Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Cockfighting  (Read 11688 times)

Moving_on_up

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2009, 07:25:23 pm »

Animals are not property, they are pets.  Cockfighting should be legal in a free society.  I don't like cockfighting, but, like prostitution, it has existed since the beginning.  This is the cost of freedom.  Hopefully we can change people's heart and turn them away, but if this is to be a free state, then I can't consider animals as property.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2009, 07:30:36 pm »

Animals are not property, they are pets.  Cockfighting should be legal in a free society.  I don't like cockfighting, but, like prostitution, it has existed since the beginning.  This is the cost of freedom.  Hopefully we can change people's heart and turn them away, but if this is to be a free state, then I can't consider animals as property.

You can consider animals whatever you want, as long as you don’t force others to agree.
Logged

Moving_on_up

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2009, 09:41:56 pm »

Animals are property actually.  Therefore, you can do with them as you please.  I'm just stating an opinion.  I would never force a belief on anyone, but definitions and such have to be hammered out.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2009, 10:27:03 pm »

Animals are property actually.  Therefore, you can do with them as you please.  I'm just stating an opinion.  I would never force a belief on anyone, but definitions and such have to be hammered out.

By definition, there are people, property ("stuff" that has been claimed as owned), and potential property ("stuff" that is unclaimed).

Animals are not people.  Ergo they are either property, or potential property.

Your pet is your property, and you would have cause for action if someone else damaged that property.  Someone else's animals are his property, to do with as he sees fit.

Of course, if he wants to engage in cockfighting, he better not expect to be considered among my friends.  He might have a right to do so, I find such behavior distasteful, and would not knowingly associate with those who engage in it.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2009, 10:38:39 pm »

Animals are property actually.  Therefore, you can do with them as you please.  I'm just stating an opinion.  I would never force a belief on anyone, but definitions and such have to be hammered out.

By definition, there are people, property ("stuff" that has been claimed as owned), and potential property ("stuff" that is unclaimed).

Of course, in the broadest sense, people doesn’t just mean human beings but any sapient creature, which may very well someday be proven to include some animals (e.g., dolphins and some of the great apes).
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2009, 10:53:43 pm »

Of course, in the broadest sense, people doesn’t just mean human beings but any sapient creature, which may very well someday be proven to include some animals (e.g., dolphins and some of the great apes).

I find it unlikely that dolphins or apes may be sapient.  Of course, with some genetic help, a new species that does possess sapience might be created.

Whether anyone would invest in creating something which is inherently un-ownable is a different question...

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2009, 11:38:46 pm »

Quote from: J'raxis
Of course, in the broadest sense, people doesn’t just mean human beings but any sapient creature, which may very well someday be proven to include some animals (e.g., dolphins and some of the great apes).

Animals aren't inherently property. They become property when you successfully assert your claim of ownership over their natural state of freedom. Succeeding is a key ingredient. Just try walking up to a grizzly and telling him that he is your property ;) Sapience is a non-issue.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 12:04:17 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2009, 12:22:43 am »

Quote from: J'raxis
Of course, in the broadest sense, people doesn’t just mean human beings but any sapient creature, which may very well someday be proven to include some animals (e.g., dolphins and some of the great apes).

Animals aren't inherently property. They become property when you successfully assert your claim of ownership over their natural state of freedom. Succeeding is a key ingredient. Just try walking up to a grizzly and telling him that he is your property ;) Sapience is a non-issue.

That’s why “potential” property was included in the list. And a grizzly can certainly be made property in fact with a sufficiently powerful firearm. >:D

But this does bring up an important point, in that a property claim actually has to be more than simply a naked “claim.” If you don’t or can’t actually stake out your claim in a reasonable manner (e.g., fencing off or posting a plot of land), it’s not going to be taken seriously. In fact, right now someone on the Free Keene forum is going down the hackneyed “What if you said you owned all of the land in the world?” route in a debate similar to this one
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2009, 12:37:59 am »

That’s why “potential” property was included in the list. And a grizzly can certainly be made property in fact with a sufficiently powerful firearm. >:D

And a human being could not? >:D
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2009, 12:50:21 am »

That’s why “potential” property was included in the list. And a grizzly can certainly be made property in fact with a sufficiently powerful firearm. >:D

And a human being could not? >:D

You’re ignoring the part about how people cannot be (morally) owned, now…
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2009, 02:08:08 am »

That’s why “potential” property was included in the list. And a grizzly can certainly be made property in fact with a sufficiently powerful firearm. >:D

And a human being could not? >:D

You’re ignoring the part about how people cannot be (morally) owned, now…

You're ignoring a great deal of recorded human history ;) Our human-ness does not make us special. Moral is a relative term, and I cannot tell you what it meant all throughout history. I can tell you in some instances, slavery was tolerated by some slaves, even entered into voluntarily. Even today, if you buy that your wages are a product of your person, we still accept slavery in some, albeit diminished, capacity.

I would tentatively assert, that "ownership", can be described as an incident to the exertion and threat of force. Namely, to exclude others from something, or to exercise control and dominion over something else. You can do this to a person. Same as you can do to any physical thing--if you are capable of doing it and maintaining that control. Our bodies do not become immune to physical laws (that others might use against us) merely because they can be controlled to some degree by our intelligent minds. I think it's important to recognize the reality that a person can attempt to own your person regardless of whether you (or anyone) thinks it is right or wrong--that's certainly not a newsflash to many former slaves. Never forget there are people out there who will seek to abuse you, to enslave you. Otherwise, you may be left with what you think is not moral--but you're still hopelessly yoked. Might does not make right, but it makes what will be.

If you accept the rough definition of what it means to own something, it is not a moral question at all. It's only a description of a state of the world. Beyond that, the moral question--the normative inquiry--is whether it is right or proper to own a person: should people own people? Most of us believe that it is not. And I am among them. We have different reasons for arriving at that conclusion. So long as we both agree on what is moral--how we will act towards each other--the different methods we use to arrive at our belief is not so important.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2009, 04:30:21 am »

That’s why “potential” property was included in the list. And a grizzly can certainly be made property in fact with a sufficiently powerful firearm. >:D

And a human being could not? >:D

You’re ignoring the part about how people cannot be (morally) owned, now…

You're ignoring a great deal of recorded human history ;) Our human-ness does not make us special. Moral is a relative term, and I cannot tell you what it meant all throughout history. I can tell you in some instances, slavery was tolerated by some slaves, even entered into voluntarily. Even today, if you buy that your wages are a product of your person, we still accept slavery in some, albeit diminished, capacity.

I would tentatively assert, that "ownership", can be described as an incident to the exertion and threat of force. Namely, to exclude others from something, or to exercise control and dominion over something else. You can do this to a person. Same as you can do to any physical thing--if you are capable of doing it and maintaining that control. Our bodies do not become immune to physical laws (that others might use against us) merely because they can be controlled to some degree by our intelligent minds. I think it's important to recognize the reality that a person can attempt to own your person regardless of whether you (or anyone) thinks it is right or wrong--that's certainly not a newsflash to many former slaves. Never forget there are people out there who will seek to abuse you, to enslave you. Otherwise, you may be left with what you think is not moral--but you're still hopelessly yoked. Might does not make right, but it makes what will be.

If you accept the rough definition of what it means to own something, it is not a moral question at all. It's only a description of a state of the world. Beyond that, the moral question--the normative inquiry--is whether it is right or proper to own a person: should people own people? Most of us believe that it is not. And I am among them. We have different reasons for arriving at that conclusion. So long as we both agree on what is moral--how we will act towards each other--the different methods we use to arrive at our belief is not so important.

When I say morally I am always referring specifically to libertarian morality, i.e., the Non-Aggression Principle.

Your definition of ownership is certainly an accurate description of the physical act of controlling or possessing something, but not ownership. Ownership means someone has a legal right to control or possession, or since we’re talking about philosophy here and not law, a moral right to control or possession.

As far as making sure that all acts of possession are in fact legitimate ownership, and not slavery, theft, or similar—that’s what the firearms are for. :)
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2009, 09:57:18 am »

Your definition of ownership is certainly an accurate description of the physical act of controlling or possessing something, but not ownership. Ownership means someone has a legal right to control or possession, or since we’re talking about philosophy here and not law, a moral right to control or possession.

Exactly.  Slaves are certainly possessed by their masters, but are never actually owned.  Assertions to the contrary by the masters are no different than the assertions of any thief regarding loot that he has stolen.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2009, 02:08:02 pm »

Your definition of ownership is certainly an accurate description of the physical act of controlling or possessing something, but not ownership. Ownership means someone has a legal right to control or possession, or since we’re talking about philosophy here and not law, a moral right to control or possession.

Well, that's just offering a different definition, which I wouldn't accept. For a number of reasons, but namely the definition has been shifted to depend on what a "legal right" should be; and necessarily that a lack of a legal system would mean things could not be owned. Instead, you can have unlawful, wrongful, immoral, etc. ownership of something. One could define ownership in many ways, and it certainly has been defined many ways (and that's fine, as long as you know what it means when you see it). Some definitions, like the one I suggested, encompass merely having possession, custody, control, etc. And I think that's the better one in the descriptive context. As we're not specifically talking about law (until you said ownership is a legal right), it should not be assumed automatically that all ownership is lawful, rightful, moral, etc. Surely in the legal context (e.g. a thief stealing loot), we often hear the word "ownership" and assume the word means that the acts of ownership are lawful: in everyday speech, most people assume acts are done not unlawfully. So, in the context I am speaking of, care must be taken to distinguish "what is" from "what is right".

As far as making sure that all acts of possession are in fact legitimate ownership, and not slavery, theft, or similar—that’s what the firearms are for. :)

Again, we certainly agree on that!
(And do notice the "legitimate" plunked in front of "ownership". Legitimate means lawful or rightful, etc. ;))
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Cockfighting
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2009, 02:24:17 pm »

Well, that's just offering a different definition, which I wouldn't accept. For a number of reasons, but namely the definition has been shifted to depend on what a "legal right" should be; and necessarily that a lack of a legal system would mean things could not be owned. Instead, you can have unlawful, wrongful, immoral, etc. ownership of something.

Um, that's why he said:
...or since we’re talking about philosophy here and not law, a moral right to control or possession.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up