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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Libertarian property rights and animal cruelty

  • 26-04-2012 7:24pm
    #1
    KyussBishop
    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

  • #2
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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?


  • #3
    KyussBishop
    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:
    KyussBishop wrote:
    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.


  • #4
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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?


  • #5
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭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.


  • #6
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #7
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    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.


  • #8
    Debtocracy
    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.


  • #9
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    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


  • #10
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    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.


  • #11
    KyussBishop
    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
  • #12
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #13
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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.


  • #14
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭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.


  • #15
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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.


  • #16
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭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?


  • #17
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #18
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭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?


  • #19
    KyussBishop
    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.


  • #20
    Chuck Stone
    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).


  • #21
    KyussBishop
    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
  • #22
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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?


  • #23
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote:
    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.
    Chuck Stone wrote:
    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.


  • #24
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.


  • #25
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭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.


  • #26
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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".


  • #27
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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?


  • #28
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I gave a starting definition here:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78356610&postcount=3
    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!


  • #29
    KyussBishop
    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?


  • #30
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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?
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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
  • #31
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.


  • #32
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Well, if the state can intervene down the line, that puts absolute property rights out the window; how can the local community intervene in a way which is not (through Libertarian principals) considered 'violence' upon the person? (violence not being restricted to physical violence, but the very broad Libertarian definition)

    If local business refuses to trade with him, on the condition that he stops treating his animals cruelly, and he can not buy food to survive, is that not coercion and interference in the persons rights?

    If that's the case, the whole thing sounds like a slightly-more contrived form of mobs law really.


  • #33
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Valmont wrote: »
    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.
    So you would band together with the local community to impose a penalty on the individual. The only difference between that and the state's solution is scale. You throw in a caveat about state violence but thats a subjective thing, one persons boycott penalty is another persons jail term penalty.
    Valmont wrote: »
    However, you have neatly dodged the question: how do you define cruelty? If I shoot pigeons in my back garden, is that cruelty?
    In the current system the market decides. Politicians go forward for election with a certain views on appropriate levels of animal treatment, the most successful ones get to enact their views. If there is a market to change those laws down line, perspective politicians will campaign on changing them.


  • #34
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #35
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    how can the local community intervene in a way which is not (through Libertarian principals) considered 'violence' upon the person? (violence not being restricted to physical violence, but the very broad Libertarian definition)
    The broad libertarian definition of violence? If you could explain to me how choosing to not conduct business with a certain individual constitutes violence, I'm all ears.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If local business refuses to trade with him, on the condition that he stops treating his animals cruelly, and he can not buy food to survive, is that not coercion and interference in the persons rights?
    Using your definition of coercion, I just coerced by Starbucks by walking past them and into Costa Coffee.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If that's the case, the whole thing sounds like a slightly-more contrived form of mobs law really.
    Could you explain how people freely interacting and choosing who they want to do business with is a form of "mobs law"?


  • #36
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Tedious regularity is what we are here for. This political theory forum seems to attract libertarians, and libertarians are asked to justify their extremist position, which they largely fail to do and do with no grace. Picking on topic, like this one, which disproves libertarian philosophy is just method. We could talk about pensions, healthcare, free education and so on.
    In reality, libertarians have always varied widely in their opinions about what level of state interventionism is appropriate in society. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty, believed that the state should provide a minimal level of social insurance. Mentioning the name of Milton Friedman usually makes proponents of social democratic statism foam at the mouth — but he was routinely savaged by Murray Rothbard, who saw him as fully on the side of the collectivists. Ludwig von Mises once stormed out of a Mont Pelerin Society meeting, denouncing its members as a "bunch of socialists."

    Thats entertaining. I am pretty sure that there are similar rows in other purist and extremist organisations. All cults have extreme positions and people calling one another heretics. There are plenty of Marxisms for instance but all want a very large percentage of the industry owned by the State, and if there are Marxists who only want 90% of it owned by the State then the 100% Marxists would call them right wing fascists, just as Hayek is called a collectivist by extremists within his extreme libertarian movement. This is common of extremist cults, but these divisions are not of concern to the rest of is. A libertarian who believes, eventually, in a mixed economy is no longer a libertarian, a Marxist who comes to believe in a mixed economy is no longer a Marxist. Which means the differences in the extreme groups is of minor importance to outsiders, as significant as they are to insiders. We know the general ideas held.
    Therefore, the idea that libertarianism can be dismantled by way of edge cases is a complete fallacy. Libertarians have always disagreed among themselves about edge cases, just as social democrats also disagree about exactly how much state interventionism can be justified.

    These are

    1) Hardly edge cases, its a normal question. Animal cruelty is one of the positions where we can ask libertarians about property rights. Domestic pets and livestock are property, and can be sold. What the property owner can legally do with them tells us about the society he lives in. We could ask other questions too - when the State disappears, and stone henge is transferred back to private property, should the owner use the stones as he pleases, i.e. to build a fence? But the question here is about animals, not sites. You are trying to worm your way out of answering.

    2) Social democrats may not agree entirely on animal cruelty but we are not asking questions of social democrats here - libertarianism is being questioned because it has absolutists ideas on property rights, social democrats don't. If ideas on animal cruelty change over time it does not impinge their philosophy to increase state regulations to stop the newer definition of cruelty.
    In any case, trying to have a debate about legislatively prohibiting animal cruelty makes no sense unless people can actually define coherently what they mean by "animal cruelty." For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) does not find it acceptable for people to ride horses, shear sheep, or include animals in circuses. In their view, such practices constitute unconscionable abuse by humans, who wish to regard animals as their "property."

    Peta is a slippery slope argument. We are talking mainstream definitions of cruelty.

    Ideas change over time. It may be that in the future the population in general opposes circuses, and they are closed down by law, but this is not possible in libertarian societies.
    However, it's also indisputably the case that many animals that are regarded as "property" can live longer and better lives than those who are not. The ASPCA states that the average lifespan of a feral cat is less than two years, while domesticated cats usually live for 12-16 years on average. This is a perfect example of how, in the vast majority of cases, there is no conflict between owning an animal as property and protecting that animal's welfare — something that the anti-libertarians, as usual, seem loathe to concede.

    Really. Lets concede it then. A loved domestic cat will in general have a better life than a feral cat. That, is, apparently your argument for libertarianism.

    The question is can bad property owners, owners who are cat torturers, say, be penalised by the State. This isn't a philosophical problem for centrists, or social democrats, or even marxists - it is for Libertarians, which is why we are here.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    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?

    I don't think an answer to that question is necessary. We could argue all day about what constitutes animal cruelty then move onto hunting and then the inevitable what if you step on an ant etc This is not necessary because we have already established that an animal is considered property in the same way as inanimate objects. Animal cruelty is considered the same as cruelty to chairs ie not at all. Maybe the community would be take action via a boycott or whatever that's if they even knew what was happening but intervention by a third party would not be an option in a libertarian society.
    There would be no legal means to prohibit mistreatment of animals in fact animals could not be mistreated because they have the same rights as objects. Not saying that the refusal to take action against such things means supporting it but such a philosophy seems immoral and unjust and should be rejected.


  • #38
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #39
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    20Cent wrote: »
    I don't think an answer to that question is necessary. We could argue all day about what constitutes animal cruelty then move onto hunting and then the inevitable what if you step on an ant etc This is not necessary because we have already established that an animal is considered property in the same way as inanimate objects. Animal cruelty is considered the same as cruelty to chairs ie not at all. Maybe the community would be take action via a boycott or whatever that's if they even knew what was happening but intervention by a third party would not be an option in a libertarian society.
    There would be no legal means to prohibit mistreatment of animals in fact animals could not be mistreated because they have the same rights as objects. Not saying that the refusal to take action against such things means supporting it but such a philosophy seems immoral and unjust and should be rejected.

    All that we are asking for here is a clear definition of what animal cruelty is so that we don't have to keep on coming back to specific cases and asking if it is cruelty or not. How can we continue to have a debate on animal cruelty if you can't even give a clear definition of animal cruelty?


  • #40
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Looking for a definition of 'animal cruelty', after several people have given acceptable definitions, is a red herring.

    Here is a workable definition (first link):
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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?
    However, I predict another tedious semantics game so you can dance around the issue; that's a favourite one for some Libertarian posters, refusing to come to an accepted definition of something, so they can avoid addressing any part of the topic.

    In fact, a general trend I'm noticing is that any time a topic might remotely reflect poorly on their principals, it's a challenge to get many Libertarian posters to acknowledge what their opinion is at all.


    So, to make this really simple I'll limit the definition of animal cruelty to "torturing an animal"; cue complaints and refusal to answer due to 'emotional argument', though this is easier then spending another page of the thread trying to agree upon a wider definition, and as the most extreme edge case, it's a fast way of seeing if your views are absolute or not.

    Should property rights be absolute to such an extent, that an owner is within his rights to deliberately torture an animal?
    Valmont wrote:
    Using your definition of coercion, I just coerced by Starbucks by walking past them and into Costa Coffee.

    Could you explain how people freely interacting and choosing who they want to do business with is a form of "mobs law"?
    That's a pretty silly interpretation; a person is not a business, and a business is not a person.

    As for the latter, if business is free to discriminate like that, it opens up any level of indirect coercion against other people, and can be applied to anyone, down to ethnicity, religion, gender etc..


  • #41
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    KyussBishop wrote:
    That's a pretty silly interpretation; a person is not a business, and a business is not a person.
    What if I refuse to play football with some kids on the way home? Am I coercing them? I think you need to accept you definition of coercion is wildly inaccurate.

    And what is indirect coercion?!


  • #43
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Okey I'll simplify it further: physically harming an animal for personal amusement.


  • #44
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Valmont wrote: »
    What if I refuse to play football with some kids on the way home? Am I coercing them? I think you need to accept you definition of coercion is wildly inaccurate.

    And what is indirect coercion?!
    If a business or set of business's around an essential good (e.g. food) refuse to do trade with someone, and that person has no alternative source, they have control over and can coerce that person, through the threat to withdraw business.


  • #45
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Well if we are finding it this difficult to reach a definition, I wonder how a Libertarian village would tbh.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #46
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well if we are finding it this difficult to reach a definition, I wonder how a Libertarian village would tbh.

    That's kind of funny because you're assuming a centralized decision center - the libertarian village - whereas this thread is about the possibility of promoting animal welfare in a non-centralized way. Presumably someone would start promoting the abuses of the farmer and if enough people felt that the argument had merit they would join in the boycott. Hence it would seem that the running definition of cruelty would be somewhat flexible and that the success of the boycott would be ultimately dependent on a large amount of people agreeing with the current definition. The action would be in that sense democratic.

    The main problem in the argument is the boycott's initiation. Every time a farmer abused an animal, would a boycott start? And this is simple enough scenario where the farmer is relying on the goodwill of his neighbors. What of a freelance web designer secretly torturing his cat? But then, how would the current government regulations apply if the torture is in secret? I'm entering "what if?" territory here ... eeek!


  • #47
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    That's kind of funny because you're assuming a centralized decision center - the libertarian village - whereas this thread is about the possibility of promoting animal welfare in a non-centralized way. Presumably someone would start promoting the abuses of the farmer and if enough people felt that the argument had merit they would join in the boycott. Hence it would seem that the running definition of cruelty would be somewhat flexible and that the success of the boycott would be ultimately dependent on a large amount of people agreeing with the current definition. The action would be in that sense democratic.

    The main problem in the argument is the boycott's initiation. Every time a farmer abused an animal, would a boycott start? And this is simple enough scenario where the farmer is relying on the goodwill of his neighbors. What of a freelance web designer secretly torturing his cat? But then, how would the current government regulations apply if the torture is in secret? I'm entering "what if?" territory here ... eeek!

    I was thinking more of Valmonts post yesterday, the idea that the local community could somehow police it. It would be a tough balancing act in such an emotive area. Many would have problems with intensive chicken farm operations, yet it helps provide cheap food

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #48
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    I was thinking more of Valmonts post yesterday, the idea that the local community could somehow police it. It would be a tough balancing act in such an emotive area. Many would have problems with intensive chicken farm operations, yet it helps provide cheap food

    The best way for the local community to police this, or anything, is to get together, or elect representatives to form laws, and to pitch in to hire specialists to police these and other laws ( lets call these enforcers the Police) along with an independent judiciary, also funded, to judge the laws.


  • #49
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    The boycott idea, whilst reasonable, seems overly optimistic too; you can't boycott what you don't know about, and various industries have shown how good they are at brow-beating whistleblowers/scientists in a PR-war.

    Take the tobacco industry for example, and the decades long battle against cancer research and publicity surrounding that, and stuff like the climate change debate now.
    If an industry is big enough, they can wage a pretty effective PR war and can keep things pretty well hidden for a time; public opinion is very fickle and malleable.


  • #50
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If a business or set of business's around an essential good (e.g. food) refuse to do trade with someone, and that person has no alternative source, they have control over and can coerce that person, through the threat to withdraw business.
    How far are you willing to go to justify your incorrect definition of coercion? There is always an alternative source of food: a different shop, a different town, a vegetable patch, or the woods and a gun.


  • #51
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Valmont wrote: »
    How far are you willing to go to justify your incorrect definition of coercion? There is always an alternative source of food: a different shop, a different town, a vegetable patch, or the woods and a gun.
    There's nothing incorrect about my use of 'coerce'; if the person has no other practical alternative source, for whatever resources they need to survive, the business in control of that resource can coerce that person.

    Any society has a number of critical business's and infrastructure, for obtaining essential resources, where if they are free to collectively discriminate and block out a particular person, they can coerce that person (or sometimes even a wider populous).


    In fact, thinking on it more, any successful boycott of a person engaging in animal cruelty by business in a society, necessarily involves some level of coercion, in either forcing the person to stop treating animals cruelly, or forcing the person to leave the area.

    These are some reasons why discrimination laws are important, especially when they get applied to a wider group of people; one or two places barring a person is not an issue, but if the person ends up with no alternative for an essential resource, they are screwed.

    One important note mind, is that boycotting a business is acceptable, because business should not have the same rights as people.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement