everything off as that, as these are the conditions where that is true:
    however, a parade of horribles can potentially be a logical fallacy if one or more of the following is true:
    • The action doesn't actually change the likelihood of the "horribles" occurring. The "horribles" could be unlikely to occur even if the action is taken, or they could be likely to happen anyway even if the action is avoided. This is an appeal to probability, and can be viewed as a non sequitur (logic) insofar as the action has no causal relation to the "horribles".
    • The argument relies solely on the emotional impact of the "horribles" (an appeal to emotion).
    • The "horribles" are not actually bad.

    A parade of horribles is a type of hyperbole, because it exaggerates the negative results of the action, arguing that "If we do this, ultimately all these horrible things will happen".


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    20Cent wrote: »
    An animal is property which the owner can do whatever they want with:
    yes or no?
    As far as the state is concerned, yes. Although I respect an individual's right to their own property, I wouldn't accept gross maltreatment of pets or of farm animals and if I was aware of a case in my area I would talk to members of my community to see what could be done -- without bringing pitchforks into the equation. A drive for local shopkeepers to refuse to serve an offending individual would be one example. If people care enough about an issue, they can solve it without resorting to violence -- which is the state's recourse to every problem.

    However, you have neatly dodged the question: how do you define cruelty? If I shoot pigeons in my back garden, is that cruelty?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I've already pointed out the pervasively vague nature of your explanation.

    If we're talking absolutes: do you believe I have a right to hunt game with a rifle? What about my right to trap for fur?
    RichieC wrote: »
    Unnecessary pain or torture on an animal. ie; leaving a horse unattended in a field, having 30 dogs in a small pen with no care.

    It might be unnecessarily complicated to take the animal rights fundamentalist view of animal cruelty and go with what normal folk would consider cruel.
    What is unnecessary pain? How do you define it? Who would decide in any complaint whether unnecessary pain was inflicted? What do you mean by unnecessary?

    Not directed at you RichieC, but I'm starting to think a concise and practical definition of cruelty will not be forthcoming!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ok so you support the right of people to do whatever they like with an animal, if it's their property.

    You didn't seem to reply to my definition at all, but in any case, here is a definition laid out in law, which Ireland carried over after independence:
    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/safetyadvice/wildlifeprotection/wildlifeactsandlegislation/protectionofanimalsact.aspx

    Here is a very detailed example of a pretty awful case of animal cruelty/neglect here a couple of years ago:
    http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/local/psychiatric_report_ordered_in_animal_cruelty_case_1_2169314

    I don't see how anything could be done about that if property rights were absolute; you can't boycott him, because he didn't seem able to sell animals anyway, and he did not seem to be collecting them for produce.
    Would it be acceptable to let that situation stand?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Indeed, but the problem is that there are a multitude of different definitions of what exactly is 'animal cruelty', eating dogs is considered ok in Asia, as is fighting cockerels in Thailand - whereas some on the other spectrum may feel that the subjugation of any animal, whether that be horse-riding or keeping a pet, is cruel. It is impossible to clearly define, on a worldwide scale at least.

    Currently, in Ireland at least, IMO animals are afforded a certain halfway-house between rights and property, i.e, you can't go around snatching people's dogs or livestock but you also can't mistreat your own dog. Would it be so difficult for Libertarianism to adopt a similar standpoint?
    In libertopia, it is said, there would still be voluntary organisations that would ensure animal welfare standards for consumers who were interested in that kind of thing.
    Voluntary organisations are generally toothless without serious government backing. Plus I always thought the point of animal welfare groups was the welfare of the animal rather than the feelings of their sponsors.
    Let's face it - if you were going to buy a chicken in a supermarket will you buy the anonymous chicken that could have been flown in from Tacrueltystan or will you pick the chicken with the label that guarantees it had a decent life and was produced locally?
    Oh most people would aspire to buy the locally-reared free-range chicken, but realistically faced with economic reality and misleading advertisement we know that won't be the case, let's face it your chicken from 'Tacrueltystan' will most most likely be labelled as 'Produced in Ireland' and have a nice image of rolling countryside on it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I don't see how anything could be done about that if property rights were absolute; you can't boycott him, because he didn't seem able to sell animals anyway, and he did not seem to be collecting them for produce.
    Would it be acceptable to let that situation stand?
    Perhaps local businesses could refuse his service; there are many options that could be pursued before the initiation of aggression is undertaken by the state. It's not that much of a stretch to think of various ways to highlight and deal with an appalling case of cruelty in one's community.


Advertisement