Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Cousin marriage banned in NH, marijuana banned in NH, some exotic pets banned NH  (Read 46929 times)

Sam Adams

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550

Yeah, this conversation veered into a ditch...

I'm sorry - I don't agree with the idea that animals are equal to humans, nor do I agree that humans are animals.

I will not agree to any kind of statist who wants to use governmental force to ensure that animals are treated the 'same' as humans in their 'rights'...


         Cross, Scientologist[sp] believe they reincarnated from animals and will return back to an animal being. So, I,m sure they want animals treated very well. What do they think about hunting and eating steak or chicken?
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Actually, what you're saying is incorrect. Animals DO have rights, regardless of what the government says. A government can treat non-human animals as property, or they can treat them as beings on the same level as humans -- it doesn't matter. Regardless of the government's stance, non-human animals are intrinsically the same as humans and have the same rights as humans. This is true even if a government doesn't recognize it

You're arguing against yourself.  You've claimed that animals have rights because those rights were granted by the government, and now you're claiming that they have rights intrinsically.  You cannot have it both ways.

I was not arguing against myself -- I was saying that beings have intrinsic rights, and that governments do not always recognize those rights.

Quote from: MaineShark
And the idea that non-human animals must have a responsibility (like your example "when's the bear going to stand trial for murder") doesn't make sense. Of course non-human animals aren't going to stand trial for murder -- but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. It is worth noting that the definition of murder is "a human who kills another human" -- thus, by that definition, it does not make sense to say a non-human animal committed a "murder", since that is something which can only be done by a person. And excluding non-human animals from that category does not automatically mean they are non equal to humans; it just means that within that legal framework, non-human animals aren't responsible.

Claiming that some entity has rights (which protect it) and does not have the commensurate responsibility to respect the rights of others (which protects them) is to argue that the entity in question is superior to other entities.  So, now you're claiming that animals are superior to people.  Great.

No, I was arguing that humans and non-human animals are equals; the characteristics you want non-human animals to demonstrate are distinctly human characteristics (hence why it is anthropocentric). "The responsibility to respect the rights of others" is exactly what humans should abide by -- respecting rights of other humans AND non-human animals. Though non-human animals may not be aware of their rights, they still have them.

Quote from: MaineShark
Similarly, since money is an entirely human-centric concept, it doesn't make sense to apply it to a non-human animal. Just because a non-human animal can't use money the way humans do doesn't mean it is not in the same category as humans. It just means that there is a behavior humans engage in that non-human animals do not.

I have a right to flap my arms and fly.  My inability to do so is irrelevant to having the right to do so.

This makes no sense. If using money is analogous to flapping one's arms to fly, then why did you bring up money in the first place? (The thing about the dolphin doing dry cleaning)

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: MaineShark
Indeed.  One always equals one.
Your "one equals one" analogy is incorrect. Humans and other animal species are both equal to "one". The notion that non-human animals are "zero" and humans are "one" is a speciesist and anthropocentric concept.

A) Your conflation of my arguments regarding people with humans is ridiculously dishonest.  If your next reply contains the same nonsense, I'm likely just going to reply that I don't have discussions with folks who cannot speak honestly.

B) It's impossible to label my argument as "speciesist" or "anthropocentric."  As I've noted, if a rat attains sapience, I will immediately respect its rights, as I would the rights of any other person.  I don't care what species a person is.  Nor to I even think that all members of homo sapiens are people (there are simply such a large percentage of people among that species that I will give them the benefit of the doubt upon meeting them, because I prefer to err on the side of caution).

Firstly, stop calling what I'm saying "nonsense". Secondly, there was no conflation because "people" and "humans" are terms which can be used interchangeably. Also, there is nothing dishonest about pointing out the flaws with the "one is equal to one" concept which you brought up.

If you are not anthropocentric and not speciesist, then you will acknowledge that non-human animals have the same basic rights that humans have -- the right to eat, the right to have adequate shelter, the right to live out one's life, etc; if this is your position, then you will also acknowledge that humans are equal to other animals.

Quote from: MaineShark
Those people who are trying to establish that humans are equal to other animals don't have a "fetish" and aren't "pretending" that animals are people -- they are asserting the fact that humans are intrinsically equal to non-human animals.

If that's a "fact," you should have no trouble proving it.  Go ahead...

I'm going to use the same source LoveAndPeace used:

http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/animals/mammals/are-humans-considered-animals

Quote from: MaineShark
While it is true that non-human animals are not humans
...
them "above" or "separate" from other animals.

As this is based upon your false representation of what I said, I don't think a reply makes sense.

Still don't know what you're talking about.

Quote from: MaineShark
If one were to use the "sapient" definition you provided ("sapience is a complex property based on reason"), one could argue that many animals like dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, pigs, elephants etc have "sapience" because they have the ability to reason -- the same ability to reason that humans have.

Except for the minor fact that they don't have sapience.  They are sentient - they can feel - but they are not sapient - they do not reason.

Actually, they do have sapience, if one's definition of sapience is the ability to reason. The ability to reason is what enables animals in the wild to find food and it is what enables dolphins to socialize with one another. Humans are not the only animal with the ability to reason. If one's definition of "sapience" is to think in a human-like way, then that is being anthropocentric.

Quote from: MaineShark
Your argument that "sapience" only applies to humans is speciesist and anthropocentric, in the sense that it is a bias in favor of humans.

I never made such an argument.  In fact, I quite clearly said that sapience is not limited by species.  But it does not automatically apply to any creature which you happen to desire to protect.

Earlier, you said "except for the minor fact that they don't have sapience" (referring to non-human animals). But here, you're saying that sapience is not limited by species, which contradicts your previous statement. Perhaps you mean that some animals (such as humans, dogs, dolphins etc) should have rights and some should not.

Quote from: MaineShark
It should be fairly obvious to anyone that most non-human animals have the ability to feel pain and suffering, but since you don't believe me here is a link:

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/pain.html

A philosopher is not a source of proof on a question of biology.  His comments on that page indicate a lack of understanding of science, and his references are not valid scientific sources.

Actually, philosophers are perfectly good proof. Who's to say that a scientist is more qualified to determine something than a philosopher? Science itself is founded on philosophical principles. The scientific method is one such philosophy. Pain and suffering can be discussed by philosophers because they are metaphysical properties. If I wanted to discuss whether an animal has a specific genetic defect or whether an animal can contract a virus, I would seek a scientist for that question. But these are philosophical issues we discussing, so philosophical positions cannot just be ruled out "because they're not science". So long as something is logical and rational, it should be considered.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: MaineShark
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/animals-feel-fear-and-pain

Sourcing a propagandist like Singer makes this an immediate fail.  Let's try some science, next time, eh?

Peter Singer is not a propagandist, he is an accredited professor and author of the book "Animal Liberation", a book which helped start that particular movement. The notion that Singer is an "immediate fail" is your opinion, because you don't think he's legitimate. But I and a lot of other people thing he's legitimate; Princeton also thinks he's legitimate.

And like I said earlier, philosophy can be a worthy source when it comes to the issues being discussed -- things like suffering, consciousness, sentience -- these are things which can be articulated by philosophy OR science (or both).

Quote from: MaineShark
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Not all Wikipedia articles are "invalid". Some are, some aren't. The one I linked to ("Pain in animals") has 50 citations to 50 different references.

Quote from: MaineShark
The animals which are most capable of feeling pain are not ants -- they are larger animals such as dogs, cats, lions, tigers, elephants, dolphins, apes, alligators, etc.

Oh, so now it's only some animals, not all animals?

It should be fairly obvious that a dolphin is more likely to feel pain and suffering than an ant, simply because of the fact that dolphins have a more sophisticated nervous system and anatomy. At the very least, the degree to which they are capable of feeling pain and suffering is greater. Still, because all animals are equal, one should never intentionally try to kill an ant in the same way one should never try to intentionally kill a dolphin. It's just that a dolphin (or dog, pig etc) has a far greater potential to feel pain and suffering than an ant. Giving one's priority to thousands of animals (which may or may not be inclusive of insects) is better than a position which only considers human values.

Quote from: MaineShark
Non-human animals have always had the same rights as humans, but when the word "granted" is used, it is not referring to actual rights but to what humans will allow others to do. In your slavery example, the slaves always had rights, but in order for the legal framework of society to recognize those rights they had to be granted laws which protected them. The same is true for non-human animals: they have always had rights, but in order for society to recognize those rights, people must make laws to protect them, hence where the term "granted" comes in.

Again, you're arguing against yourself.  You stated that animals have rights solely because the government granted them to those animals.  Now you're claiming that those rights were always inherent.  But from what source do those rights derive?  People have rights because they are sapient.  From whence do these supposed rights of non-sapient creatures appear?

Like I said earlier, if one's definition of "sapience" is to reason, then there are many, many animal species that are sapient. What I was saying is that animals (whether those animals are human or non-human) have inherent, intrinsic rights, but those rights are not always recognized by a given government. That is where the word "grant" comes in -- when a government decides it wants to recognize a right (like women's right to vote), it will "grant" that "right", even though women always had the right to vote in the first place.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: MaineShark
Sounds like they've been successful.  Kudos to them.
Humans weren't just successful, they were lucky. Humans have opposable thumbs which allow them to modify their surroundings; this is something dolphins don't have, even though dolphins are just as intelligent (and possibly more intelligent). If humans didn't have opposable thumbs, humans may not have been able to to take control of the Earth. Ultimately humans (as an animal species) are an abnormality which has exploited the Earth.

Arguing against yourself, yet again.  If human are just another animal species, they cannot "exploit the Earth," any more than any other animal species.  If you want to assign them some greater level of responsibility, then you are inherently admitting that they have a greater form of intellect, allowing a greater level of responsibility to be theirs.  If there's no inherent difference between people and animals, then people (who are primarily human) are just animals, doing their natural, animal thing, and their works are no more exploitative than a beaver dam or a termite mound.

You can't have it both ways.

I wasn't having it "both ways". I was saying that despite the fact that humans have done some pretty bizarre things to the Earth, they are still animals. That is not a contradiction.

If humans do in fact have more responsibility than other animals, then it should be their responsibility to protect the rights of humans AND non-human animals and to treat non-human animals as being equal to humans.

I would agree with you on the beaver dam/termite mound argument, except for the fact that beaver dams and termite mounds are exponentially smaller than what humans have done. It can be argued that a beaver dam is similar to a skyscraper because they are both animal habitats. However, beavers have not dominated the Earth the way humans have. All this means is that humans are an animal which has gone abnormally out-of-control. It does not make humans at a higher "level" than beavers (even if human intellect allows them to see things more clearly).

Quote from: MaineShark
My point is that a truck and an animal (such as a dog) are intrinsically different from each other. A dog has a nervous system and can feel pain, a truck cannot. A dog has intelligence and can modify its surroundings and reproduce, a truck cannot. A dog is a sentient living being with consciousness, a truck is not. The reason why a human is more important than a truck is the same reason why any other animal (like a dog) is more important than a truck.

You've identified differences between a truck and a dog.  Congratulations.

You're the one who brought up the truck-dog comparison.

Quote from: MaineShark
You know what?  There are some major, intrinsic differences between a truck and a tree.  Or between a truck and the desk at which I am sitting.  Or between a truck and a house.  Or between a truck and the computer on which I am typing this response.  Or between a truck and a woodstove.

If I program a computer to display, "ouch, that hurt" on its screen, every time you press the "G" key, does that mean it now has rights?

No, a computer would not have rights if it said "ouch that hurt" because the kind of computer people use in everyday life is not a living, sentient, conscious, self-aware being.

Humans are animals :)

http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/animals/mammals/are-humans-considered-animals
LoveAndPeace: thank you for acknowledging reality and self-evident truths. Non-human animals deserve the same moral consideration that humans get.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:26:02 am by ZR3 »
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.

I think he's mixing up 'intelligence' with 'sapience' MaineShark...

Dolphins, elephants, dogs, etc. - yes, they are intelligent... They can choose a blue ball instead of a red one when commanded and prompted with treats/rewards, etc. - that is intelligence.

They cannot reason (sapience) that they shouldn't choose the red ball because it's their captor doing the commanding of it to them, they cannot use their reason to decide if they eat animal XXXX they're removing another animal's parent/brother/child and reason against such an act. They are animals that have a level of intelligence but they do not have the sapience and ability to reason that humans do.

A human looks at a log and sees in his mind the ability to use tools to transform that log into a spear, an animal looks at a log and sees a place to pee or knows that it should dodge said log if it falls from a tree... They cannot use reason to create something they dreamed / imagined the way humans can.


I think you're referring to morality. Yes, non-human animals generally don't have a sense of morality, but remember that morality itself is a human construct. Just because a non-human animal doesn't have the same idea of morality that a human has doesn't disqualify them from having our moral consideration.

The thing you said about animals not being able to create, dream and imagine is incorrect. There have been instances in which an animal has painted something, in which an ape has used a twig as a tool to eat insects, and in which a dolphin has looked into a mirror and recognized that it was a reflection of himself/herself.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:31:56 am by ZR3 »
Logged

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

one should never intentionally try to kill an ant in the same way one should never try to intentionally kill a dolphin.

Are you a vegan?
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.


You contradict yourself then. You say you're a libertarian (note: small L ) and then you say you want a government to enforce these rights of non-human animals. That is very statist in my opinion - nothing like a libertarian's view of such things.
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

I think you're referring to morality. Yes, non-human animals generally don't have a sense of morality, but remember that morality itself is a human construct. Just because a non-human animal doesn't have the same idea of morality that a human has doesn't disqualify them from having our moral consideration.

The thing you said about animals not being able to create, dream and imagine is incorrect. There have been instances in which an animal has painted something, in which an ape has used a twig as a tool to eat insects, and in which a dolphin has looked into a mirror and recognized that it was a reflection of himself/herself.

I think you're still missing my point here...
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

one should never intentionally try to kill an ant in the same way one should never try to intentionally kill a dolphin.

Are you a vegan?

No, but I don't eat meat. with me, it's like the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. I would not want to be slaughtered like a pig, therefore I don't eat pig flesh (pork). In viewing humans as being equal to non-human animals, it doesn't make sense to eat meat because eating meat implies that there is an inequality (which there shouldn't be). If we humans are to really be compassionate towards animals and think of them as equals, then we should not kill them for consumption and financial exploitation. After all, humans don't kill other humans (or at least they're not supposed to), so why is it OK for people to kill non-human animals? All forms of life, whether they are human or non-human, should be allowed to live, and any killings which occur should be accidental and/or unintentional.

Also, the slaughtering of animals is unjustifiable because the pain and suffering it causes to the animals in unnecessary (since eating meat is unnecessary).
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:48:09 am by ZR3 »
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.


You contradict yourself then. You say you're a libertarian (note: small L ) and then you say you want a government to enforce these rights of non-human animals. That is very statist in my opinion - nothing like a libertarian's view of such things.

That's not true: the government would be protecting aspects of a non-human animal's life in the same way that it would be protecting aspects of a human's life. And since those "aspects" are minimal, and since libertarianism is defined as minimal interference by the government, creating rules to prevent animals from being killed does not equal "statism" -- it is the same rule that libertarians themselves believe should exist in a minimal-interference government (i.e. the right to live)
Logged

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.


You contradict yourself then. You say you're a libertarian (note: small L ) and then you say you want a government to enforce these rights of non-human animals. That is very statist in my opinion - nothing like a libertarian's view of such things.

That's not true: the government would be protecting aspects of a non-human animal's life in the same way that it would be protecting aspects of a human's life. And since those "aspects" are minimal, and since libertarianism is defined as minimal interference by the government, creating rules to prevent animals from being killed does not equal "statism" -- it is the same rule that libertarians themselves believe should exist in a minimal-interference government (i.e. the right to live)

No - you're incorrect in your knowledge of Libertarianism versus libertarianism. You believe in government (statism) therefore you'd be considered a Libertarian, at best, with the things you've stated here.

A big L Libertarian believes in government (minimal though it may be).

A small L libertarian believes in no government (essentially anarchy without the bad notions).

Essentially, us small L libertarians (best described as Rothbardians, inspired by the libertarian manifesto written by Murray Rothbard) believe in Non-Aggression Principle and the right to self ownership.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:52:52 am by crossonscout »
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.


You contradict yourself then. You say you're a libertarian (note: small L ) and then you say you want a government to enforce these rights of non-human animals. That is very statist in my opinion - nothing like a libertarian's view of such things.

That's not true: the government would be protecting aspects of a non-human animal's life in the same way that it would be protecting aspects of a human's life. And since those "aspects" are minimal, and since libertarianism is defined as minimal interference by the government, creating rules to prevent animals from being killed does not equal "statism" -- it is the same rule that libertarians themselves believe should exist in a minimal-interference government (i.e. the right to live)

No - you're incorrect in your knowledge of Libertarianism versus libertarianism. You believe in government (statism) therefore you'd be considered a Libertarian, at best, with the things you've stated here.

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian (from your perspective, a libertarian with a capital L). You say that it would be good to have anarchy without the "bad notions" (which I assume is things like murder) -- but in order to remove the "bad notions" from anarchy, wouldn't you need some kind of government to make sure "bad notions" didn't occur? And if "bad notions" are what we're trying to eliminate, and if killing animals (whether those animals are human or non-human) is considered to be "bad", then people shouldn't have a problem making laws to stop those bad things from occurring.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:04:02 am by ZR3 »
Logged

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

Quote from: crossonscout
So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?

No, I am a libertarian who believes that the right to freedom and liberty should exist for humans and non-human animals. The values which humans want (like the right to live out one's entire lifespan) should be given to humans and non-human animals.


You contradict yourself then. You say you're a libertarian (note: small L ) and then you say you want a government to enforce these rights of non-human animals. That is very statist in my opinion - nothing like a libertarian's view of such things.

That's not true: the government would be protecting aspects of a non-human animal's life in the same way that it would be protecting aspects of a human's life. And since those "aspects" are minimal, and since libertarianism is defined as minimal interference by the government, creating rules to prevent animals from being killed does not equal "statism" -- it is the same rule that libertarians themselves believe should exist in a minimal-interference government (i.e. the right to live)

No - you're incorrect in your knowledge of Libertarianism versus libertarianism. You believe in government (statism) therefore you'd be considered a Libertarian, at best, with the things you've stated here.

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

See my edit above.
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?

If that action involves depriving another living being of its right to live, then yes I would not approve of it. I might approve of catch-and-release fishing though, so long as no significant pain and/or suffering were inflicted on the animal.

But hunting and killing a deer is clearly (and more importantly, intentionally) depriving a deer of its right to live -- and it is an unnecessary action. A person does not need to hunt a deer to survive.

People shouldn't kill deer in the same way that people shouldn't kill other people. All animal life is valuable, regardless of whether that animal is a human or a non-human.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:17:39 am by ZR3 »
Logged

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?

If that action involves depriving another living being of its right to live, then yes I would not approve of it. I might approve of catch-and-release fishing though, so long as no significant pain and/or suffering were inflicted on the animal.

But hunting and killing a deer is clearly (and more importantly, intentionally) depriving a deer of its right to live -- and it is an unnecessary action. A person does not need to hunt a deer to survive.

People shouldn't kill deer in the same way that people shouldn't kill other people. All animal life is valuable, regardless of whether that animal is a human or a non-human.

Then you're not a libertarian. If you don't believe in my right to my own life, my life being contingent upon eating the necessary proteins in that deer to sustain myself.

You also clearly don't believe in my right to choose if I want to eat deer or vegetables. You want to force me, by government coercion, into your lifestyle choices of NOT eating meat. That is clearly a violation of both of the very foundations of libertarian principles, regardless if it's big L or little L.

I don't understand how you can purport to be a libertarian and argue for the things you're arguing for.

I could make the argument, I know you likely don't believe this, but I could make the argument that plants are living and sapient and therefore it's just as immoral to kill (eat) plants as it is to kill (eat) non-human animals...

At this point, you're making it impossible for a human being to sustain its own life (including yourself), so your entire argument is fundamentally flawed.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:58:18 am by crossonscout »
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 10   Go Up