Libertarian property rights and animal cruelty

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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"?

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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?

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..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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?!

KyussBishop

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

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.

K-9

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's nothing incorrect about my use of 'coerce'

It's so incorrect that to justify it you have had to construct a farcical world where only one Tesco exists -- wielding its coercive powers indiscriminately, starving people to death.

KyussBishop

Well if you dismiss the whole idea of coercion as farcical, you've also blown your idea of an effective boycott against animal cruelty out of the water, as presumably you'd consider that farcical too, since that inherently relies on coercion.

Just because I take things to extremes doesn't mean there's any fault in that, it's a pretty effective way of showing problems in these base principals; it's these edge cases which identify the faults in the ideals, which can be wedged open and exploited by people with the motive and power to do so.

That's basically the entire approach I take to any political or economic philosophy; look for holes and potential problems, the edge cases, and try to wedge them open and exploit them.

Simple critical thinking for the most part.

KyussBishop

So, seeing as an acceptable albeit limited definition of animal-cruelty and torture has been given, and presumably Libertarian posters still deem property rights to be absolute (please do correct me if I'm wrong), the question now is whether or not a society where animal cruelty is acceptable is really better than what we have now? (and what makes it worth switching to that society, instead of trying to fix what we have now?)

There are a lot of extreme, uncompromising viewpoints when it comes to Libertarian views, and property rights is one of them; I don't think animal cruelty is even the first of the wide range of issues that would cause, just one of the more glaringly bad ones.

20Cent

KyussBishop wrote: »

So, seeing as an acceptable albeit limited definition of animal-cruelty and torture has been given, and presumably Libertarian posters still deem property rights to be absolute (please do correct me if I'm wrong), the question now is whether or not a society where animal cruelty is acceptable is really better than what we have now? (and what makes it worth switching to that society, instead of trying to fix what we have now?)

There are a lot of extreme, uncompromising viewpoints when it comes to Libertarian views, and property rights is one of them; I don't think animal cruelty is even the first of the wide range of issues that would cause, just one of the more glaringly bad ones.

Interesting points, when perusing an issue such as the one in this thread it does show how dogmatic these beliefs can be. The libertarian cannot countenance any solution that could be seen as interfering with property rights thus vastly reducing the ability of a society to prevent things such as animal cruelty.