I like to spend a lot of time trying to poke holes in the libertarian ideology. It's much more difficult than one would think. One of the most troublesome spots is on the animal rights front. I don't believe animals have rights, but yet I do think we have the responsability of being good stewards to our less-intelligent earth dwellers (this includes Wesley Clark).

In a libertarian society, with a strong focus on property rights, pets, for instance, would be merely property. As such, we, their owners, would have the ultimate say over what happens to them. There would be no disincentive - other than basic human morality - to prevent someone from abusing their animals. As long as it is your cat, there's nothing to stop you from grilling it on the barbie with some shrimp and eggplant.

Yet still, assigning "rights" to animals is a slippery slope. We libertarians generally believe in the Non-Agression Axiom as the basic foundation for rights. If we give those rights to animals, we can no longer eat them, milk them, or do anything to them against their will - and free will is something that animals do not possess.

So, how do we find an ethically consistent rule for protecting our furry friends that fits into the libertarian ethos? Is there one at all? Is animal abuse something that we would just have to put up with - aside from social scorn - in a libertarian society? Or is there some contractual way to deal with the issue?

Thoughts?

I don't see a real libertarian problem here, except the usual libertarian danger of becoming mired in philosophical hair-splitting, thus wasting our time and making us look like a bunch of Ivory Tower loonies to outsiders.

Giving animals the same limited legal rights they have now -- essentially the right to be protected from obvious neglect and abuse -- is a matter of common sense, just as it is with children, and is not a threat to anyone's liberties. We need not exclude the middle on this one: No rights at all for animals, and giving them even more rights then people as PETA would have it are not the only options, and I would submit that neither of those extremes is an attractive option at all.

So, it would seem then that there is no consistent principle we can base ourpolitical philosophy on, other than pragmatism and personal preference.

- Rick

Absolutely consistent in the sense of philosophical consistency? No, there isn't. We may all be able to agree on the politics but we'll never all agree on the philosophy. Some of us are Randian libertarians (I used to be one), and some of us are Christian libertarians (I am one now), and who knows what all the rest are? There are many reasons to be for liberty.

But being consistently in favor of maximizing liberty for the individual is possible and practical. I don't see a conflict between that and granting animals the limited right to be protected from cruelty and abuse. I think the root of our problem here is defining animals solely as property. I don't buy that. They have a very limited degree of sentience, like young children that will never grow up, and accordingly I would grant them the scraps from the table of the non-aggression axiom.

What concerns me about this approach is that there is nothing then to stop the government from growing. Without a consistent political philosophy, there are no truths to adhere to, no principle with which to bind our government. Once we give one thing a pass that we can't seem to fit into our ideology, then any and everything is neccessarily fair game. This is the problem the founders had, and why government has ballooned beyond their expectations.

- Rick

I don’t see an inconsistency here. Animals should not be afforded equivalent “rights” (primarily) because they are incapable of claiming such protections for themselves and cannot respect those protections for others. The mentally incompetent (and children, as Izdaari mentioned) are also not afforded equivalent rights. That doesn’t simultaneously eliminate their need of protection against cruelty, nor exempt the public from ethical conduct on their behalf.

Please elaborate as to why protections against unethical conduct and abuse should be reserved only for mentally able adults, for fear that such "inconsistency" would lead to government-gone-wild. I don't see the connection.

Thanks for responding.

Let me begin by asking that once we determine that animals do have rights, how do we determine what rights they have? The natural rights we hold as human beings reveal themselves to us quite easily. Children and the mentally disabled have these rights, as well. If animals do have rights, why do they not have the right to life? It seems that is the most basic of rights. Shouldn't we then all be vegetarians?

What I am saying is that the rights we afford animals are not based on any concrete axiom, but upon our feelings and personal preferences. Why is it okay to go to the pound for a pet, but not a meal? Because they are cute. Why do people eat cows, but rarely have them as pets? Because they are not cute.

Cuteness and icky feelings are no basis for law.

- Rick

I see what you’re saying. …I would agree that cuteness has no basis in law, but ‘icky feelings’ might. Isn’t it simply the ‘icky’ factor which prevents public urination, for instance?

I might agree with the legalization of prostitution, drug use, and even bestiality, but I don’t believe those should be public activities, or permissible under all and every condition. Heroine shooting junkies and prostitutes soliciting in children's school yards are certainly not prudent.

A fetus has (as it should have) increasingly compelling interest 'rights to life' as it gains complexity. Animals should ALSO have compelling interest rights as they gain complexity, and the capacity to suffer. Those would not be Constitutionally mandated rights, but localized laws, in accordance with societal convention (just like public urination and defecation).

Excellent point. That is currently the types of laws we have, but I would assert that in the purely libertarian society I presented in the original post, public urination and prostitution in schoolyards would not be banned because of icky feelings, either, but because the private school that owned that property would assert their property rights and have them taken away for tresspassing. And public urination would also be banned by the store owner that he peed in front of, or the block association that owned the street. So, these things would still be banned, but under a more axiomatic libertarian principle.

What then, of little Spot or Fluffy? Could there perhaps be contractual stipulations in the selling of an animal that limited what property rights - namely the right to abuse or dispose of the animal - the new owner retained? Perhaps non-profit organizations would spring up as watchdogs for this behavior, alerting the original owners so they could take the new owner to civil court and recieve damages for breach of contract. But then, what of strays?

- Rick

Animals do not "have" rights! The concept of "rights" is a human construct! A construct invented by Humans in order to avoid bloodshed between other thinking Humans that wish to minimize pain and maximize pleasure by mutual agreement! "Animals" are not capable of making such agreements with us and are therefore ineligible to these rights! When Dr. Dolittle puts a duck up on the stand and it testifies on behalf of the defense, we can continue this absurd line of questioning! I love animals- they taste good! If god (or whatever) did not want us to eat animals- he would not have made them out of MEAT!!!

So, then, do you think, in a libertarian society, it would be perfectly within the law for a pet owner to beat his dog to death with a sledgehammer, or throw his live kitty on the bbq grill? If not, what consistent libertarian principle would provide for their safety?

- Rick

As unpleasant as it would be to myself and many others, I do believe that the actions of the pet "owner" you described would be "perfectly within the law" in a "libertarian "society. Assuming of course that the animals in question do not "have rights" (as I have asserted) and that they are the property of the pet "owner". We humans do many different things to animals from one individual or culture to the next (and from one animal to another). Dogs for instance are cherished members of the family to some people, and nutrient rich BBQ to others. Some people put them to work, while others gamble on their fighting ability.

Some people ride horses while others eat them. Some people eat cows while others worship them. Some people feed ducks in a pond, while others launch wads of high velocity lead pellets at them that tear through their flesh, sending them into the waiting jaws of the good ol' family Retriever who delivers them up for a delicious Sunday dinner. Snakes are feared by many, eaten by others, and held prisoner by some who regularly mash their little snake mouths onto test tubes in order to extract anti-venin for the benefit of humans. I could go on and on but I think you can see where I'm going.

Which animals are "entitled" to what level of "safety"? Should it be some kind of arbitrary multi-tiered caste system? Who exactly makes the list? How can we arrive at any kind of consensus (as if that would even be moral or just) in a nation of 300 million, or a world of 6 billion? Until animals can assert some kind of "rights" as we humans do, I can't think of a "consistent libertarian principle" that would "provide for their safety" other than the discretion of the "owner" and other peoples "right" to try to persuade him (without force or coercion) on any given course of action.

So, what you are saying is that it is an unpleasant side, because the standard is so subjective. All we can really do is hope to winb people over to our "protect your animals" subjective value.

- Rick

Well, yes and no. I am saying what I said! While I may have used the"subjective" argument in order to illustrate the absurdity of the current "animal rights" debate, my main point is that in a "libertarian" society, unless and until animals can assert their "rights", their fate rests completely in the hands of their "owners". My personal "feelings"(and your's or anyone else's) on any given situation in this matter are if not irrelevant, then completely secondary! We can do a whole lot more than just "hope to win people over to 'our' 'protect your animals' subjective value". We can RESPECT their choices and rights as free human beings to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't Violate the rights(life, liberty, property) of a fellow HUMAN being! Or is my understanding of libertarianism wrong?

[quote=Argonaut,Jan 29 2004, 10:03 AM] [QUOTE=Argonaut,Jan 27 2004, 10:52 AM]
Well, yes and no. I am saying what I said! While I may have used the"subjective" argument in order to illustrate the absurdity of the current "animal rights" debate, my main point is that in a "libertarian" society, unless and until animals can assert their "rights", their fate rests completely in the hands of their "owners". My personal "feelings"(and your's or anyone else's) on any given situation in this matter are if not irrelevant, then completely secondary! We can do a whole lot more than just "hope to win people over to 'our' 'protect your animals' subjective value". We can RESPECT their choices and rights as free human beings to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't Violate the rights(life, liberty, property) of a fellow HUMAN being! Or is my understanding of libertarianism wrong? [/quote]
So, then, to you, animal abuse is not something we should concern ourselves with? You were right about libertarianism, but the philosophy also relies heavily on social pressure to regulate behavior. Does this instance not apply?

- Rick

Collective social disgust can be pretty heavy-handed. In a truly Libertarian society that would probably be the only recourse for action against the owner and abuse protection for his 'property'. I don't have to respect the 'choice' or 'right' of that person to do what they want. I might shun that person, and ask the neighbors to do the same. I could even steal his animals and take my risk of going to court as a matter of principle.

Edited to add: WHen my husband was ten years old, his neighbor (another ten year old) killed a duck in front of him for the fun of it. He was so utterly disgusted that he punched the boy in the face...hard enough that the boy was knocked unconscious and lying on the sidewalk. That boy never choked a duck in front of anyone again...and my husband did not get into trouble because the parents (or equivalent court system in a Libertarian government) were more disgusted with the other boy for killing a duck out of simply enjoyment.

Penalties could be extremely lenient for those who interfere with property 'rights' under extenuating conditions, such as animal cruelty.

Hey look up ahead everybody...The Slippery Slope!!! It sure is reassuring to know that some "libertarians" don't feel the need to respect other peoples property rights! Perhaps they could re-read my previous post regarding the subjective nature of "animal cruelty" and then tell me what kind of "lenient penalties" should be applied when a group of extremely "socially disgusted" PETA fanatics storm into my house during Sunday dinner and "punch" my family and I "in the face" for eating duck? What kind of "lenient penalties" should be handed down after upon seeing my leather belt, they choke me with it? And oh my, what kind of "lenient penalties" should ensue when they see my wife's fur coat in the closet and then pull out her hair? And Exactly what kind of "lenient penalties" can we expect to see when they spot my son's aquarium (a de facto FISH PRISON) and "steal his animals".

One man's custom is another man's cruelty. Apparently some "libertarians" believe that "collective social disgust" (is that a Marxist phrase?) and majority (mob) rule trump an individuals right to property? And down the slippery slope we go...

There is an inherent sense of justice in humanity which compels most decent human beings to protect the innocent. I have lived in societies which practiced extremes of public animal cruelty. They were societies in decline.

Mrs. pigpen, I believe the original question had something to do with finding a "libertarian" principle that would allow for the protection of animals(other than the discretion of their owners)? Apparently you cannot find one! Neither can I or anyone else so far! I did however enjoy your vague reference to "...an inherent sense of justice which compels..." and the emotionally appealing "...most DECENT human beings to protect the INNOCENT." From what you have said, the prevention of hypocracy would demand that you are a VEGAN! Are you?

Actually, I have...you simply disagee. Collective social disgust. IOW...The public will become so disgusted by demonstrations of animal cruelty, it will be loath to penalize those who act in the animals' defense.

Why on earth should I be a vegan? Now, THAT is a strawman. One can simultaneously eat meat and reject unwarranted, excessive cruelty. Animals should be decently cared for, even though they eventually make it to the slaughter house.

I'm glad you enjoyed my reference, BTW. This is one area in which SOME Libertarians fail. Just as the basic fatal flaw in Marxism is the failure to acknowledge that humans have greed and the personal need to succeed competitively, Libertarians must acknowledge that humans also have the basic need for compassion. To expect everyone to watch egregious animal abuse and do nothing but shrug and say,"That's his property, I will respect his wish to throw that cat on the fire in front of me" is a flawed premise.

How about common sense? It's sad that so many people reject the notion that some laws CAN be based on it. Are you saying that common sense somehow contradicts libertarian principles?

There is No such thing as "common sense"! Common to whom? Whose sense? Some people say "it's just common sense" that marijuana is evil, or that porn leads to rape, or that we must pay taxes to care for other peoples children. Can you please direct me to the "common sense" bible so I can become enlightened? "Common sense" is not a principle. It is a subjective notion.

"Collective Social Disgust" is not a principle, it is a subjective emotional condition! Regarding my "strawman", I must assume that you did not re-read my "subjective" argument in a previous post. I must also then assume that in YOUR "libertarian" society, all it would take is some critical mass of "Collective Social Disgust" by people who believe that the imprisonment, murder, slaughter, and eating of animals is "CRUEL" (as millions of people do), and you would put down your fork and receive their punches gladly in the knowledge that at least they are following "libertarian principles". Regarding my "flawed premise", I don't expect anyone to do anything in this case other than keep their hands off of other peoples property. People can "feel" whatever they want to. You seem to advocate "pure democracy" (mob rule) rather than "libertarianism".

In my Libertarian society, people would be free to collectively refuse to eat meat. They would be free to boycott any product collectively that they desired, and assert their authority that way. The rest of your post is a demonstration of the excluded middle fallacy. People are able to discern the difference between stepping on an ant, slaughtering a pig for a meal, and boiling their cat alive amazingly well...even in a non-libertarian society in which actual legislation is based largely on "feelings".

I am really beginning to understand what Izdaari was speaking of in her first post on this thread by the danger of "becoming mired in philosophical hair-splitting, thus wasting our time and making us look like a bunch of Ivory Tower loonies to outsiders. "

Well now you seem to have stepped back a little to "boycotting" which of course would be an acceptable course of action in a "libertarian" society. But that's not what you said in the post I was responding to in which you advocated the options of property theft and physical assault, with "lenient penalties" for same. I hardly think that it is "Ivory Tower" lunacy to contend (as I do) that there is a big difference between non-violent "boycotting" on the one hand, and "stealing" and "punching" on the other.

You also ignored my other point about the "subjective" nature of "animal cruelty". Millions of people currently believe that the very act of eating animals (and the steps necessary to put them on your plate) is in fact "animal cruelty". If at some point in the future the number of people who believe that reaches some critical mass (a majority let's say), is it your contention that the criminalization of animal consumption would be not only moral and just, but demanded by principle in a "libertarian" society? Please forgive me if this is an "irrational" question!

Indeed, Hugo. From here on I'm not going to call myself a libertarian, though I remain an LP member and will continue to list myself as a Libertarian on the party line in the sidebar.

So what then? What term for someone who used to think of herself as a libertarian and still believes in maximizing liberty but refuses to renounce common sense or to be a Randroid?

"Classical liberal" is close but not quite. "Old Whig" as F.A. Hayek prefers (see his classic essay Why I Am Not a Conservative is precise but much too obscure; only a few historians and political scientists are likely to know what we mean by it. I guess for lack of anything better I'm left with "Strict Construction Constitutionalist", which at least has the merit of being clear and sufficiently flexible to cover my empirical brand of devotion to the cause of individual liberty.

Oh, and you want to know on what principle I base such things as animal cruelty laws? Lockean Natural Law.

Here is an example. Ned has a dog chained to a three inch leash out in front of his property. Every time the school kids come by, he kicks it for entertainment. One day, the dog is gone. Someone stole the dog because they couldn't stand to think of the dog enduring continued beatings. The person who released the dog is found, and owns up to responsibility. What will the jury of his peers do to punish him in this instance? Are extenuating circumstances immaterial in your (theoretical) Libertarian society?

Another example. Glenda wishes to starve her horse to death. Someone cannot stand watching the poor animal suffer and gives it food. She sues the person for interfering with her rights to starve her property. What will the judge or jury do to the 'culprit' in this instance?

I didn't ignore it. It is an excluded middle fallacy. Different cultures maintain different ideas about animal cruelty. Animals in such cultures might be treated more favorably or abused. The same is true of our culture. We don't eat dog here....not because it isn't tasty, but because 'collective social disgust' makes it so.

It has always been my understanding that "libertarianism" is a political philosophy based on a small set of fundamental principles that govern how humans can and cannot deal with eachother in light of each humans"right" to life, liberty, and property and that these "rights" end at exactly that point in which they violate the "rights" of another human. It has also been my understanding that these "rights" based on the "principles" that form the philosophy of "libertarianism" apply universally to all of humanity (each and every individual human).

Mrs. pigpen seems to have another understanding of "libertarianism" whereby these "rights" (to property for instance) are not universal to all humans but are flexible if not disposable from one "culture" to the next depending on "collective social disgust". I on the other hand was not aware of this smorgasboard-like, take- it-or-leave-it approach to the rights and principles of a "libertarian society".

But then, her description of my arguments as "exclude-the-middle fallacies" only apply in her "libertarian society" where a persons rights can be nullified by emotional "disgust". It seems to me that many millions of people throught history have had their lives, liberties, and property taken away in the name of some other peoples emotional "disgust". I guess I'll have to keep on searching for that "right" to not be "disgusted" by other peoples otherwise lawful actions.

Agreed, minus the vitriol.

- Rick

Argonaut and Rick,

I agree with your understanding of what libertarianism means, but that's not what I believe in. My decision to stop applying the term to myself is not just an exercise in rhetorical pique, but a recognition that our core philosophies differ. We share an interest in maximizing individual liberty but from a different base. I'm not really a libertarian at all, just an Old Whig (see the Hayek essay I linked to in my previous post) who happens to have been an LP member since 1972, and you helped me realize I've been flying false colors. That's not something I'd willingly do, and so I strike them. I'm still happy to have you both as allies.

Strangely, I've found an article for Libertarians which agrees with me here. It seems libertarians don't have much concurrence on this issue, or much grasp on reality beyond the mantra. Think I'll be an independent from now on. Thankyou all, this has certainly been educational.

I think a community council filled with prominent members or the elders of a community should decide what to do. I don't think that these councils would have to be backed by the gov't or given any legal power. They could shun a person for beating his dog to death and try to organize a neighborhood "boycott" or protest against that person. That would be the ideal solution. That or no one be cruel to animals for no reason.

Just for the record (lest people think me a monster) let me say that I have "owned", loved, and cared for pet animals all my life. From dogs and cats to fish and reptiles, they have been a great source of joy, education, companionship, and relaxation.

And as I've said here before, in my "libertarian" society boycotting and shunning people that I consider to be "animal abusers" would be perfectly acceptable methods of discouraging what I consider to be mistreatment. I could organize, lead, or participate in such shunnings and boycotts. In a my "libertarian" society, private businesses in the community would be free to refuse to serve these "animal abusers". Imagine the result if the bank and the supermarket and and the gas station and the hospital (fill in the blanks) could turn away these "abusers"! Landlords could toss out "abusive" tennants! Schools (all private) could refuse to enroll the children of "abusers"! Garbage pick-up could be cancelled! The potential pressure (non-violent and consistent with individual rights) could be quite successful (if they either change their ways or move away to face another community). If unsuccesful, that would indicate a lack of community consensus as to the offensiveness of the "abuse". But those truly offended could continue with their efforts!

At the heart of the original question however, is whether or not "animals" have "rights", and if so which "animals" and which "rights". Can they be "owned?" What does it mean to ""own" a thing? Until those questions are answered persuasively and consistently, I do not think that being "offended" can trump the individuals right to "property." "One woman's pet is another woman's jacket!" Then there's the variant of Ted Nugent's famous quote-"Must we kill it before we grill it?" The debate continues...

Looks like the Randians have driven off another Libertarian. This whole argument belies that there are many different libertarian philosophies and even a wider range of philosophies within the Libertarian Party. There are exceptions to almost all guidelines and principles. I do not have to believe that the non-coercion principle can never be violated, or that the rights of property can never be infringed upon, to be a libertarian or Libertarian.

Hard to see how one person's opinion ("Randian" or not) could "drive off" another libertarian if, as you say, "there are many different libertarian philosophies..." And here I thought I was merely expressing my libertarian philosophy on the questions asked in this thread? I had no idea that the thoughts of this one man could be so influential! If I had known that this forum was really supposed to be a "Big Tent Libertarian Recruitment Vehicle" I might have withheld my opinions for "The Good Of The Movement!"

You are free to give your opinion, my point stands that many (most?) libertarians accept limited government, that can somewhat infringe on property rights. Unfortunately, when you try to apply a consistent principle to everything you end up defending some pretty absurd positions. There is no purely libertarian solution to regulating pollution.

Sure there is. All we have to do is enforce property rights. If someone damages your property by dumping or even inundating you with a bad smell, you can then either sue for damages or go to an arbitrator to work on a way for them to compensate you.

Pollution, by and large, is a problem of poverty. The poorest nations of the world are also the ones with the worst pollution problems. Since resources are always scarce, entrepreneurs are always looking for more efficient ways to use them, which leads to cleaner technologies and a better environment.

The real key to helping the environment is to encourage the developing world to accept free markets and individual liberty.

- Rick

If someone drives by my house in his car that expels pollutants, can I sue him too? At what level of pollutants will the courts decide that someone has the right to sue? If the courts recognize certain guidelines how is that different than if the legislature does? There is no cost effective way to limit auto exhaust pollution without regulations. The only reasonable solution is to infringe on private property rights and limit this type of pollution.

Well, that's the conclusion Prof. John Hospers came to in his book, Libertarianism. You might remember him, he was the 1972 LP nominee and Chairman of the Philosophy Dept at USC.

If there is another solution to automotive emissions than regulating it as we do now, I'd sure like to hear it.

I'll agree the purely free market approach can do wonders in the environmental area and needs to be tried more, but it doesn't work in all cases.

Gee, thanks for acknowledging that I am "free" to give my opinion! But I thought your point was that "Randians have driven off another libertarian." I see that you did not back up that statement. And if, as you say "there are many different libertarian philosophies", then why can't some of them be "consistently principled" without being "absurd"? Is that a fact, or just your opinion? Or are you trying to "drive off the 'Randian' libertarians"?


Anyway, be careful you guys! The "pollution" tangent may bring down the moderators on an "off topic round-up"!

On the issue of animal rights, I'm going to have to agree with one of the previous posts that the treatment of animals, in a purely libertarian sense, should not be regulated by government. However, I think the power of social stigma has been largely ignored thus far in the conversation. If the vast majority of society perceived animal cruetly to be wrong, I feel certain that organizations and groups would be formed for the sole purpose of identifying and thereby stigmatizing those individuals that mistreat animals. In much the same manner as a present day convicted felon, those who abuse or mistreat animals may find it difficult to find gainful employment or have meaningful relationships with others in their community.

As for the topic of pollution regulation in a purely libertarian society, it's certainly a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I believe that it too can be largely regulated without the intervention of the government. In cases where bargaining costs are not prohibitively high (i.e. where there is, say, one polluting company and one affected company), the matter could be settled most efficiently by allowing the parties to bargain for the "right to pollute". That party which values the right the most should end up with it. In conjunction with the allowing the parties to bargain, the cost to the factory of polluting should also be reflected in the value of the land they own. If and when they decide to resell the land and/or factory, the cost of their polluting would be internalized through loss in value.

The one place where government has a role, out of absolute necessity, is in cases where bargaining costs ARE prohibitively high. Such is the case when cars pollute as they pass by your residence or place of work. There is simply no way for all of the possibly affected parties to bargain with all of the potential polluters, and thus the government must step in. But, I think the dividing line here is that government's role should be limited to where it is absolutely necessary. These are cases where individuals cannot, by any means available, come to a reasonable and equitable solution. In all other instances, my sentiment is that the power of the free market will always be more efficient than the government, since the government so frequently confronts issues from a "vote winning" stance, rather than an efficiency stance.

Welcome to the forum SmokingPope. You might want to go back and re-read all the posts in this thread. The option of "social stigma" has been discussed several times in this conversation and in my post on Feb. 16 I specifically laid out several examples of the power of "stigma" in a "libertarian" society.

I won't respond here to the pollution issue because it is not the topic for debate in this thread. However, it is an important issue and I encourage you to start a "New Topic" with a new question for debate.

Again, welcome to Americas Debate.

This is something one of my Objectivist friends wrote. what do you all think about it?

"Human life is certainly precious, but that does not make other life wholly worthless. In fact, an objective mind would surely have its happiness and success as its highest moral dream, wouldn't it? And to what end is violence? Counterproductive. Only useful in self-defense - now think about that. It is wrong to hurt without provocation, and this would seem to follow that it is wrong not only because it violates human rights, but because it violates a psychological quadrant of our minds. It is not in our best interest to hurt more than we have to because when we hurt we are at risk to be hurt. Just as Rand's view on homosexuality, it is wrong because of a psychological error. Beating an animal or a mentally retarded man is a blatant evasion of a psychological premise: survival and moral happiness. Kicking a dog in the ribs grants you neither and merely shows a ferocity and unnecessary viciousness that is not meant to make man progress as the noble being that he is. Negative energy is only to be focused if it will make your situation more positive."
Thoughts? This kid is the bastard child of Ayn Rand btw.

Ummmmm? Interesting opinion. You may want to re-read and then address the original post and questions by RSDAVIS though. How would you protect animals (legally and consistently) in a "libertarian "society (besides encouraging others to do so voluntarily through persuasion and/or stigmatization)? Coercion by government (under color of law) or by fellow citizens (vigilantism) would seem to be the only other alternatives. Do you support that? Do animals have "rights"?

I thought it would be apparent by the tone of the paragraph. but fine, i'll break it down.

I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable to have animal protection laws. It's wrong to hurt without provacation, regardless.

If a mentally handicapped man had less brain capacity than a chimpanzee, does that mean he's an animal and it is ok to beat him, even though he has a lesser ability to act like a human than the chimp has?

The real question IMO is this; what makes dunking a living lobster in a vat of boiling water any better or worse than a living puppy?

I could bet money that no one here has gone their entire life without squishing a bug or swatting a fly or shooing a racoon out of their garbage. The premise is moral happiness. lobsters provide us sustinence, that is their place in society. A dog's place in society is to provide companionship. Dogs and cats are providers of moral happiness, therefor we would protect them.

thats why as a libertarian i am against pitbull fighting. Those animals are so abused that trainers need to employ "rape boxes" to hold the female in place while the male mounts her, because she is so brutally inclined towards violence (by years of abuse from her master) that she must be subdued simply for a simple act like mating.

I try to be libertarian in most cases, so here is my snapshot of my philosophy:

Right to property, emanate domain only with only market compensation and the land taken can only be used for public purposes.

Liberty to a person's life, except for punishment of crime (includes unborn).

Simple and fair taxes; consumption tax (tax code must be understandable to the common man); repeal of the Sixteenth amendment and the outlawing of income tax.

Free market, government worries only about fraud and tax evasion when dealing with the market.

Down sized federal government; strengthening the tenth amendment; repeal the seventeenth amendment (has to do with putting the check against the fed government, and strengthening the tenth amendment).

That basically sums it up.