Reason Magazine

Site Search

Ooooh -- There's a New Mexico

Bill Richardson's dream of a state without legal cockfighting has just become a reality:
Eighteen years after legislation was introduced to ban cockfighting in the state of New Mexico, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed a measure this week that outlaws cockfighting in the state. Now Louisiana is the only state in the United States that allows the blood sport that pits one rooster against the other....

"I'm so upset that it's damn near ruining my life," said New Mexico Game Fowl Association President Ronald Barron. "I've got 38 years doing this. I don't know if I should hatch off some baby chicks right now. This isn't a business. It's my pleasure. It's my right, or rather it was my right."
This comes on the heels of Richardson's smoking ban, his proposal for a drug offender registry, and his all-around effort to dissuade libertarians impressed with his economic policies from backing his presidential campaign.

Bonus links: A cockfighting site. An anti-cockfighting site. A film of a cockfight. The script for the cockfighting episode of Seinfeld. A comparison of Cockfighter the novel and Cockfighter the film. A starter kit.

Update: By special request, Clifford Geertz's brilliant "Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight." An excerpt:
Now, a few special occasions aside, cockfights are illegal in Bali under the Republic (as, for not altogether unrelated reasons, they were under the Dutch), largely as a result of the pretensions to puritanism radical nationalism tends to bring with it. The elite, which is not itself so very puritan, worries about the poor, ignorant peasant gambling all his money away, about what foreigners will think, about the waste of time better devoted to building up the country. It sees cockfighting as "primitive," "backward," "unprogressive," and generally unbecoming an ambitious nation. And, as with those other embarrassments - opium smoking, begging, or uncovered breasts - it seeks, rather unsystematically, to put a stop to it.

Of course, like drinking during Prohibition or, today, smoking marihuana, cockfights, being a part of "The Balinese Way of Life," nonetheless go on happening, and with extraordinary frequency. And, like Prohibition or marihuana, from time to time the police (who, in 1958 at least, were almost all not Balinese but Javanese) feel called upon to make a raid, confiscate the cocks and spurs, fine a few people, and even now and then expose some of them in the tropical sun for a day as object lessons which never, somehow, get learned, even though occasionally, quite occasionally, the object dies.
And:
Getting caught, or almost caught, in a vice raid is perhaps not a very generalizable recipe for achieving that mysterious necessity of anthropological field work, rapport, but for me it worked very well.
Send this article to:

« I'm Just Clambering Up A… | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to "Ooooh -- There's a New Mexico":

Bill Pope | March 15, 2007, 11:22am | #

Oh please! Does the libertarian definition of freedom include the right to torture animals? No wonder you guys keep losing elections (and deserve to).

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:22am | #

You know, George Washington went to cockfights.

Bill Pope | March 15, 2007, 11:22am | #

He also owned slaves.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:25am | #

Bill Pope,

He also liked to hunt foxes.

Christopher Monnier | March 15, 2007, 11:25am | #

Yeah, I see nothing "libertarian" about allowing cockfighting/animal cruelty. If the hard-line approach of "animals are property" is taken, I guess then there would be no such thing as animal cruelty. But I don't buy this assumption.

Andy | March 15, 2007, 11:25am | #

Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" includes a pretty awesome discussion of the animal's place in a libertarian conception of values. I'm pretty sure he would be very against cockfighting. I'm also pretty sure he wouldn't ban it.

Sort of like 99 percent of the people here. I assume, Mr. Pope, that you are a vegetarian?

shecky | March 15, 2007, 11:26am | #

Not that I give a damn about chickens, but I can see a valid argument over animal welfare.

FWIW, I just saw Cockfighter with Warren Oates a couple days ago. It was actually much better than the pure exploitation flick I was expecting.

Bill Pope | March 15, 2007, 11:28am | #

Yes Andy, in fact I go one better- I'm vegan.

scottp | March 15, 2007, 11:29am | #

It's my right, or rather it was my right

Since when is torturing animals a right?

Egon | March 15, 2007, 11:30am | #

Sometimes I hear screeching outside my house, and find my cat locked in (im)mortal combat with another cat. And there's not even an audience. How can this be? I didn't put him up to it.

But I see the point: If it weren't for us evil humans, wild animals would live in Animal Utopia. Despite what you see on, you know, the Discovery Channel.

scottp | March 15, 2007, 11:32am | #

If it weren't for us evil humans, wild animals would live in Animal Utopia. Despite what you see on, you know, the Discovery Channel

What the fuck does that have to do with pitting animals against each other for human pleasure?

Bill Pope | March 15, 2007, 11:32am | #

Egon, the difference between people and animals is that we have the capability to exercise ethical choice.

stephen the goldberger | March 15, 2007, 11:33am | #

i don't see how forcing animals to fight for entertainment is any worse than enslaving them to feed your family. Also outside of the cockfights the animals live much better lives than all the animals who supply you with the meat that you eat everyday.

If animals have the right not to fight for my entertainment then do they also have the right not to be eaten for my sustinence? why is my hamburger more moral than a good blood fight?

Christopher Monnier | March 15, 2007, 11:33am | #

> If it weren't for us evil humans, wild animals would live in Animal Utopia...

Straw man

Cab | March 15, 2007, 11:33am | #

Jesse, I'm mad at you for making me read the word "cock" so many times in a row.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:33am | #

Since animals are property is when torturing animals is a right. I don't disagree that torturing animals for sport is wrong and don't have a problems with laws that ban it, however, I also don't think you can get there from any robust theory of philosophy. Also, veganism is unnatural, like incest.

joe | March 15, 2007, 11:34am | #

Egon,

People get in trouble for sicking their dogs on other dogs all the time. AND YET, dogs fight in nature.

I'll tell you, it's almost as if the element of human responsibility for the actions adds and element of human responsibility for the actions into the equation.

Jesse Walker | March 15, 2007, 11:35am | #

Shecky: The book is even better.

Bill: I don't know what "you guys" is supposed to refer to, but I speak for no candidate and am affiliated with no party.

All: There is a valid animal cruelty argument against cockfighting. There's a valid animal cruelty argument against a bunch of methods commonly used in chicken-farming, too. It's interesting to consider which practices damaging to animals are banned and which ones are subsidized.

Cab | March 15, 2007, 11:36am | #

Also, veganism is unnatural, like incest.

wow. I guess I'll nix that salad for lunch now.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:37am | #

Bill Pope,

Have you met Loundry?

Andy | March 15, 2007, 11:37am | #

Bill,

You're a stronger man than I am. I admire that - but I do beg of you not to hold this against libertarianism in general, the failing is not in the belief that moral beings should be free to do what they want, the failing comes in not counting animals as a moral being. And I think there's a lot more room for making that argument in libertarianism than in most schools of thought. When one believes in nothing more strongly than in the right to be left alone, they are already halfway where you want them to be. And voluntary adoption of those beliefs will always be more effective than legislation. (As I believe we've seen with the REAL scourge of the Southwest, dog fighting, which has become even more grotesque underground.)

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 11:37am | #

...the difference between people and animals is that we have the capability to exercise ethical choice

We have many more tasty animal recipes, too.

dhex | March 15, 2007, 11:38am | #

"Oh please! Does the libertarian definition of freedom include the right to torture animals? No wonder you guys keep losing elections (and deserve to)."

call me when the vegan party gets anywhere. :)

seriously, where do you guys come from? i know we're all afficionadoes of dickfighting (a close internet cousin of cockfightings) but still...

joe | March 15, 2007, 11:39am | #

Mr. Goldberger,

"i don't see how forcing animals to fight for entertainment is any worse than enslaving them to feed your family." Word choice aside, pastured animals roaming in their areas and being treated humanely right up to the moment of their slaughter aren't forced to endure pain and horror throughout their lives.

"Also outside of the cockfights the animals live much better lives than all the animals who supply you with the meat that you eat everyday." Not me - I eat cage free, free range, naturally raised animal products only. But for the majority of livestock in this country, you are correct, they live worse than fighting cocks on a daily basis.

"If animals have the right not to fight for my entertainment then do they also have the right not to be eaten for my sustinence?" A being's rights come from its nature. Animals do not understand mortality, so they have no right to life, the way we do. They do, however, understand suffering, fear, and misery, so they have a right to humane treatment.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:41am | #

My argument for why humans get to eat animals:

1. We're number one predator.
2. They're tasty.

pigwiggle | March 15, 2007, 11:42am | #

No wonder you guys keep losing elections (and deserve to).

Yeah, and for a magazine called Reason, blah, blah, blah ....

Anyway, this does strike me as animal torture, and I'm glad it's punishable. Sure animals will fight, but that doesn't justify arming them and harassing them until they go at it. Hey, maybe I'm not as libertarian as you all, but I don't consider animals just property. And I would be all for cruelty type regulation of farming and slaughter.

thoreau | March 15, 2007, 11:43am | #

Where's the commenter named "Single Issue Voter"? I figured he'd be drawn to this like Lonewacko to a Minuteman picnic.

Dan T. | March 15, 2007, 11:43am | #

Watching animals fight for pleasure is one of those things that indicates that, for the lack of a better term, there is just something wrong with you.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:43am | #

joe,

So, if I induce fear in an animal that's a problem?

I've some years of my life on a farm. Chickens at least ain't very happy right before you lop their head off. They are often quite stressed about the situation.

You basically can't raise and kill animals without some sort of fear in the end involved.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:44am | #

A good libertarian argument for laws against cockfighting, or at least enforcing them:

People will do it anyway. Even if it is harmful, there are better things to spend public resources on. The damage done by the prohibition will be greater than the damage done by leaving it legal.

highnumber | March 15, 2007, 11:44am | #

I eat cage free, free range, naturally raised animal products only.

I'll bet you don't own a tv either.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:45am | #

I've seen similar responses in rabbits.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:47am | #

highnumber,

Given the number of online choices one has these days why would one own a television? Or rather, why would one have cable?

STEPHEN THE GOLDBERGER | March 15, 2007, 11:47am | #

hey joe, thanks for seriously answering my questions in an intelligent manner.

you're right Animals need to be treated humanely, but there's just such a gray area since there are no clearly defined animal rights.

I just think if I bothered to visit KFC chicken farms and the like I'd much more disturbed by what I saw than if I ever bothered to visit a Cockfighter traning pen.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:48am | #

Grotius, Battlestar Galactica.

highnumber | March 15, 2007, 11:48am | #

Grotius,

Baseball.
'Nuff said.

Edward | March 15, 2007, 11:49am | #

I don't think there should be a law against cock fighting. I believe we should simply assasinate organizers of cock fights. Leave the state out of it.

joe | March 15, 2007, 11:50am | #

Grotius,

"So, if I induce fear in an animal that's a problem?"

It would depend on how, and how much. No kidding chickens don't like to be picked up and have their heads lopped off. The last five seconds of the birds' life are the worst, and the 30 seconds before that are no fun, either.

OTOH, if a cage-raised hen in a factory farm were taken out, carried to a chopping block and beheaded, those would be the best 30 seconds of its life.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:51am | #

FinFangFoom,

Download it via iTunes.

_______________________

Anyway I am not a fan of cockfighting. If I ever went to a cockfight I'd likely find it repugnant.

Now some day I'm am going on a boar hunting trip in Languedoc.

James | March 15, 2007, 11:52am | #

If cockfighting is cruel and exploitative, shouldn't the dissemination of cockfighting videos be banned as well? Wouldn't the demand for cockfighting videos encourage illicit cockfights? What about live cockfight feed from Louisiana or Mexico? Aren't the cockfight watchers via the intertubes just as guilty as the cockfight promoters?

Clearly, this is an ordinance that offers the state a glittering promise of future legislation.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:53am | #

joe,

It would depend on how, and how much.

Well, that is much more defendable position IMHO.

Anyway, there isn't anything better (chicken wise) than frying up some fresh killed chicken.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:53am | #

But the picture in iTunes is tiny.

I think they should slaughter chickens like they do people in The Island/Soylent Green/that Twilight Episode/that one Monty Python Sketch about the guy who wants to be Freemason.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 11:54am | #

that Twilight Episode = that Twilight Zone Episode.

I don't believe in your "preview."

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:54am | #

James,

I believe in some states that it is illegal to attend a cockfight, so that sort of language might also include watching it via a video feed.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:56am | #

FinFangFoom,

Buy a bigger computer screen. ;)

mediageek | March 15, 2007, 11:56am | #

"Cockfighting has always been my idea of a great sport— two armed entrées battling to see who'll be dinner."

-P.J. O'Rourke


Here's my take on cockfighting:

I don't give a shit.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 11:57am | #

As to the whole "free range chicken" thing, well, most folks can't afford to eat free range chickens, and I don't know if producers of such chickens could ever keep up with the demand we have for chicken.

Christopher Monnier | March 15, 2007, 11:58am | #

> A good libertarian argument...People will do it anyway...

Valid point.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 11:59am | #

joe,

You interest me curiously here. Since you're basically taking Singer's position up to a point, why do you contend animals have a right (based, as Singer would argue, on their interest in avoiding suffering) not to be mistreated but do not have a right to life? That they don't appreciate their own mortality seems like a pretty weak basis to deny them the ir continued experience of the present. Please explain.

shecky | March 15, 2007, 12:00pm | #

When I was a kid, I used to make black ants and red ants fight in a can. Throw a grasshopper or moth into the melee for more interesting conflict. Some neighbors used to dabble in cockfighting, and I thought it was fun to watch. I can see how many Americans would find dogfighting objectionable. And bullfighting, too, though I've found it quite entertaining.

It's possible there's a line to be drawn regarding what should and should not be permissible. Of course, the line is completely arbitrary and subject to local tastes. I'd wager lots of cockfighting fans would be repulsed at some of the meat preparation in, say, Korea, an otherwise fully civilized Western thinking country. Point is, taking an absolutist libertarian approach on this issue is probably a losing approach.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 12:02pm | #

shecky,

Good insight.

swillfredo pareto | March 15, 2007, 12:05pm | #

So, if I induce fear in an animal that's a problem?

If you do it deliberately, if you do it strictly for the sake of invoking fear, and you find the act gratifying then yes, it’s a problem. Staging a fight to the death between two animals for the purposes of entertainment is not made right just because the loser becomes dinner.

Warty | March 15, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Yes Andy, in fact I go one better- I'm vegan.

It suddenly smells of smug self-satisfaction in here.

joe | March 15, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Grotius,

"As to the whole "free range chicken" thing, well, most folks can't afford to eat free range chickens, and I don't know if producers of such chickens could ever keep up with the demand we have for chicken." It's all about scale. As the practices become more common, they chickens become less of a speciality item, and the cost comes down.

D.A. Ridgely,

"That they don't appreciate their own mortality seems like a pretty weak basis to deny them the ir continued experience of the present." I disagree. They have no right to property or due process, either - again, because those things are meaningless to them. Even "their continued experience" - they have no conception of continuation. Animals - except perhaps higher-order primates and maybe cetaceans - live in an eternal now, so whether or not they are going to have another now tomorrow and another next months is meaningless to them.

I'm a liberal. I think rights are only real if they have real meaning in your life. They can't just exist on paper. Projecting rights like the right to life or the right to vote onto animals would be meaningless, but projecting the right to, for a chicken, stretch your wings and walk around once in a while has a great deal of meaning.

highnumber | March 15, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Is cruelty to animals already illegal in New Mexico?
That would be a reason to oppose the law.
(It's good to come from the position that laws are wrong, until they can be shown to necessary, donchatink?)

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 12:10pm | #

If you do it deliberately, if you do it strictly for the sake of invoking fear, and you find the act gratifying then yes, it’s a problem.

Wasn't there a Far Side cartoon of chickens watching a horror movie where the monster on the screen was Col. Sanders?

VM | March 15, 2007, 12:13pm | #

We could have dickhead fighting:

In this corner, Andy and his wish that Rob gets sent to Gitmo

and in this corner, Dave W and his fetish with Phil

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 12:15pm | #

I'm not sure what work "I'm a liberal" does in your argument, joe, but it doesn't change the fact that at any present point X that animal has an interest in its existence not being terminated as it will thereafter not experience that eternal present. Now, you can argue, I suppose, that it happens so quickly it isn't much of a loss, but it has to be some sort of loss of a qualitative experience in which, absent suffering or pain, the chicken has an interest in preserving.

Gray Ghost | March 15, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Perhaps a short review of libertarianism is in order. The essential questions are: Does the activity harm an infant (human unable to contract) or you, without your consent? If no, then you don't get to ban it.

Does the activity harm another person who hasn't agreed to the activity, or an infant? If yes, then you don't get to do it.

Everything else, no matter how loathesome, gets to stay. I don't care for cockfighting. I really don't like related "sports" like dogfighting and the like. I couldn't associate with someone who I knew enjoyed dogfighting. But that doesn't give me the right to ban dogfighting, so long as it doesn't violate the first two questions above. It's a tough philosophy to follow through; I'm not consistent in it by any means, and it's probably why there are as few of us as there are.

Many libertarians are like the 'nanny-staters' they loathe in wishing to ban things they don't like. It's just that the libs' list is shorter.

Completely unrelated gloomy news. The Wharton, Texas grand jury just no-billed the officer who shot the unarmed 17-year old Daniel Castillo in bed during a drug raid. Radley blogged heavily about this a few weeks ago. Can't say I'm surprised.

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 12:26pm | #

It's all about scale. As the practices become more common, they chickens become less of a speciality item, and the cost comes down.

Joe, that's not really true. It takes much more land and resources to raise free range chicken, and free range farmers don't really get large scaling benefits, as they can't take an industrial approach towards the housing or feeding of free range chicken. Those crowded, smelly chicken houses, on the other hand, are pretty efficient, because stationary chickens in closed quarters are very easy to deal with, and you don't really need that much land to operate a chicken house.

The price of free range meat will never be even remotely close to the price of standard chicken. And who cares? Chickens are extremely stupid. Extending the concept of "suffering" to poultry is far fetched. We have absolutely no reason to suspect that they process suffering and pain in a fashion analogous to humans. Yes, chickens avoid bodily harm, plants grow towards sunlight, and worms writhe when pierced by hooks. So what? At a certain level of animal sophistication, it's fair to assume that these reactions reveal some higher level of cognition and "suffering." Chickens aren't at that level.

joe | March 15, 2007, 12:29pm | #

D.A,

An interest is not a right.

The work "I'm a liberal" does in my statement is in the next sentence - the belief that rights must be real, not just formal, to be meaningful. It's the same reason I don't believe (and libertarians do) that a Hunagrian immigrant in a company town 100 miles from any other settlement, who doesn't speak English or have access to the company's train, and who owes more than earns to the company store, and who has a family to feed, has a meaningful right to leave his employment.

Gray Ghost | March 15, 2007, 12:29pm | #

And I see Shecky already mentioned dogfighting, whoops. I'm not denying any arguments that dogfighting or cockfighting or hunting or animal husbandry may be immoral or unethical. They may be, and Ridgely and joe are doing their usual well-thought out examination of those arguments. (that isn't sarcasm by the way; I enjoy reading the vast majority of their posts)

All I'm saying is that the above putatively immoral activities shouldn't be banned by the state. Your moral outrage does not equal the right to have people with guns tell me I can't do that activity, and ultimately jail me or shoot me if I persist.

Shelby | March 15, 2007, 12:32pm | #

I don't think opposing a ban on cock-fighting is any more "purely libertarian" than supporting one. I'm aware of no reason animals should not be treated as a special class of property, subject to a different set of rules than nonliving property. If one decides, based on reasonable evidence, that animals have moral significance and that pain and suffering relate to that moral significance, then there is at least a potential interest in minimizing the pain and suffering.

That doesn't mean the general public has an obligation to regulate animal activity independent of humans (e.g. cats fighting on their own) (though I'd be repulsed by any animal owner who didn't try to keep their own animal out of such situations). It does, however, mean that the public has an obligation to prevent excessive cruelty to animals.

"Excessive" is obviously vague, but I think it provides a sufficient basis for discussion of laws protecting animals. I also think there should be a sort of sliding scale based on our understanding of different animals. An earthworm would, in my view, merit different protections than a dog or a dolphin.

Shelby | March 15, 2007, 12:35pm | #

Joe,

Do you really think such a person has no RIGHT to leave his employment? If so, that's incredibly harsh. Probably you mean ABILITY to leave his employment, without assistance from others. I'd agree with that -- I'm just not sure the government is the best set of "others" to assist in that situation.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Those crowded, smelly chicken houses, on the other hand, are pretty efficient, because stationary chickens in closed quarters are very easy to deal with, and you don't really need that much land to operate a chicken house.

Or, for that matter, a Chicken Ranch.

Joe:

An interest is not a right.

My point exactly, if you give up the false equivalence then you have no basis for asserting rights of any sort in chickens. Further, though off topic, "meaningful right" is just linguistic obfuscation. Say the immigrant's right is worthless to him, perhaps, but don't go all Humpty Dumpty (was he a liberal, too?) and just define words however they need to be defined to support your view.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 12:40pm | #

Chris S.,

It is also easier from the standpoint of maintenance of the animal.

James Anderson Merritt | March 15, 2007, 12:41pm | #

I think Gray Ghost has it pretty much right, and I say this as someone who does not condone cockfighting in the least, and who has had birds for pets at one time in his life, and raised poultry for human consumption at another. The cockfighting issue seems to me to be one of those situations where someone who is truly committed to letting his neighbor alone may have to resist the impulse to yell "there oughta be a law!, just as someone who thinks "drugs are bad" may still resist the impulse to demand or support a War on Drugs.

I suspect that, if they could snap their fingers and make it so, some people would scrap real shooting wars between nations, and replace them with cockfights. If that were possible, how many who are now opposed to cockfighting would remain opposed?

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Oh, and by the way (even more off topic except in response to joe's position and the conceptually confused view of any number of other reasonably smart philosophers), one need not have a present awareness of either a present interest or a future interest for those interests to be real. I may not be aware of my own existence while in non-REM sleep, but I sure as hell have both a present and a future interest in my continued existence despite that fact.

joe | March 15, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Chris S.,

Some of the cost is from more efficient practices, but much of it really is about scale. And that's not even counting the costs that the factory farms get externalize onto us via things like pollution and anitbiotic resistance.

"We have absolutely no reason to suspect that they process suffering and pain in a fashion analogous to humans." Yes, there is; their neurological systems are much more similar to ours than the other examples you mention. There are lot of portions of our brains that are not present in Aves, but the pain centers most certainly are.

joe | March 15, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Shelby,

I think his right to leave his employment is meaningless, though it formally exists.

DA,

Your 12:39 post is meaningless namecalling, and I'm not going to respond to it.

As for your later past, when you are in REM sleep, you at least have the capacity for awareness of the continuation of your life, even if you are not so aware at that moment. You will someday be. A chicken, on the other hand, will never, ever be aware of the concepts or mortality or continuation.

lunchstealer | March 15, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Does this mean that Louisianna is the last place in the country where we can finally have a showdown between the two USCs? Clearly the next Sugarbowl should be the Cocks vs the Trojans.

Shelby | March 15, 2007, 12:57pm | #

lunchstealer:

But what about Oregon State? There ought to be beavers in the game.

T | March 15, 2007, 12:58pm | #

JAM,

I suspect that, if they could snap their fingers and make it so, some people would scrap real shooting wars between nations, and replace them with cockfights.

I'm all for that, but only if we can equip the chickens with a complete (albeit smaller) suite of modern warfighting equipment. I say this primarily because the thought of chickens in little scale tanks is giving me a fit of the giggles. And night-vision devices? Oh, the comedy. Of course, I'm not sure how you train a chicken in tank gunnery, but that's a minor problem. DARPA can work that out for us.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 12:58pm | #

I think that South Carolina would be more enthusiastic to start out with, but given its defense, the Trojans would last longer.

chucklehead | March 15, 2007, 12:59pm | #

It's the same reason I don't believe (and libertarians do) that a Hunagrian immigrant in a company town 100 miles from any other settlement, who doesn't speak English or have access to the company's train, and who owes more than earns to the company store, and who has a family to feed, has a meaningful right to leave his employment.

Ah... the ol' "Starving Hungarian Immigrant in a Town run by the company in the middle of nowhere voluntarily contracting with the company store by buying on credit" argument.

Or SHIT argument, for short.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 12:59pm | #

I'm tired of old men starting wars for spring chickens to die in.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Curse you, chucklehead, and your preternatural talent for acronymns!

LoL.

Warty | March 15, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Or SHIT argument, for short.

Heh. I see what you did there.

Rex Rhino | March 15, 2007, 1:01pm | #

If you find cockfighting inhumane, then you should find eating poultry inhumane. Animals raised for food are tortured far far worse that birds used for cockfighting. In a modern industrial society there is no need to eat meat, all your food needs can be met by non-animal based products. Raising chickens for food is simply a matter of torturing animals for pleasure, no different than cockfighting. If you buy "free-range" chicken, you are torturing them slightly less, but given that chicken is a completly unnessicary thing (unlike say, insulin), and the fact that you are concerned with animal welfare, eating them for pleasure makes you even worse!

Of course none of the people "shocked" by cockfighting will give up eating chicken, because they like eating chicken. It is easy for them to want to ban cockfighting, as they will probably never watch a cockfighting match in their life. It would be like if they banned the sport of curling... who here would be really effected?

thoreau | March 15, 2007, 1:05pm | #

So if a tree falls over in a forest and the stump is on one side of a river, and the top landing on the other side of the river squashes a fighting bird, and a starving Hungarian immigrant uses this new bridge to escape a company town...

...can we get 200 posts out of it?

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:06pm | #

"slightly less?"

You cannot be serious and/or informed about the subject.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Joe:

A being's rights come from its nature. Animals do not understand mortality, so they have no right to life, the way we do. They do, however, understand suffering, fear, and misery, so they have a right to humane treatment.

Even "their continued experience" - [animals] have no conception of continuation....

I think rights are only real if they have real meaning in your life.


So there we have "conception" and "understanding" used in what can at best be termed metaphorical senses (chickens don't understand anything, nor do they have conceptions of anything), as well as "meaning" as a somehow essential definition of rights, and I'm the one accused of being meaningless?

Yeah, right.

Oh, and as for the name calling accusation, okay, I hereby apologize to Humpty Dumpty.

Warty | March 15, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Animals raised for food are tortured

No, they're not. Being forced to live in shitty conditions is not what the word torture means. Cockfighting isn't torture either. Now the Chinese practice of deliberately inflicting pain on livestock because they think it makes them taste better...now that's torture.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:11pm | #

No, it's neither a metaphor. Chickens have limited understanding, but it's not absent. They aren't engaging in purely reflexive activity like a worm when they are injured. They feel the pain, they understand it as unpleasant. Their brains are adequate to that task. They can even learn, a little.

VM | March 15, 2007, 1:13pm | #

"thoreau | March 15, 2007, 1:05pm | #
So if a tree falls over in a forest and the stump is on one side of a river, and the top landing on the other side of the river squashes a fighting bird, and a starving Hungarian immigrant uses this new bridge to escape a company town...

...can we get 200 posts out of it?"

depends - do fetuses with liberal arts degrees have less of a measure of human-ness than their engineering counterparts? What if they have MBAs? And if A=A, but if you have your cake and choose to make sweet love to it, how does that leave nature? Commanded or obeyed?

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Warty,

What if the conditions are shitty enough to cause physical pain, illness, injury, and deformities?

Are you saying the conditions in which someone is housed can NEVER amount to torture?

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:14pm | #

What if the Hungarian had a pistol?

We'd be up to 800.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Would we be better off if the billions of eggs Americans eat every year were raised to be fighting cocks rather than omelettes? Though obviously the majority of them would only be good enough to be fryers.

VM | March 15, 2007, 1:16pm | #

"joe | March 15, 2007, 1:14pm | #
What if the Hungarian had a pistol?

We'd be up to 800."

swathed in corn syrup?

[/looks for cheetos]

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:17pm | #

What this conversation reinforces is that these distinctions are based on subjective evaluations. Kind of like religion. ;)

Jon H | March 15, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Grotius writes: "I've some years of my life on a farm. Chickens at least ain't very happy right before you lop their head off. They are often quite stressed about the situation."

But you 'lop' the head off quickly, you don't scratch through the neck with a rusty nail, so as to maximize your pleasure. Or do you?

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:18pm | #

VM,

Y'all have got to come up with a different joke. That one has been driven into the ground below the mantle is now floating in the fluid portion of the Earth's core.

Nick M. | March 15, 2007, 1:19pm | #

Well, if the Hungarian had a pistol, he take out the president of the company and assume the presidency himself.

Nick

VM | March 15, 2007, 1:20pm | #

I like my jokes slathered up in liquid hot magma.

[evil laughter. fades away]

Jon H | March 15, 2007, 1:20pm | #

"Cockfighting isn't torture either."

You might feel differently if you were forced into gladitorial combat with your weapons limited to those incapable of causing instant death.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Jon H,

Sometimes the bird protests violently, you lose your grip on them and you have to chase them around a bit. By that point the bird is pretty freaked out I am sure. Once you get them back in your grip you try to kill them as fast as possible.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:22pm | #

I'm curious, how many have you ever killed (in person) an animal?

semm11 | March 15, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Given the way the meat processing industry works, I don't see how a liberterian can on the one hand agree with banning cockfighting and on the other think people should have the right to consume meat. (At least in the way it's done in the industrial age)

Would anybody like to correct me?

Jesse Walker | March 15, 2007, 1:23pm | #

1. What if you waterboard a chicken? Is that torture?

2. Almost 100 comments, and no love for the film of the cockfight? That hurts.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:23pm | #

Jon H,

The welfare of the chicken isn't the main concern though. Mostly you try not to get injured and try to avoid the hassle chasing a bird around.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Jesse Walker,

Wasn't there a pretty famous film in the 1960s or 1970s that featured a cockfight?

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 1:24pm | #

I've choked a chicken.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:25pm | #

"Would we be better off if the billions of eggs Americans eat every year were raised to be fighting cocks rather than omelettes? Though obviously the majority of them would only be good enough to be fryers."

I'm awed, FingFanFoom. Well done, Sir.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:27pm | #

"What this conversation reinforces is that these distinctions are based on subjective evaluations."

That's, like, just your opinion, man.

But, yeah, I ran into that problem, too. I can no more prove to D.A.R. that animals have rights than he can prove to me that humans have rights. I'm just defining those rights.

E.A.H. | March 15, 2007, 1:28pm | #

You really should have included among your links Clifford Geertz's essay _Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight_, which is among the most famous and influential pieces ethnography ever written.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200510/ai_n15745138

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 1:29pm | #

They feel the pain, they understand it as unpleasant.

No, they feel the pain and it feels painful. To understand it as anything as abstract as "unpleasant" would be to be able to conceive of it abstractly, which they most certainly are not capable of doing. The fact that a chicken can be trained to perform tricks or "learn" to respond to stimuli in a Skinner box isn't anywhere close to sufficient evidence of its ability to ideate at all. Sure, the nervous system is closer in some respects to a human's than a worm's, but at that stage of development it might just as well be a worm (albeit, a worm capable of feeling -- feeling, not understanding -- pain.

Note to anyone missing the Humpty Dumpty reference: to wit, a bit of Alice in Wonderland --

I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all"

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:31pm | #

EAH,

Geertz gets a lot of play at H&R.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:34pm | #

DA,

This is getting pretty semantic, but to put it your terminology, I draw the line at "pain," not "ideation of pain." I'm not sure if "unpleasant" requires "ideation" as you're using the terms, but I'm sure that's relevant.

Also, worms are not capable of feeling pain, just reacting to stimuli.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Jesse Walker,

Said movie was The Cincinnati Kid (1965).

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Joe,

There are lot of portions of our brains that are not present in Aves, but the pain centers most certainly are.

"Pain" is likely not a similar sensation among all animals, regardless of neurological hardware (by the way, worms also have what could be described as “pain centers”). For one, you can’t really separate pain, memory, and rational thought. For more intelligent animals, pain is mostly a function of memory, and the manner in which we feel pain depends on our ability to retain memories and process information. When you or I feel pain, that sensation is designed to burn that negative experience into our memories and also to allow us to gauge the relative hazards of various phenomena. For an animal like a worm, pain is likely just another stimulus leading to more-or-less a reflexive reaction, not unlike a knee jerk reflex . I don’t honestly know where a chicken falls on this spectrum, but they most certainly aren’t endowed with our rational capacity or memory, hence my suspicion that they don’t feel pain in a manner analogous to humans.

Jesse Walker | March 15, 2007, 1:44pm | #

EAH: Your wish is my command.

Grotius: I've seen that movie, but I don't remember the cockfight. Don't remember much about it at all, actually.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Joe:

This is getting pretty semantic [now that's funny!], but to put it your terminology, I draw the line at "pain"

Obviously, the solution to our dispute here is a genetically engineered breed of chickens, all suffering (pun intended) from CIPA.

swillfredo pareto | March 15, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Given the way the meat processing industry works, I don't see how a liberterian can on the one hand agree with banning cockfighting and on the other think people should have the right to consume meat. (At least in the way it's done in the industrial age)

Would anybody like to correct me?


What exactly are we supposed to correct? You are begging the question…and missing the point. The purpose of raising an animal for food is not to bring about extra suffering and be entertained and gratified by the act of killing the animal; it is to expect the animal is treated humanely, its suffering is minimized, and then to enjoy consuming its carcass.

thoreau | March 15, 2007, 1:49pm | #

1. What if you waterboard a chicken? Is that torture?

I dunno. Would it be torture to dry-board a duck?

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:49pm | #

No, no, D.A., "wicked semantic" would be funny.

I've had just about enough of your anti-semiotism.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Chris S,

Chickens can learn to avoid circumstances which caused them pain in the past. They can associate certain stimulii with...well, with something they want to avoid.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:53pm | #

I'm still curious about this; how many have you ever killed (in person) an animal?

dhex | March 15, 2007, 1:55pm | #

do mice and rats count?

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Does a fish count?

Speaking of anti-semiotism, you know what sucks, that movie, Signs.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 1:55pm | #

I ran over a cat one time.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Does a fish count?

Possibly, but it seems incapable of any higher math.

joe | March 15, 2007, 1:59pm | #

I've held cats while the vet put them to sleep.

Never killed my own meat, though. Unless catching fish counts.

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Joe,

The last chicken I spoke with told me that he likes pain. So there!

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Yeah a fish counts, especially if you gutted the fish yourself.

Rooster Cogburn | March 15, 2007, 2:03pm | #

Mr. Rat, I have a writ here says you're to stop eating Chin Lee's cornmeal forthwith. Now it's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of the same. See, doesn't pay any attention to me.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 2:03pm | #

I've never gutted, etc. a deer before, but I've watched my father do it enough.

semm | March 15, 2007, 2:03pm | #

What exactly are we supposed to correct? You are begging the question…and missing the point. The purpose of raising an animal for food is not to bring about extra suffering

So the purpose is the imporant part? Does it not matter that the actual effect of raising animals for slaughter is suffering, and on a scale far more massive than cockfighting?

and be entertained and gratified by the act of killing the animal; it is to expect the animal is treated humanely, its suffering is minimized, and then to enjoy consuming its carcass.

But it is not treated humanely in either the case of cockfighting or raising of meat (at least not from the videos of chicken processing plants I've seen), that is the point. I know of no effort being made by any meat producer to make it's procedures more umane if such changes would tend to make thier production less efficient. Do you?

So again, I ask how can one be against one and not the other?

I'll give an stab at an answer to this myself. The real purpose of animal cruelty laws is not to proetct animals, but rather to protect society from those people who would derive pleasure from the inhumane treatment of animals.

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Who else would gut a fish? Only a few seconds work with a sharp knife.

joe | March 15, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Chris S,

Maybe you should appoint him your ambassador to El Salvador.

Tsuriel Raphael | March 15, 2007, 2:05pm | #

The last chicken I spoke with told me that he likes pain.

If you see him again, give him my number.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 2:05pm | #

FinFangFoom,

Some people take them back to the dock and have it done there.

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 2:08pm | #

It seems that opportunity was too good to pass up, for both of you. For the record, the last sheep I talked to... never mind.

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Chris S:

That sheep is a damned liar!

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Do they do something fancy there? I just scale them cut off the head and tail and remove the entrails.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 2:16pm | #

FinFangFoom,

*shrug*

Can't say.

Mmm tacos | March 15, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Never killed my own meat, though. Unless catching fish counts.

No, fish aren't animals. They're, um, slimey fruits.

We're only really interested in protecting animals we empathize with, apparently.

Daniel Dennett has actually written about this subject quite a bit, and I refer you to _Kinds of Minds_ for a more in depth discussion of animal suffering that anyone is likely to find here, where the general line of thought seems to be "chickens suffer because I think they suffer and fish don't for the same reason."

As for me, I grew up with roosters, I know roosters, and I hate roosters as only someone who was continuously assaulted by them as a toddler can. If two roosters want to fight each other to the death, I hope they both lose.

James Anderson Merritt | March 15, 2007, 2:23pm | #

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 1:22pm | #
I'm curious, how many have you ever killed (in person) an animal?
==============================================

Watched as my sick cat was put down (with my extremely reluctant consent -- I might as well have flipped the switch). Participated in slaughter of turkeys on a poultry ranch (and also killed some of those birds by accident during routine farm operations). Helplessly witnessed a racoon be clubbed to death in defense of those same turkeys. (Perhaps the birth of a dark sense of irony?)

Just so everyone realizes, turkeys kept in pens and houses establish a literal pecking order, which inevitably results in some birds being pecked to death by their own kind. Watching those at the bottom of the pecking order grow more and more injured, and weaker every day, has all of the downside of watching a cockfight, and none of the blood-lust upside. Responsible, humane growers try to separate out these "culls" before their peers do them in, but not every bird can be saved. And ironically enough, the "culls," segregated from the other birds in smaller pens, soon establish their OWN pecking order and continue abusing one or more of their penmates. Sort of the way many of the self-described libertarians go at each other in forums like this, if you want to get a sense of it.

swillfredo pareto | March 15, 2007, 2:31pm | #

So the purpose is the important part?

It is one of the important parts. Whether I murder a man for pleasure or take his life in self-defense there is still a dead man. But my consequences are different based on my intent.

Does it not matter that the actual effect of raising animals for slaughter is suffering, and on a scale far more massive than cockfighting?

It does to me. But I don’t know enough about how all chicken processing plants work to have an educated opinion on the magnitude of the suffering, nor do I see suffering as a discrete variable, i.e. the chicken is either suffering or isn’t, there is a continuum. My opposition is not to the fact that a chicken suffers and dies, it is the fact that people are gratified by the animal’s suffering. We evolved with an omnivorous need for food, which requires us to kill animals. That perpetuates the species. I don’t see a benefit to killing an animal as a form of entertainment. I don’t make a libertarian argument for humane treatment of animals, I make a humanitarian argument.

The real purpose of animal cruelty laws is not to protect animals, but rather to protect society from those people who would derive pleasure from the inhumane treatment of animals.

I don’t know if that is the purpose, but it is hopefully one of the benefits.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 2:37pm | #

I don’t see a benefit to killing an animal as a form of entertainment.

Community solidarity? The working out of ritual violence?

Soda | March 15, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Ah, the Circle of Empathy problem.

A non-trivial problem once the circle of empathy reaches animals, as is evident by the number of passionate replies to this particular HNR entry.

joe | March 15, 2007, 2:53pm | #

"We're only really interested in protecting animals we empathize with, apparently."

What a convenient thing to say, to ignore everything anyone has written about their motivations, and pretend there hasn't been any more thought put into the matter than that.

mediageek | March 15, 2007, 3:13pm | #

"Ah, the Circle of Empathy problem."

I thought that Meet the Parents sucked.

jerry | March 15, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Being a Libertarian doesn't mean endorsing cruelty to animals. Individual rights to use drugs is a Libertarian value because it is the individual's right to introduce whatever he wants to into his body, or to alter his consciousness as he sees fit. Consenual sex for money (prostitution)is also a Libertarian concept, as is the right to die and a woman's right to control her own body. On the other hand, the "right" to inflict suffering on an animal so someone can get their kicks is NOT a Libertarian value. Regrettably, we kill animals for food in a most inhumane manner. Hopefully that will change. Torturing animals for the sheer pleasure of it is reprensible. It SHOULD be a crime. It's a crime against society as well as to animals. Why would a Libertarian defend such willfully inhumane activity?

R C Dean | March 15, 2007, 3:34pm | #

I don’t see a benefit to _________ as a form of entertainment.

Entertainment is its own reward, producing pleasure (as it does) in the entertained. You could fill in the blank there with just about anything people do for entertainment. Try:

"watching cricket"
"playing video games"
"building model railroads"

The real question isn't "does this form of entertainment have value other than being entertaining" (most don't); the real question is "does this form of entertainment have bad effects such thatpeople who indulge in it should be thrown in jail".

D.A. Ridgely | March 15, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Torturing animals for the sheer pleasure of it is reprensible. It SHOULD be a crime. It's a crime against society as well as to animals. Why would a Libertarian defend such willfully inhumane activity?

Because what you or I consider reprehensible (and our lists will almost certainly include different items) isn't in itself sufficient to make something a crime.

Lamar | March 15, 2007, 3:40pm | #

"I don’t see a benefit to _________ as a form of entertainment."

These people don't care about chickens. They want your prurient entertainment to end. You are an evil person if you like cockfights, etc. Like blue laws, the idea is to stop what is perceived as immoral behavior, not save chickens.

Shelby | March 15, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Per Soda's link:

Jaron Lanier thinks that liberals seek to expand the circle of empathy, while conservatives seek to contract it? What does he say about people who are neither liberal nor conservative? And does he think that, say, Nancy Pelosi is more "liberal" than John Stuart Mill? Sounds like self-justification to me.

Soda | March 15, 2007, 3:41pm | #

"Ah, the Circle of Empathy problem."

I thought that Meet the Parents sucked.


Heh! Wrong circle, mediageek.

Now I have an image in my head of Robert De Niro lecturing a chicken about his circle of trust.

Although I must say I liked Meet The Parents. Meet The Fockers though, that sucked hard.

Egon | March 15, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Grotius: I have.

Will there be a club (nopunintented)?

Egon | March 15, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Ah, crap. IntenDed.

fishfry | March 15, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Thank you for this thread. Before today I had been a fan of Richardson for his stand on legalizing drug use and other libertarian ideas. Now I realize I had confused him with the former gov, Gary Johnson.

So now I no longer care about Richardson. That leaves Ron Paul as the only candidate I can stand.

Soda | March 15, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Jaron Lanier thinks that liberals seek to expand the circle of empathy, while conservatives seek to contract it? What does he say about people who are neither liberal nor conservative? And does he think that, say, Nancy Pelosi is more "liberal" than John Stuart Mill? Sounds like self-justification to me.

I don't know what circle of empathy "radius" Lanier would assign to libertarians, Shelby.

It seems to vary wildly between individuals.

Regardless of his "roughly speaking" comment at the end of his definition, I find the "circle of empathy" concept a useful tool for these types of discussions.

If animals (or a subset of them) are in your circle of empathy then it would be difficult to agree with any type of cruelty inflicted on said animals.

Forgetting the liberal vs. conservative for moment, I see the circle of empathy size spectrum running from Buddhist Monks that can't kill insects (large radius) to sociopaths (small radius) on the other. Most people lie somewhere in the middle.

joe | March 15, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Lamar,

"These people don't care about chickens. They want your prurient entertainment to end. You are an evil person if you like cockfights, etc. Like blue laws, the idea is to stop what is perceived as immoral behavior, not save chickens."

Who are "these people?" Does that category include myself?

FinFangFoom | March 15, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Circle of empathy?

The circle of empathy might be useful for explaining why celebrities in California think its okay to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. It is useless as a way to actually answer the question of whether or not it is okay to treat an animal in certain ways for certain purposes.

swillfredo pareto | March 15, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Entertainment is its own reward...You could fill in the blank there with just about anything people do for entertainment. Try:

watching cricket
playing video games
building model railroads


None of those things involves a sentient being suffering against its will.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 4:30pm | #

So, dogs, horses, etc. who race, are they suffering?

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Racing is not in and of itself harmful to the animal.

Unlike fighting with metal spurs, living in a 1 square foot cage with two other chickens, or being strapped into place for months on end and being force-fed through a tube.

Now, the WAY racing dogs are treated is pretty appalling, but the racing itself doesn't seem to do them any harm.

Yes, you ca