Weekend Open Thread/Libertarian Purity Test

Comments theread is open to any topic.

But to get you started: What's a card-carrying libertoid to think of the Michael Vick situation, and of animal cruelty laws in general? Do animals have rights? Are they property? Both? Is the government obliged to prevent someone from feeding puppies to a wood chipper?

Tibor Machan takes the Cruella de Vil hard line here. Cato's Justin Logan responds here. Archive of reason animal rights goodies here. My take on what should happen with Vick here. Skip Oliva responds at the Mises blog here. And here's a tepid defense of dog fighting by To the People's Baylen Linnekin.

Comments

as | July 21, 2007, 11:38am | #

Radley Balko, the states' rights argument is great and all, but where do you come down as far as the argument goes for your home state?

Me, I don't have a clue, but I'm off to YouTube to watch some videos. Unlike Clinton Portis, I don't know where to go see a dog fight, live-style.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 11:47am | #

I'm amazed that while people are on TV calling this everything up to abd including murder and how it's a crime to even watch it,pictures of dog fighting run on the screen constantly.

crimethink | July 21, 2007, 11:55am | #

Uh, don't animals fight each other in the wild? I think a lot of the revulsion at this comes from the "Lion King" view of nature that presumes the animal kingdom is a peaceful, benevolent, non-violent society, as long as humans don't come along and screw it up.

Throwing puppies into a wood chipper is a totally different question; that's just wanton cruelty. I'd have to think about that one...

crimethink | July 21, 2007, 11:59am | #

Michael Pack,

Do they always preface it with the standard disclaimer, "The following report contains imagery that may not be appropriate for younger and more sensitive viewers"?

When I was a kid, my ears always pricked up at that. Like the guy in Family Guy says about the Viewer Discretion Advised tag, "That's how you know it's good."

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 12:08pm | #

I'm inclined to think that some higher functioning animals do have a claim to some rights, and that the general ambivalence I see among my fellow libertarians in regards to those rights has something to do with the Second Amendment, a gut reaction against restrictions on medical research and our carnivorous appetites.

...It's hard to think of something as having rights when you're accustomed to thinking of it as food.

That being said, if a dog has a right to anything, it seems to me that it has a right not to be repeatedly slammed on the ground until dead.

The Constitution tries to protect us from the idiot masses, but if public figures try hard enough, they can make it past those protections. One easy way around is by messin' with the things advertisers use to tug at our heart strings. Think of it as a general rule.

Jim Croce sang, "You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You'd don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger..."

I say you don't tick off any hot chicks, for goodness' sake, you don't do anything that might hurt a child, you don't disparage the flag or the public's sense of patriotism and you don't mess around with puppies!

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 12:14pm | #

crimethink,no they don't,I think they like the shock value.As a kid I grew up hunting and fishing.I also have butchered my share of pigs,chickens,and beef.While I believe animals are property,I have no problems with local setting humane laws and regulations.I do have a problem with the feds.It also bothers me that many 'experts' on Fox and CNN are from PETA.A group that considers hunting,fishing and the beef industry murder.

Charles | July 21, 2007, 12:15pm | #

For Vick specifically, as I understand it he was involved in a multi-state dog fighting and gambling ring, which is pretty clearly a case where the feds can (and, I would argue, should) step in. Others may disagree as to if they should.

Charles | July 21, 2007, 12:16pm | #

crimethink,

Dog fighting and cock fighting and other "sports" are as far away from what happens in nature as having the dogs play basketball against one another would be.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 12:18pm | #

First, it's disgusting, brutal, reprehensible, cruel and despicable to engage in that "sport." I think Americans are rightly sickened at Vick and the other vile scum who participate in it.
And I think it should be illegal.
Libertarian legal philosophy is built on the premise that in criminal matters, there must be a victim. There can be no "victimless crimes."
Certainly, you can make the case that to train these dogs to kill, to deliberately arrange for a torturous bloodletting, you have created an unwilling victim of your actions. This is not like hunting, where in a state of nature you are seeking out your prey with tools that your species has invented.
My approach would be to define the crime and its victims specifically; i.e., "No torturing of animals higher than [fill in the blank] on the food chain." If that reeks of moral grayness, so be it.

Fido Santorum (L-PA) | July 21, 2007, 12:20pm | #

you don't mess around with puppies!

Sheez...you can say that again. I could tell you some stories that would crop your ears.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Ken,Rights include thought and reasoning.Not only of your rights but to understand the rights of others.I do not think animals have right but do think we have a responciblity to treat them humanely and pass laws to that effect

ktc2 | July 21, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Animals are property.

No further explanation/laws needed.

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 12:24pm | #

"Do animals have rights?"

I was going to ask where you think rights come from, but I think there's a case to be made whether you think they come from a social contract or you think they were endowed by God. ...whether you think they're merely a utilitarian assumption or whether you think you earned or inherited them. Blah, blah, blah.

Under every theory of the origin of rights that I can think of, there's a case to be made for animal rights. ...some of those arguments may be more persuasive than others.

Anonymous Bastert | July 21, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Dogfighting is only okay if you eat them.

Tasty!

Seriously though, sorry but I don't get it. I love a nice Spanish bullfight, and while I've never been to a dogfight, never seen a dogfight, and have absolutely no inclination to do so, I don't really care enough for it to be illegal. This just sounds like another case of trying to criminalize any "dirty" recreation. Recreation doesn't need a moral defense.

Fighting dog | July 21, 2007, 12:27pm | #

On another topic, should it be illegal to feed someone who is too fat to go to the store themselves to get food?

crimethink | July 21, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Ken Schultz,

A big part of the problem with giving animals rights, though, is that it has the potential to undermine the idea that inalienable rights belong to humans by their very nature. When we try to decide what degree of rights a dog has vs. a mouse vs. a dolphin vs. a lobster, etc., we're tacitly accepting the idea that rights come from a societal decision.

I mean, what justification can you give for allowing people to essentially torture mice by setting glue traps, or allowing people to drown rats, but not allow the same treatment to dogs?

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 12:31pm | #

Animals are property.

No further explanation/laws needed.

Wow, that's beautiful, thoughtful, nuanced thinking.

Anonymous Bastert | July 21, 2007, 12:32pm | #

If we ever ban meat, I'm seriously moving to Brazil.

crimetink | July 21, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Michael Pack,

I think I would agree with your approach, but I'm having a hard time reconciling it with my libertarian principles. Once you start legislating responsibility towards animals, there's no barrier to legislating responsibility towards other people's children, the poor, people in other countries, those without health care, the elderly, etc. And then you wind up with the welfare-warfare state we have today.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 12:33pm | #

My big problem is the idea that in order for there to be a crime, you necessarily have to grant animals all these "rights."
Can't "wanton cruelty" be a crime in and of itself? Can't we judge people for such behavior? I think we can -- and should.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 12:35pm | #

What about infants? Certainly they have a right to life, but for all intents, they are no more moral agents than dogs.
Can you burn your infant with a cigarette? And if not, why not?

crimethink | July 21, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Jamie Kelly,

Again, the problem is that after you ban wanton cruelty, how do you justify saying "no" to the person who wants to ban drugs, pornography, homosexual behavior, etc, without claiming that animals have rights?

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Ken,Rights include thought and reasoning.

I've known some people who were incapable of reasoning.

I've known people who were comatose.

I'm not saying animals should have a right to vote or that they should have freedom of the press--but maybe some of them should have something like a right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm starting to think of rights in evolutionary terms. ...like something of an adaptation.

I've recently read accounts of something like morality in Chimpanzees. ...morality as adaptation, see?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 12:39pm | #

"Animals are property.

No further explanation/laws needed."
I'm afraid I'm going to need more than that bald assertion. Are they property like furniture? Because they strike me as much more like humans than furniture. For example, when I kick my furniture it does not writhe in pain, scream and bruise. Animals, and humans, do react in this way. It strikes me that animals are easily some middle ground, and our laws rightly reflect this. You can get away with doing things to animals that you could not with humans, like experimenting on them to find cures for humans or killing them to feed humans. But you cannot do whatever you want to them like you could to your furniture. Because they are an obviously different kind of "property."
"Rights include thought and reasoning." I may be Mr. Nice Guy, but this strikes me as plain stupid. Do newborns have a right not to be slammed to the ground till they die? Because newborns do not have thought and reasoning. How about people in comas, can I stick them with needles for fun? Or severely retarded people, like with a mental age of 18 months or so, can I hose them down and electrocute them for sh&ts and giggles?
Dogs have been shown to have a language recognition capacity of up to 200 words (of course they cannot speak, they have no vocal chords).
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/06/10/smartdog.php
I've also read that while any comparison of dog to human intelligence is fraught with incredible problems, that it is not unreasonable to assume that the average adult dog has an intelligence comparable to a toddler. Toddlers cannot reason or think about rights in any way that would allow them to join any social contract I have ever heard of, but who thinks we can slam them around and fry them up for fun? Note noone is saying animals should have anything comparable to the rights humans have (for that matter toddlers or the severely retarded have limited rights too don't they, they cannot vote, contract, decide where they want to live, etc.), just that at a bare minimum they have a right not to be tortured.

mk | July 21, 2007, 12:39pm | #

My big problem with bullfighting is that the bull doesn't really stand a chance. On the few occasions that the bull gets the better of the bullfighter or takes a leap into the audience and starts goring spectators, I get a little thrill out of it.

But even then the bull still gets put down. I'd like to see a bullfight where the bull gets to win.

crimethink | July 21, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Why does mk hate humanity?

;-)

SIV | July 21, 2007, 12:42pm | #

OK "libertarians" , what is now legal that you wish use State power to ban and what is now prohibited that you want to legalize? I am referring to things which otherwise pass the force, fraud coercion test.

Legal:

Hunting, fishing, trapping,animal racing,circuses cosmetic surgery, autoracing, motorcycles, guns, BDSM sex, pornography, alchohol, tobacco, state-sanctioned gambling.

Currently illegal:

Marijuana, prostitution, unlicensed machine guns, "hard drugs", cockfighting, dogfighting,
non-state-sanctioned gambling.

Feel free to add any thing I left out.

Bonus question:Is the age of majority too high, too low, or just right?
Consider such things as consent to sex,ability to enter into contracts, drinking age, military enlistment or anything else you can think of.

stuart | July 21, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Not all humans have the same "inalienable” rights. Many humans do not have the right to vote.
Since we all understand that different capacities lead to different sets of rights for humans, we shouldn’t have a problem with animals.
The point about how nasty animals are to each other doesn’t indicate anything about how we should treat them. Humans are naturally very nasty to each other, but we don’t think its okay.
I’m sure some smart guy said can’t derive an ought from an is.
I’m curious why libertarians normally have such strong feelings on animal rights, what’s libertarianism got to do with it? It’s obviously not conclusive, but libertarians who have such a hard time getting their heads around animal rights should reread Anarchy, State and Utopia.

Charles | July 21, 2007, 12:43pm | #

mk,

That's sort of how I talk to my friends who hunt frequently. If they were out there barehanded, or with just a knife, then I would respect those antlers on the wall. Until then, it's just killing for the sake of killing, with occasional mild homoeroticism thrown in.

D.A. Ridgely | July 21, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Obviously, not all animals are property. Obviously, also, many animals are property in the legal sense of the term. And what other sense, really, is there?

Now, you can ask whether they should be regarded as such or whether there should be limitations on property rights in some animals and why. Similarly, you can argue whether the notion of animals posessing moral rights makes sense (I think it doesn't, ymmv), though it doesn't follow that because we may limit property rights in animals it is because they have any sort of moral (let alone legal) rights.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 12:47pm | #

"Again, the problem is that after you ban wanton cruelty, how do you justify saying "no" to the person who wants to ban drugs, pornography, homosexual behavior, etc, without claiming that animals have rights?"
Hey, this philosophical trick works the other way doesn't it? If you justify restricting people from burning coma patients with cigars or kicking terminally ill infants (notice how any 'potentiality' issue is solved with that neat move), how can you not extend that to obviously feeling thinking (at some level) beings?
But more to the point, I should think libertarians are reluctant to restrict people unless the harm is rather obvious and direct to others. This is why it's a no-brainer that we can restrict me from bopping you on the head for fun. Well, with animal cruelty the harm is rather obvious and direct to something that obviously feels the harm and quite likely is aware of it at some thinking level. With porn, consenting alternative sexuality, and the like the harm suggested is very indirect and not usually obvious to most folks.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 12:49pm | #

Crimethink,I don't have an answer.I believe animals are property.People in states and cities have the rights to set their own rules in many cases.I see your point and tend to agree.I do have a problem when the feds include themselves in matters that should be discussed on a local level.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 12:51pm | #

"Mr. Nice Guy"

Infants and retarded persons have rights because they are Human.

Do you wish to ban animal testing,horse racing,trapping, hunting, fishing, meat eating, milk and honey and sik production?

Would it be OK to ban some of these things if a majority agree?

Mike Laursen | July 21, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Do animals have rights?

Just the cute, furry ones.

Dave2 | July 21, 2007, 12:52pm | #

crimethink wrote:

A big part of the problem with giving animals rights, though, is that it has the potential to undermine the idea that inalienable rights belong to humans by their very nature. When we try to decide what degree of rights a dog has vs. a mouse vs. a dolphin vs. a lobster, etc., we're tacitly accepting the idea that rights come from a societal decision.

Why think the rights come from our decision? Why not instead think that the rights are already there, independent of our decision, and we're trying to figure out what they are?

I mean, I see nothing odd about the idea that the kinds of rights a creature naturally has (i.e., independently of any social convention) is something that depends on the creature's capacities and other morally significant features. Humans have such-and-such capacities and features and so we have such-and-such rights. With lobsters, it's different, and with dogs, it's different still.

(And any animal rights would have to be inalienable, because -- unlike humans -- animals don't have the capacity to voluntarily surrender or waive their rights)

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Again, the problem is that after you ban wanton cruelty, how do you justify saying "no" to the person who wants to ban drugs, pornography, homosexual behavior, etc, without claiming that animals have rights?

Gee, I dunno, because none of those things amounts to "wanton cruelty"?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 12:56pm | #

"Well, with animal cruelty the harm is rather obvious and direct to something that obviously feels the harm and quite likely is aware of it at some thinking level."
I should have added "and either does not give or is incapable of giving any effective consent" at the end, since of course consensual boxing, freaky sex, prostitution, etc., should be allowed. This also fixes SIV's list, only the following would be problemattic: "Hunting, fishing, trapping,animal racing,circuses." And since everyone here has agreed that animals don't have the full set of rights humans have, just a right to some level of humane treatment, it can be argued that circuses and animal racing (and I might add animal slaughter for things like food and/or hide) can easily be done in humane ways. As rights for animals would exist on a scale relative to their ability to feel and think, most fish would get a low threshold of rights that may allow most fishing. Hunting is problematic though, which is a tough one for me as I grew up hunting. One thing that can be said for it is that it is rarely as intentionally wantonly cruel as what Vick et al. allegedly did.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 12:58pm | #

Enough of this,I think I'll go boil a live lobster.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 12:58pm | #

"Infants and retarded persons have rights because they are Human."
That's serious begging the question. We are discussing whether animals should, like humans, have some rights. It's no answer at all to say "humans deserve rights because they are human." You have to demonstrate why humans deserve rights, and then show that animals do not share any of the characteristics that qualify humans for those rights.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Just the cute, furry ones.

Cetaceans lack fur yet they are accorded greater status,even "rights" than nearly any other non-endangered animals. I believe their was/is a movement to recognise their "rights" by the U.N.

No doubt opposed by the cruelest, most sadistic, EVIL societies on Earth, Norway and Japan.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Infants and retarded persons have rights because they are Human.

Capital-H human, eh? That ignores the central question -- why, if they are not capable moral agents, do they have more rights than a dog?

Do you wish to ban animal testing,horse racing,trapping, hunting, fishing, meat eating, milk and honey and sik production?

No, no, no, no, no, no and no.
Animal testing is necessary for human safety and advances in medicine. What does that have to do with sawing a dog's legs off?
Horseracing -- hardly cruel. Those horses are well-fed, pampered.
Trapping: No. The animal hides are for human consumption.
Same with the rest of your list.
And again, what does this have to do with torturing a dog for your own amusement?

Hugh Akston | July 21, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Having rights to something, no matter what the origin of those rights, involves attendant responsibilities. Claiming property rights means being able to respect the property of others etc. Animals clearly cannot meet that requirement. Don't kid yourselves, if a cow ever got the chance, she'd eat you and everyone you care about.

This is why that babies = animals argument breaks down. Babies will one day develop into people capable of comprehending rights. "Sit" and "Play dead" is about as comprehending as dogs get.

Killing animals for food or in self-defense is fine, as long as its done somewhat humanely.

I don't support the wanton killing of animals for the sheer cruel fun of it. But then again, I don't support the business model of Whole Foods, the content of most Starbucks beverages, or any action performed by Adam Sandler, but neither do I advocate banning them.

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Hugh Akston,

Some animals are territorial. ...and a lot of people only respect other people's rights out of a threat of violence. That seems to break down pretty quick.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Michael Pack,

Too bad crawfish season is over you could cruelly boil hundreds of live ones and devour their well spiced corpses.Clams sound good, I could murder six dozen and consume them with gusto, taking satisfaction in their lack of "rights".Although gulf oysters are available I prefer to eat their still beating sentience in the cooler months.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | July 21, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Maybe someone can help me out here...as I see it, all "rights" are societal. Without society the concept doesn't even exist. If you're alone on a desert island your only "right" is to try to stay alive until you die.
If all rights are determined by society, then society can say that dogs have more rights than lobsters but fewer rights than humans and that's just the way it is. Deal with it.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Libertarian hardline: I'm lighting dogs on fire and juggling them, charging willing spectators $5 a head. Show includes free hit of meth.

See, this is where libertarians fuck themselves with a rake.

ktc2 | July 21, 2007, 1:09pm | #

Nope.

They have the same rights as my shoes, couch, car, etc. (i.e. none)

Let me be clear, I own a beautiful intelligent loving mollocan cockatoo but he is still NOT a person and NOT entitled to any rights. I would absolutely abhor and shun anyone who engages in needless cruelty to animals but I just do not think it's the proper place for government force.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 1:10pm | #

"Having rights to something, no matter what the origin of those rights, involves attendant responsibilities." Again, plain stupid. Babies and severly retarded people are incapable of responsibility, but we restrict folks from torturing them.
"This is why that babies = animals argument breaks down. Babies will one day develop into people capable of comprehending rights."
A lot of them will not, like terminally ill babies. Is it OK to kick them around? What elderly folks suffering from incurable dementia? They will not "develop into people capable of comprehending rights." Can I burn them with mu cigar to see them dance?
I realize that since most people in modern society inevitably are involved in supporting various forms of animal cruelty that there is a strong need for people to turn to such arguments (I do, I love meat for example, and humanely killed meat is very hard to find). But they are really, really bad arguments.

Hugh Akston | July 21, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Ken Schultz,

Territoriality is an instinct, not an understanding.

People are capable of respecting property rights without the threat of violence, yes?

Animals aren't.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:16pm | #

if they are not capable moral agents, do they have more rights than a dog?

Immature and defective humans have rights because humans do. Dogs do not as they are not human.

Where does this "dog torture" thing come from?
I thought the issue at hand was the prohibition of traditional, breed-specific canine sports?

joe | July 21, 2007, 1:17pm | #

If the animals were brought across state lines for a business purpose, or bets or advertising crossed state lines, I guess there could be a federal case.

Virginia just probably wanted to get the really good field techs from the federal agencies to do forensics on the property.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 1:17pm | #

It usually doesn't take long in any discussion of animal cruelty to get someone who, like SIV or Pack, who says "ha ha, I love me some hamburger" or something equally juvenile. It's like, "I realize my arguments are weak, but ha ha, I can violate your morals with impunity." Of course, no one here has pointed out that clams or lobsters have the rights they joyfully exclaim to violate. Why don't you merry pranksters get brave and say "ho ho, I'm off to fuck a dog" or something. That'll show us animal rights nuts!

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 1:21pm | #

"Immature and defective humans have rights because humans do. Dogs do not as they are not human."
SIV, please stop wasting yours and everyone's time and read what it means to be begging the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
You make as much sense as me saying "Dogs have rights because they have four legs and are furry."
Once more, and slowly, you need to do more than assert that "Humans get rights because they are humans, animals do not because they are not." Such a mere assertion of an obvious tautological (you need a link for that one too?) fact gets you absolutely no where. Why do humans have rights? E-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-e.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 1:22pm | #

SIV,oysters are my favoite,I prefer them slightly wet roasted,eaiser to shuck.There's a place in Nags Head I used to rent.It had a boat dock and I spend time drinking beer with my lab[his favorite was Sam Adams] and catch blue crabs with sting and chicken wings then boil them for dinner.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Well I could drive over the state line and watch some dog races, hell even bet on them.Fully state-sanctioned of course.

How are the slow and underperforming dogs treated as compared to how Vick and his buddies allegedly
cut fighters from the team?

Peter Twieg | July 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

I have difficulty thinking of a (non-ad hoc) rationale for giving anyone rights that couldn't be applied, to some extent, to animals as well. The ones which I'm most sympathetic to are those that argue that granting rights leads to greater efficiency and productivity, but part of this outcome comes from the fact that granting rights also expands the sphere of what we consider efficient transactions to the new rights-bearers. I can see how a lot of animal rights would have negligible negative consequences, ie. don't sadistically slaughter animals, but a lot of cases would have negative consequences, such as those that would forbid animal testing for medicinal purposes. Efficiency would probably dictate that animals be given the "right" to not be sadistically abused, but not protections against exploitative actions which have a productive goal.

joe | July 21, 2007, 1:27pm | #

The differences between the nervous systems and consciousness of shellfish and mammals are so obvious that to even raise the argument is to proclaim that aren't making the slightest effort to be serious.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Speaking of weak arguments are you still clinging
to that idea that infants and defective humans are not human as they lack moral agencey?

If "society" is justified in assigning relative degrees of rights to different species I suppose you think it is OK for them to do the same with race, sex and class?

Dogs as citizens and women as property?

joe | July 21, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Who are you addressing, SIV?

edna | July 21, 2007, 1:34pm | #

obligatory rah reference: jerry was a man.

btw, what is the most highly encephalized invertebrate? squid?

should we be allowed to raise anencephalized humans in tanks for yummy, yummy luaus?

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 1:34pm | #

Mr nice guy,I believe,and the constitution backs me up,animals have no rights.Unlike you I have killed my dinner before and am not a hipocrate when it comes to food.I've found when people resort to vulgar speech they know they lost the argument.I will not respond in kind.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:35pm | #

The differences between the nervous systems and consciousness of shellfish and mammals are so obvious that to even raise the argument is to proclaim that aren't making the slightest effort to be serious.

So where do you draw the line?

Animal Rights proponents believe that honey and silk production are immoral as the bees and caterpillars are unnaturally enslaved for the
unnecessary substitution of sugar and nylon or some such nonsense.

christoforo colombo | July 21, 2007, 1:35pm | #

how 'bout that Ron Paul?

TJIT | July 21, 2007, 1:36pm | #

The basis of anti cruelty laws is the fact that sociopaths and other unsavory individuals warm up on animals before moving on to humans.

Also fighting dog trainers steal other peoples pets to act as training fodder for their fighting dogs.

Valid reasons aside from the obvious ethical issues for the illegality of dog fighting and the financial and transport issues that surround it.

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Well that's what I'm saying, Hugh.

Our legal rights may well be a function of law and they may be a reflection of a moral right...

...but who's to say that morality isn't an evolutionary adaptation? As I said, I've seen studies suggesting that chimpanzees have a kind of morality. And why wouldn't we expect to see that?

Are you a creationist? If humanity is the product of evolution, then shouldn't we expect to see the evidence of our adaptations elsewhere in the natural world? ...In species with common ancestors, at least?

My understanding is that some tribal societies don't think of personal property in the way we do. ...but I suspect Cro-Magnon man probably did respect his neighbor's rights, whatever those were. And I have little doubt but that their ancestors did at least as well as a pride of lions in deciding who gets to eat a kill. ...or at least as well as a pack of dogs for that matter.

The study I saw about chimpanzees suggested that morality, in it's origins, is instinctive in its essence.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20171

...which makes me want to ask the question, not whether animals have rights, but why it is that we're the only animals with rights?

This immense separation between ourselves and the rest of the animal kingdom--it seems like a relic of creationism or, like I said, maybe it's just the way we deal with eating other animals as food.

joe | July 21, 2007, 1:45pm | #

SIV,

Some small fraction of those who believe that animals have rights believe that eating honey is the moral equivalent of human chattel slavery. I can find some silly, radical libertarians, too, if you'd like.

The precise location of the line will probabl

joe | July 21, 2007, 1:46pm | #

whoa!

...will probably always be up for debate.

That the line is way the hell on this side of dogfighting isn't a very tough call.

TJIT | July 21, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Jamie Kelly said,

Libertarian hardline: I'm lighting dogs on fire and juggling them, charging willing spectators $5 a head. Show includes free hit of meth.

See, this is where libertarians fuck themselves with a rake.

Which neatly sums up the problem.

There is a certain species of libertarian who thinks the most important (and entertaining) thing to do is to poke their finger in the eye of the sheeple by arguing for outrageous and offensive positions.

They find this to be more important then actually using a little tact and respect to persuade people that libertarians have a good, useful philosophy.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Mr. Condescending Asshole,

By your "logic" unconcious humans are not human
or have no rights or whatever because they lack moral agency at the time? Go read your Singer Bible and pray to Gaia or Science and take your vegan communion. You might re-read my posts and see why you are actually arguing with yourself.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 1:53pm | #

What should the punishment be?Sould it be a felony and what class.How much time.I have seen those on tv that equate it with manslaughter and murder.

Mike Espinoza | July 21, 2007, 1:54pm | #

I have no problem with dog fighting being legal. I, also, have no problem considering you to be a piece of shit of you engage in dog fighting.

Furthermore, why limit it to dogs and roosters? Why not get hungry lions, tigers, bears, (oh, my), snakes, boars, etc. and have them tear each other to pieces? Oh, that's right, because your punk ass can't contain them properly and they'd end up feasting on you (which would not be a crime) or someone else (which would).

Ultimately, dogs are property. In fact, in Asia, they are food. Nevertheless, most people associate them as pets and, as such, a member of the family. I'll be damned if anyone is going to harm my dogs.

Personally, I only enjoy watching insects die. I've murdered several hundred flies and thousands of ants over my lifetime. I continue to show no remorse.

Son of a! | July 21, 2007, 1:56pm | #

So if, while I'm driving down a dark country road, a deer leaps in front of me and I smash into it, am I guilty of deerslaughter? Was the deer jaywalking? (I can already see the personal injury lawyers courting deer on late-night TV.)

Conversely, if I did the same thing to a guy, can I take his carcass home and make tons of jerky out of him? Because that sounds cool.

No, wait. "Man jerky" sounds like it involves tissues. I take it back.

Also, I want to sue birds who take dump on my car. (They were also trespassing.)

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 1:57pm | #

"Speaking of weak arguments are you still clinging
to that idea that infants and defective humans are not human as they lack moral agencey?"
Did I say they are not human? Please show and tell.
SIV, are you constitutionally incapable of going beyond "humans are humans" as an argument? You've had several invitations to step outside of that circular argument before you get yourself dizzy, yet you seem incapable of even trying. I'm beginning to think that to ask you to do such is the wanton cruelty of a dumb animal...
Michael-The Constitution doesn't give animal rights? No kidding! I guess there are no rights outside of the Constitution, huh? Well, I have a shocker for you then. All 50 states make what Vick did a crime. That's the law too, and it is not unconstitutional (and has never been found to be). So the right of animals to be free from cruelty is indeed a "right" recognized by our legal system (unlike what we traditionally think of as a right this was of course legislatively enacted, but hey, so was the Constitution). I'm glad you don't like juvenile vulgar comments, like your silly proud assertion of your plans to go boil a lobster...Why not go fuck a goat while you are at? It's just property, like a sex toy.

jb | July 21, 2007, 1:59pm | #

There's not this bright line between no rights and rights.

Humans have more rights than animals, who have some rights. Animals have more rights than insects, microbes, and plants.

The right not to be euthanized doesn't go down too far. The right not to be killed and eaten doesn't either. The right not to be tortured goes down farther.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Some small fraction

Set: Animal Rightists.

Subset: Vegans

Exactly how small a fraction is that?
Seeing as animal rights proponents largely reject animal testing, animal exhibitions, and animal foods I wouldn't think that fraction is so small.

D.A. Ridgely | July 21, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Don't kid yourselves, if a cow ever got the chance, she'd eat you and everyone you care about.

Cows are carnivores?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 2:05pm | #

"By your "logic" unconcious humans are not human"
Whoa, SIV, someone with your rather tenous grasp of the principles of logic should hesitate before invoking the science of thinking!
Did I say unconscious humans, or infants, or other incapacitated humans were not humans? Pray show and tell. They most certainly are humans. As you have eloquently and rather insanely argued, humans are humans...
But the grown ups in the room realize that we have to go beyond such a tautological statement and say WHY humans deserve rights. Someone intelligently suggested that it is because they can reason and think. Someone suggested because they can honor responsibilities. And of course, that can't be the answer, because the humans I listed cannot think, reason or honor responsibilities any more than a dog or elephant could. So we await your suggestion as to why humans deserve moral rights.
Is it because they are human ;)?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 2:07pm | #

SIV: Let me help you, poor brute...
Set: People who feel animals have the right to be free from cruelty
Subset: People who believe in a panoply of animal rights.

The former is actually a majority in all 50 states. The latter a small minority. No one is talking about honey bees brother. We are talking about animal cruelty and dog fighting a la Vick et al (please use scrolling feature found on right hand side to review and maybe read initial H&R post).

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 2:09pm | #

If you had read all my posts you would have found I believe locals have the right to set certain standards where they live,I have no problem with local animal cruelty laws .Where we might differ is I believe them to be property and the punishment should reflect that.It should not be equal to a crime against a person.I also think it is none of the feds buisness.

D.A. Ridgely | July 21, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Set: People who feel animals have the right to be free from cruelty
Subset: People who believe in a panoply of animal rights.

The former is actually a majority in all 50 states.

Not necessarily and probably not really. The majority of people believe animals should not be treated cruelly, but that doesn't mean they believe such animals have rights one way or the other. Indeed, it may be only out of a sense of moral sentiment and our ability to identify at some level with such animals that we deem inflicting pain on them a bad thing. That is, we may really feel that way because of its effect on us, not on them.

TJIT | July 21, 2007, 2:22pm | #

It looks like some people are unfamiliar with dogfighting.

This link may provide some useful information for people about it.

Dog fighting information

I admit that there isn’t some clear cut line here and that some could argue that this is possibly a slipper slope, but it seems clear that wantonly killing an animal for enjoyment and profit and doing so in a grisly manner (dog fighting) is different that killing an animal for profit an to feed others and doing so in as pain free a manner as possible (killing a cow for food).

happytron | July 21, 2007, 2:25pm | #

The most consistent and empirically useful basis for morality that I've come upon is Rawls' interpretation of social contracts, which isn't much more than an elaboration of the golden rule. We illegalize dogfighting because we, to some extent, identify with the dogs and consequently aim to structure the rules in such a way that if it were to have been the case that we were born a dog, that we wouldn't have been subject to unnecessary cruelty. The basis for this mode of thinking is probably innate and evolutionary in origin.

The 'X has rights because it is an X' argument is really exactly the sort of argument I wouldn't want to be hearing from an intellectually and technologically advanced species casually pondering my fate.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Asshole,

Pray, show and tell where I said that
"only humans with moral agencey have rights".
That is the argument you "borrowed" and feel so clever in parrotting.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 2:32pm | #

M. Pack-I can see an argument for local laws over federal ones. I always can. And I never said the law should treat humans and animals equally, in fact I said (quoting from above post at 12:39): "Note noone is saying animals should have anything comparable to the rights humans have (for that matter toddlers or the severely retarded have limited rights too don't they, they cannot vote, contract, decide where they want to live, etc.), just that at a bare minimum they have a right not to be tortured."
SIV-are you incapacitated? If so I still think you are human and have moral worth and rights. But you need to get coherent. Since I am Mr. Nice Guy, I'll help you make that difficult first step:
You've said (repeatedly) that humans have rights. Now, please tell us why (and as your friend and benefactor, don't say because they are human).

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 2:33pm | #

If I made two robots that looked and behaved identical to dogs then had them fight...

If I made two robots that looked and behaved identical to a 10 year old boy and girl then had them simulate a sexual act....

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

You've said (repeatedly) that humans have rights. Now, please tell us why (and as your friend and benefactor, don't say because they are human).

Man is a wild animal living in the wild.

Men who behave like dogs in which rights are gained through violence or threat of violiance tend to get the shit kicked out of them by Men who recognize innate rights.

John | July 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Sorry guys, but this one jumps the shark. I'm a libertarian and thought what Vick did was terrible. I am not going to twist my judgment to make it fit my ideology.

Animal cruelty laws are fine by me and what Vick and others do on this matter is simply awful.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 2:45pm | #

SIV-We're waiting. Can I pull a page from your genocide thread and claim
VICTORY

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 2:45pm | #

Mr nice guy,The problem I'm having is no one has said what a suitable punishment is.It seems like the extreme side is dominating the debate .Robert Bryd said on the Senate floor he'd like to see thesse people dead.I think this debate is being run on emotion.The same thing that gave us dui roadblocks,the patriot act.megans law,the war on drugs and tabacco,trans fat laws,ect..

Russell | July 21, 2007, 2:46pm | #

Dogs will be dogs. Why make them fight when vicarious pleasure awaits the viewers of the first TV network to dispatch a pack of dachshunds to Basra, which , the main stream media inform us;
--http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/07/another-quality.html

is plagued by bloodthirsty badgers in need of having a bite taken out of them.

Ken Shultz | July 21, 2007, 2:47pm | #

"I mean, what justification can you give for allowing people to essentially torture mice by setting glue traps, or allowing people to drown rats, but not allow the same treatment to dogs?"

The application's a messy business. ...and I'm not looking to amend the Constitution here. I'm not even looking for a new law. The question does such and such have rights should always be divided into a) does such and such have a moral right? and b) should such and such have a legal right?

There are moral rights and legal rights, and getting reality to conform to the law is always a problem. I know this thread is about a legal case, and I don't have a problem with the government bringing charges here, but I've been talking mostly about ethical rights here.

...I honestly don't know how to write the law to split those hairs, but if there's a local law on the books that prohibits repeatedly slamming a dog on the ground 'til dead, then I don't have a problem with the theory or ethics behind that.

mk | July 21, 2007, 2:49pm | #

Crimethink,

Cuz they're asking fer it ;)

click here for a treat

happytron | July 21, 2007, 2:51pm | #

John: I don't see why you need to twist your judgment and I think we should reject the premise that laws against animal cruelty are somehow non-libertarian. I find the reductio ad absurdum that such a libertarian would find it (legally) ok to torture an infant (provided that we can guarantee they die before they reach a sufficient level of sentience) to be quite convincing, and it is an argument that no one here seems to even be trying to refute.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 3:04pm | #

You people are making my point.Everyone on here say's it's a bad thing but no one will say what the punishment should be,that's where the rubber hits the road.I 'd say it should be misdameaner for each incident with the penalties that implies.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 3:05pm | #

SIV-We're waiting. Can I pull a page from your genocide thread and claim
VICTORY

Well I "won" that one as it was a question of fact.This argument is one of opinion.

For the sake of argument I will accept YOUR contention that Rights are derived/endowed/property of...whatever...Moral Agency that most humans have and animals do not.Although immature, defective and unconcious
humans lack moral agencey they are never the less human. All human cultures recognise a human/animal dichotomy... it is our nature.
By your reasoning perhaps we err by recognising rights of all those on the human side of the dichotomy while assigning none to the other.
I don't think so.

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 3:16pm | #

You people are making my point.Everyone on here say's it's a bad thing but no one will say what the punishment should be,that's where the rubber hits the road.I 'd say it should be misdameaner for each incident with the penalties that implies.

I say let him go free...still not even sure what he did was a "bad" thing.

dick cheney emulator | July 21, 2007, 3:21pm | #

mreh, mreh you don't have any rights, unless me or georgy give 'em to you, mre, mreh

Ashish George | July 21, 2007, 3:24pm | #

"Animal Rights proponents believe that honey and silk production are immoral as the bees and caterpillars are unnaturally enslaved for the
unnecessary substitution of sugar and nylon or some such nonsense."

Name names. Singer, Regan, Newkirk, Scully? Who among the most prominent proponents of animal rights believes this?

SIV | July 21, 2007, 3:24pm | #

I have defended the practice of cockfighting
and maintained that it is "un-libertarian" to support state prohibition of the sport.
I reject the notion that it involves a degree of "cruelty" beyond that of other human/animal interaction.

Dog fighting is a much harder case as most human/dog relationships are emotionally quite different than other cultural uses of animals.
I personally find dogfighting to be morally repugnant. Regardless, I do not think we have the right to use State power to prohibit it.
Those of you who do should realise the same cruelty argument can be applied to any cultural use of animals,as PETA and the HSUS attempt to do. As they say hard cases make fr bad law.

Jerry | July 21, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Animals don't have rights because they cannot make moral judgements.

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Rather then talking about rats, bees and invertebrate mollusks how about we talking about a Shepard putting down an 8 year old sheep dog cuz it has gotten to slow...or culling a litter of pups...or just shooting a dog that sucks at being a sheep dog.

It seems the methods used to put down vic dogs are methods of inexperience rather then ones of intended cruelty. If repeated slamming of a dog to the ground to kill was was the most efficient method I am sure a sheep herder would have little ethical or moral problem with it...

threadjack | July 21, 2007, 3:32pm | #

So did they kill Harry Potter?

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 3:32pm | #

SIV,that hard to argue with.Look at dui law,inmy state in 1980 the limit was .12,then.10,now.08, and there is a movement for.05.They keep moving the bar.What's legal today isn't tomorrow.There are other examples.Thats just easy to show.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Name names. Singer, Regan, Newkirk, Scully? Who among the most prominent proponents of animal rights believes this?

I don't spend my time reading these people,although I probably should considering the threat they pose. I do know that vegans, who are motivated by an animal rights philosophy, do not consume honey or wear woolen clothing( I think it is safe to infer their position on silk if they are smart enough to carry it through)*

*Anecdotal aside: I personally know a well educated successful PETA card carrying animal rightist who upon getting a much higher paying job went out and bought herself a fully optioned Volvo. Complete with full leather upholstery.When her friends pointed this out she paid big $$$ to have the interior removed and replaced with cloth. I was gentlemanly enough not to laugh in front of her face but I always wondered if they got it all out.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Animal rights Wackos,

Do vegans have a problem with eating foods pollinated by human enslaved chattel euro-bees?

Are any vegan foods labelled as strictly wild pollinated by free native-bees?

I smell profit!!!

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Most of the arguments here come from empathy to pet dogs...we all had our childhood pets and we loved and empathized with them...but fundamentally those "pets" were breed and trained to behave like pets...Being a pet is a job that these animals do...no different then being a sheep dog or a hunting dog, a seeing eye dog, guard dog, tracker, police drug dog, or a fighting dog...the methods used to create these animals are no different from one another. Essentially you kept the dogs with the traits you liked and killed the ones that didn't.

I think the disillusionment comes from a false sense that this happened in the far past and now we have happy healthy loving pets who are afforded rights...of course the reality is far different then this illusion where literally 1000's of imperfect pets are put down all the time...just so you can have a dog named spot that does a good job of being your pet.

Then in a disillusioned state you stand up high on your pedestal and pontificate about your ethical superiority to Vick and his cruelty to animals.

Lamar | July 21, 2007, 3:49pm | #

If we're going to assume that humans have rights because we have the ability to reason, then I think there should also be some limited protection for animals. Dogs don't reason the way we do, but they can be trained and they avoid things which have lead to pain in the past. Surely there is a primitive function going on that makes dogs more able to reason than inanimate objects.

Am I alone here in thinking that dogfighting is wrong, but cockfighting isn't as repugnant? I guess it's all about line-drawing, and I agree with Balko's emphasis on local jurisdictions drawing these lines.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 3:54pm | #

I've known several Amish through the years,I'd like to put these PETA people on one of there farms.They could see what life used to be like.Animals are tools to them,nothing more.Let them do the work they do and keep their strenght on a vegan diet.

Mr.Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 4:02pm | #

"For the sake of argument I will accept YOUR contention that Rights are derived/endowed/property of...whatever...Moral Agency that most humans have and animals do not.Although immature, defective and unconcious"
SIV-this is incherent. Now, I ask again, what is it about humans that gives them rights in general and the right not to be tortured specifically? I know my answer. We're still waiting for yours.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 4:05pm | #

SIV-if the cat has your tongue, by your assertions (can't say argument as you have not got there yet) you could always hit it, electrocute it, make it fight a cock, or f*ck it. Maybe it'll let go then.

ktc2 | July 21, 2007, 4:09pm | #

So now that Bush's colonoscopy is over I'm sure the one thing we all want to know is where they able to get his head out.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Well Mr. nice guy.I don't no about SIV but I agree with this countries founders.We are endowed by our creator with certain unaliable rights.

Jamie Kelly | July 21, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Well Mr. nice guy.I don't no about SIV but I agree with this countries founders.We are endowed by our creator with certain unaliable rights.

Wow.
Strunk and White. Webster's.
On sale.

joshua corning | July 21, 2007, 4:17pm | #

I would also like to explore the notion that somehow the life a pet dog is somehow cruel free yet the life of a pit fighter is somehow a cruel one.

Many of you have dogs i ams sure...call your dog over and observe its behavior...its head will be low it will be waging its tail maybe even roll over on its back...you will perceive this behavior as loving and playful and welcoming...but is that really what is going on in the dogs head? One should note in the wild beta wolves exhibit the exact same behavior when approaching a snarling alpha of the pack...it is a behavior denoting submission to hierarchical power....a behavior triggered by a hormonal neurological response that in humans could be described as anxiaty fear and repressed anger. We (as in humans) have breed in this response to be unlike the response of wild animal...namely to feel these negative emotions and to exhibit these behaviors over and over and over and over again without ever attempting to assert dominance.

Now look at pit fighter....animals feed raw meat, and allowed to claim unfettered dominance in an arena not unlike the one found the natural world.

Neu Mejican | July 21, 2007, 4:25pm | #

SIV,

Well I "won" that one as it was a question of fact.This argument is one of opinion.

My reading of the thread in question (genocide) involved your opinion about what counted as genocide, iirc. An opinion that seemed to be based on very little knowledge of the facts in the matter.

Mr. Nice Guy,

Rights, as a concept, involve an arbitrary tautology, imho. An entity has rights because they claim them, or someone claims rights on their behalf. Any attempt to get more rigorous leads to nonsense.

The law is essentially a long discourse on which entities have rights under what conditions. The discourse doesn't lend itself to summary very well.

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 4:26pm | #

M. Pack I was about to say I agree that many bad laws come from emotional debate, and that yes this one is becoming emotional. However, I was going to say that since animal cruelty laws are pretty light even a ratcheting upwards won't be draconian. But I see you think this is misdemeanor territory. Like an illegal u-turn? I disagree. Even if animals have no rights this kind of savagery in a human is such a dangerous thing it must be detered by stiffer penalties than that.
And, OK, let's for now say that we get our rights from God. How can we know what those rights are (we don't have limitless rights) and whether animals got any? From the Bible? Our Founders thought we could answer that question through the use of reason. If that is the case we must then ask ourselves what about ourselves grants us these inalienable rights? And then of course the next question is, do animals have any of those same things in a degree that would allow them to share in those rights (or not).
See how that works SIV? What are the characteristics humans have that grant us rights (or make us morally worthy or whatever or however you want to say it)? It occurs to me that your thinking here is so muddled that you missed the following facts:
1. Noone here has stated that animals have the same rights as humans or that all animals even have the same rights (so you can get off your caterpillar box).
2. Some of us have mentioned infants or other incapacitated people because we AGREE that they have rights, but we point out that some animals match them in the capacity to think, reason, feel, act responsibly, etc.. Therefore if these incapacitated people have the right not to be tortured, then why not animals? Notice that NO ONE HAS SAID IT IS OK TO MISTREAT THESE INCAPACITATED. No one. Quite the opposite, those of us who have argued for the rights of animals to be free from cruelty have pointed out that incapacitated people and infants have the same rights (and how).
So far your contribution to the debate has been to interject "humans have rights because they are humans" as if you have Turrets Syndrome and to mumble about caterpillars...

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Jamie kelly,sorry if I believe in the founding documents.I didn't know they were so out of favor.

mediageek | July 21, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Could it be possible that while animals don't have rights, humans still have a responsibility to treat them humanely?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 21, 2007, 4:36pm | #

Neu Mejican-Welcome! In the few months I've been reading H&R I've rarely seen a thread that was not improved by your comments. I tend to agree with you that people toss the word "rights" around haphazardly and that the term itself is pretty suspicious. I think it at least means a moral or legal claim. That many animals have a legal claim to be treated humanely is just a fact in all 50 states. I argue that a moral claim underlies this positive law. Hope that makes sense.
"Sorry guys, but this one jumps the shark. I'm a libertarian and thought what Vick did was terrible. I am not going to twist my judgment to make it fit my ideology."
I think John's comments win the thread imo. Or maybe this by J. Kelly:
"See, this is where libertarians fuck themselves with a rake." Any political philosophy which would allow something that is this outrageous to so many people looks terrible. Luckily, as I've explained above, I don't think libertarianism allows this savagery any more than it must allow child abuse and slavery.

mediageek | July 21, 2007, 4:39pm | #

A question:

What's the difference between a dog fight and a boxing match?

Is it the "sport" itself that's cruel, or the training up of dogs and disposal of ones that lose?

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Mr nice guy,at least I will say what I think the punishment sould be.Besides,domestic violence is a misdmeaner and I think beating your wife is worse than hurting a animal.This would carry a max. of up to 1 year in jail and a 1000.00 fine.Thats what it means in my state.Vick has 66 counts,do the math.Of course he has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.I'm not talking about a traffic citation.

Robert | July 21, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Natural rights arguments just go in circles, never get you anywhere. Skip that step and just argue "shoulds".

Neu Mejican | July 21, 2007, 4:51pm | #

That many animals have a legal claim to be treated humanely is just a fact in all 50 states. I argue that a moral claim underlies this positive law.

Are you implying with this that there is an objective moral standard that can be used as a source for this claim? If so, what is the source of that moral standard?

Robert | July 21, 2007, 4:52pm | #

I'll expand. There are no rights that exist outside of their conception. Rights are established (brought into existence) by thinkers based on what we think should be. So let's discuss what we think should be and not pretend its "shouldness" pre-exists our thinking so, i.e. in "nature".

Neu Mejican | July 21, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Mediageek,

What's the difference between a dog fight and a boxing match?

1. Choice for the participants.
2. The whole "fight to the death" thing.
3. Boxers follow specific rule that are nominally meant to reduce injury and suffering.

Neu Mejican | July 21, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Robert,

That is a wise position to take on the issue of rights. It gets in the way for many libertarians who believe you must start with first principles and derive everything else from there. Property rights, btw, seem to have less direct support from first principles than animals rights.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Let's be truthful.In this country,acording to our laws only people have rights.A dog cannot file in civil court,own property or many other things.Personally I believe all human rights come from property rights.The first being to own one's self.A animal can be owned but never own anything.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 5:05pm | #

My reading of the thread in question (genocide) involved your opinion about what counted as genocide, iirc. An opinion that seemed to be based on very little knowledge of the facts in the matter.

I suggest you enter an adult literacy program.
I never made any assertion as what was genocide,merely what was not-our relations to indigenous Americans.The burden of proof was on those who stated that it was genocide. Not only did they fail but eventually admitted as much albeit in a condescending and hostile manner.
That was anoither thread.Time to explain why the prohibition of animal fighting is consistent with libertarian philosophy punk.

Max | July 21, 2007, 5:05pm | #

As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes dog fighting really "offensive" is that lots of people keep dogs as pets and have developed an affection for them. This affection gives rise to an emotional response when dogs are mistreated.

Neu Mejican | July 21, 2007, 5:06pm | #

Michael Pack,

Since most property rights claims involve the mixing of an individual's labor with the materials that make the item (or the land)... then wouldn't beavers, bees, termites, birds and other animals that mix labor with materials to produce artifacts be said to "own" those artifacts?

SIV | July 21, 2007, 5:11pm | #

just so you can have a dog named spot that does a good job of being your pet.

Or a dog named Maniac that can repeatedly win against the pitbulls bankrolled by a star NFL quarterback.

SIV | July 21, 2007, 5:15pm | #

Am I alone here in thinking that dogfighting is wrong, but cockfighting isn't as repugnant?

No, that is more or less my moral position
although I do not see anything wrong with cockfighting. I do not think either should be legally prohibited.

Michael Pack | July 21, 2007, 5:17pm | #

neu mejican,If that's true then the deer taht eat my garden and the birds that nest in my