Megan McArdle (August 22, 2007) - Animals rights
I’d say that there are different classes of rights-holders; babies are persons, but they can’t vote, and they do have the right to be supported by the state. (Of course, some libertarians would disagree with that latter, but I’m pretty firm that they do.) So it seems plausible to me that animals could have limited rights–a right not to suffer for our pleasure, say–even though none of them will ever master the lute.
Should animals have that right? Obviously, both Julian (who is a vegetarian) and I, who will only eat animals that are not industrially farmed, have both decided that the suffering of animals matters, morally. But should it matter, legally? Creating new rights is a big deal.
Okay, I’ll bite the bullet. As a first principle, you shouldn’t be able to burn a sheep alive because it’s fun1.
Mmm, I’ll have to think about this one. Instinctively (this is, irrationally) I am against needless cruelty to animals. And if, say, you tried to burn my dog to death because you thought that was fun, I’d blow your head off and piss on your corpse. Of course, I’d justify that on the basis of you initiating force against me to deprive me of my property. But what if the dog is your property? On a gut feeling basis, I’d still be inclined to blow your head off, but I’m not sure I could come up with a rational and/or moral justification for doing so.
As I say, I’ll think about it.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
AS I expected, I can’t find anything in Objectivist thinking that would permit a state to legally punish anything done to an animal for any reason, because animals have no rights, at least not as Objectivists understand rights. (And for that matter, neither do fetuses….)
There is some handwaving about Objectivists disapproving of cruelty to animals, because such cruelty mimics, to some extent, the prohibition against such actions initiated against humans, who do have rights.
So for the time being, I’ll simply reiterate that it would be best (for them) that nobody maltreat or destroy my own animals against my wishes, because I’d regard that as an initiation of force intended to deprive me of my property, and then I’d have to blow their head off and piss on their corpse.
As for the Vick case, I’m going to pull a Randian gun-control-style shuffle here, and concede that while I can find no Objectivist reason why he should be legally punished for his brutal and thuggish cruelty to animals, I will certainly enjoy personally this instance of state misuse of power.
Bill,
First on Vick - the front morning of the local paper (yes, we still get it. It is local, mostly and has none news items that we consider important), they mentioned that if they cannot adopt out the 50 or so pit bulls found on his property, they will have to kill them. Obviously, despite all the sordid details about the harm to the dogs, it is not that which motivated them. Of course, as libertarians, we knew that.
As for cruelty to animals in libertarian philosophy - they are property. Torturing an animal that is yours, like deliberately wrecking your house or your car, is considered stupid, but is allowed. (As a matter of fact I grew up down the street from a family whose house was a pit - in a nice middle class residential neighborhood. Pure White Trash, they were).
Some would argue that even in a libertarian world you could have some say (their eyesore damages your property values), but as there would not be such a strong government, it would be harder to prove and collect damages.
Anyway, anyone can treat their property as they want, but not yours.
However, I expect that someone who routinely tortures animals would have other traits that would get them in trouble in such a setup. People like that already did in our world even before the nannies got involved.
It is a minor or non-issue.
First, lets end the war on some drugs, and income tax, then worry about animal cruelty.
Some areas don’t even bother to try to find homes for “pit bulls”. Go straight from the pick up van to the slaughter. And they will charge the owners with cruelty for not having clean water out.
This is a perfect example of the problems of a purely Libertarian society. You should instead work for a purely anarchic society. There, if you didn’t like the way your neighbor mistreated his animals, you could blow his head off just for the hell of it. There might be practical considerations, but no moral or legal issues.
“Professor De LaPaz” is that a “rational anarchist” society or pure anarchy that you are championing, I still do not have a feel for your mind set yet.
To take a page from the Prof, whichever you prefer. Make whatever rules you like; I’ll obey what I must and ignore what I can.
Or I could be pulling your leg. My preference is for anachy, but I don’t think it would work in practice. Thus, as I mentioned recently in another thread, I favor strict construction of the Constitution as a reasonable compromise between anarchists and mommy-take-care-of-me-ists and i-don’t-like-what-you’re-doing-ists.
Or, since that seems not to be working out, I favor killing everyone who pisses me off. That ought to reduce the population to the point that an anarchy could work.
Exactly what I was looking for. Final comment seems to be the only solution that makes sense. But being into my fourth rum and coke with the major operative item being rum I may be thinking to lucidly.
Or…NEO!
(Warning: Acronym birth in progress….)
Good point. Plenty of non-ejaculatory orgasms would keep people happy enough that they’d stay out of my hair, while gradually reducing the population.
Well, go ahead and institute the animal rights, just so long as the animals that aggress against humans or other animals are subject to arrest, imprisonment and the death penalty for their sundry crimes.
Excuse me, I have a hamburger…
That would be a return to European medieval justice. If a donkey cart overturned, killing the driver, and no reason could be found for spooking the donkey, it would be charged, tried, convicted and executed for murder. They did that well into the 1700’s. The modern version would have Fido on trial for running into the street, causing a motorist to swerve and run over a homeless person at the curb, peeing into the gutter (San Francisco version). Do we really want that?
We already have that. It’s the legal fiction that they use to justify stealing property suspected of involvement with drugs. No proof necessary as the property is charged not the owner.
On the other hand a full return to that would have Vick’s dogs being charged with fighting and accessory to the crimes Vick is copping a plea to.
Why do I have this picture in my mind of SteveF on a date with Ben Stiller?
Enjoying a weekend psychotic break?
Why do I get all the tough questions?
Clayton, it’s probably a sign of my isolation from mainstream culture, but I have no idea what you’re saying. I think a word is missing, too, but even with every insertion that makes sense I can’t figure out the question.
(Yes, I already knew Ben Stiller is an actor. Just about my age. Looks nothing like me.)
(Moments later) OK, the suggestion is on the floor that you talking about There’s Something About Mary. I probably need to see it, or else lock my 13-y-o in a cage until he’s 18.
Your 13-y-o is correct, I already cleaned up the missing word, and I don’t know that “insertion” is the right choice of word, here.