Libertarian views on animal rights
Posted by DarthArtoo4@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 49 comments
I’m curious how everyone feels about this topic. It seems like one of those grey areas where on one hand we’d like the government to stay out of it and on the other hand animals deserve protection from violence just as humans do.
My personal view would be to have a few very clear laws defining and prohibiting improper treatment of animals. I think without that there would be too much evil — things like dog fighting and neglectful/abusive puppy mills and the like.
TO_GOF@reddit
Lol @ reddit ”libertarians“. The top two comments are in favor of animal cruelty laws.
Imagine asking this question in 1776. You’d get the crap kicked out of you for such answers.
So the “libertarians“ here are mostly just closet Democrats who want drug legalization and open borders while keeping everything else the same. Funny.
JazzlikeAdvance699@reddit
It’s no longer 1776. Violence and cruelty toward nonhumans has a clear correlation with individuals engaging in the same with humans.
Also- did you want to acknowledge that slavery of human beings was taking place during that time period? How does that fit into the context of personal property theory?
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
Ah yes, because people feeling some way on one singular issue means they’re “closet Democrats”.
It seems like you have chosen an ideology and will blindly follow it absolutely. Sounds like a lot of other groups I find abhorrent. Learn to formulate your own ideas and not just place yourself inside of a box that tells you everything you’re supposed to believe in.
JazzlikeAdvance699@reddit
There is a lot of grey area starting with terminology. The interaction between human animals & nonhuman animals is the topic of for discussion. Excessive violence is not tolerated. Despite personal beliefs, there are systems in place that will be a framework.
In order to be productive, I can see categorizing interactions. To name a few:
1) companions 2) livestock for food 3) companions in need of (human) assistance- shelter, food and medical. 4) research & experimentation 5) entertainment 6) wildlife (including guidelines for necessary conservation measures considering both humans and non). 7) wildlife hunting 8) educational institutions (ex: science museum)
Just a quick simple list without any intention to prioritize. I feel that it is very possible to form acceptable guidelines. It is my strong personal belief that violence and cruelty will always have to be addressed. It has proven time and time again that humans engaging in violence (by choice) toward nonhumans are likely to act in the same manner with humans. This can apply in all areas such livestock workers where we see higher rates of domestic violence.
Ignoring individuals that are concerned with animal welfare is not helping to build momentum for Libertarians. Limiting government interference is our philosophy always, but not anarchy. Structure also must be present to make progress. Maintaining a standard of conduct is part of an effective system.
My thoughts on this topic.
dimlucas@reddit
According to Libertarian theory for someone to have rights they need to have agency, intelligence, free will and self determination. Animals lack all of those things. You can still believe animal abuse is terrible but I do not think there is justification in having the government interfere.
There are also practical issues. Cows and pigs are going through abuse to end up on our plates as food. So where do you draw the line? Protect dogs and cats but not cows and pigs? Because we do not eat dogs? What about cultures where eating a dog is acceptable?
FOSyay@reddit
Your definition of animals is kinda weird.
Many of them do have free will. Where does the 400lb gorilla sit? Wherever the fuck he wants.
Cats don't have agency?
Octopuses aren't intelligent?
Tomycj@reddit
They didn't just say free will. They also said intelligence and self determination. An animal that acts on instinct can not have self determination (however it could be argued that several animals don't act exclusively on instinct).
Regarding intelligence, an animal that is not able to understand the responsibility asociated to a right is not intelligent enough, we could say, to have that right.
Verum14@reddit
love it
TheOlSneakyPete@reddit
Animal abuse is awful. Period.
That being said, things like puppy mills should be removed via free market. If you don't want puppy mills to exist, don't buy from one. Same with purchasing meat. Don't want bacon from a pig that lived in a confinement, or from a pig that was forced to live outside in the sun and snow, don't purchase that bacon. Free market will provide it.
Zivlar@reddit
I believe animal abuse is against the NAP, not quick killings for food but just abject abhorrent unwarranted physical harm, abuse, and treatment.
UnplacatablePlate@reddit
Why can you kill an animal that has done you no wrong when you want to eat it but can't when you want to vent anger? Doesn't it just come down to killing the animal because you benefit from it in both cases? Why should it matter how you benefit; in every other case with the NAP how or how much you benefit from aggression is completely irrelevant(it doesn't matter if you killed someone because you didn't the like the way he looked or if you killed him because he stole your girlfriend; it's murder in both cases) so why should it matter here?
Zivlar@reddit
Food, even if you’re vegan animals will die for your food.
Sorry to burst your “animals don’t need to die for my food” bubble buuut
UnplacatablePlate@reddit
Ok, what's the point here? Since when did "necessity" allow you to aggress against others?
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Cringe vegan is cringe.
Zivlar@reddit
Since we’ve needed food for survival
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
Those animals are violating property rights. If they were fully-fledged adult humans and there was no other recourse it would be fine to kill those humans who are attacking your property. However, it would not be okay to bring humans into existence and farm them. I can't believe I have to explain the difference between self-defense and murder to a libertarian.
Zivlar@reddit
Aaaand how do you plan on feeding the world of humans without animals for food
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
Easy. According to the U.N. climate report, we can reduce agricultural land usage by 75% by switching to a plant-based diet.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
The animals that are eaten have to eat too. And due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we will get less energy out than put into them. We're already producing 2 or 3x the plants we need to feed the world. It is more efficient for us to eat plants directly.
Zivlar@reddit
Assuming that were true, there would be a worldwide vitamin K deficiency and for those like myself who are allergic to nuts and soy this again is still not feasible and as the youtube video I linked pointed out even if you use semantics like applying property lines to nature massive amounts of animals still need to die regularly for that to work so what’s the difference besides us telling ourselves “oh well those animals should’ve respected my property line that they have no idea exists”
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
There are legumes that aren't nut based. Also, being allergic to all legumes is very rare so I suggest even if you keep eating animals that you get tested to see which ones you can eat. Also, quinoa, amaranth and wheat protein are still good sources and are not legumes.
I don't see how property rights are semantic because they are applied to nature. This is true of all land rights not just crop fields. Nor that the being doesn't know means that it becomes a rights-violation to kill them. If there were wild humans who didn't or couldn't know about property rights that would still be self-defense to kill them if they are attacking and there was no other recourse.
Zivlar@reddit
Just no, I’m not limiting my entire diet because you made up some morality that a property line determines when animals are killed.
Also in your ideal reality since we’re killing animals that cross property lines anyway we can eat those right or are we just leaving them to waste? If we can eat them, can’t we just divide the meat industry into separate property lines and boom then everything works as is?
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
It's fine to kill eat the animals/humans who are attacking the crops. I didn't say it was merely crossing the property line. In the crop case, basically all the animals are attacking the crops because that is why they are there.
With the meat industry, they are forcing the animals to be on their property. If they were forcing the humans to be on their property, a property rights self-defense claim obviously wouldn't fly.
Don't do it because I am making it up. Do it if it is consistent with your own libertarian values!
Zivlar@reddit
So if the meat industry came together and bought huge swaths of land adjacent to each other and had herds cross into each other’s property line they could then kill each other’s herds for harvest. Of course, there’d be some type of compensation for herds of different sizes for equal trade.
Oldass_Millennial@reddit
Intention. Eating is necessary and healthy. Venting frustration on an animal is unnecessary and a massive red flag.
UnplacatablePlate@reddit
But when you eat meat are you really doing it because it is necessary or healthy or simply because it tastes good? I think the majority of time someone eats meat they only intend to eat something tasty; most of the times you have non-meat options and people rarely internationally eat meat for health reasons. Also why is necessity or health justification for aggression against someone/something that has rights since in all other cases it isn't a valid justification?
FOSyay@reddit
This is unpopular here, but animal abusers should be harshly dealt with.
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
Yeah you have many of these “what about this? And what about that?” comments that are trying to illustrate that it’s a slippery slope, but I think the response is we sort it out and come up with a clear definition of what constitutes truly abusive behavior and uphold that standard. I don’t see an issue with grouping animals into things we can’t commit violence against.
UnplacatablePlate@reddit
The problem is, if we are to avoid being hypocritical, how are we reconcile the belief that imprisoning and killing M(B?)illions of animals is fine if we plan to eat them(mostly for pleasure) but that Joe Smith deserves to be locked up for beating up his dog to vent his anger?
xfactorx99@reddit
We do not primarily eat meat for pleasure. The #1 reason why I eat meat is for nourishment. Just because there are other sources of protein does not mean that the reason why we eat meat must be for pleasure
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
This is the question. Both are wrong as far as I’m concerned, hence I’ve been vegan for 12.5 years. But I acknowledge that mandating that everyone be vegan is probably asking too much in terms of expecting my utopian society to follow my personal morals.
brainwater314@reddit
Animal abuse is one of those things where I have bigger molehills to die on for reducing government power. Once we have government not taking income tax, leaving decisions in state and local government hands, and thousands of other things, I can push for limiting government control of animal treatment and better consider my position then.
DimeadozenNerd@reddit
I believe blatant animal abuse should be prohibited. They’re living beings that can feel pain.
xfactorx99@reddit
I think we need to define abuse when referring to animals. A vegan would likely say you are abusing animals if you hunt for sport, and they are also feeling pain when you do that too.
I think hunting for sport should remain legal
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
Animals deserve fundamental negative rights in the same way that trait-equalized humans do. By trait-equalized I mean the same intelligence and lifespan and maybe a couple other things.
You've probably heard this in the context of abortion but if you think it's a grey area on whether the being has the right not to be murdered then that counts in favor of not doing it. If you're driving a car and you estimate a 50:50 chance that a child is there, then you still ought swerve out of the way because the cost is "half a child" so to speak.
In the context of animals, even if grey area means you are 99% sure that animals don't have the same negative rights as trait-equalized humans, then you still have an incredibly large reason not to consume them. Around 70 billion land animals are factory farmed each year. If there's just that 1% chance, then factory farming is only as bad as factory farming 700 million people who have the same intelligence and lifespan of a farm animal. This would easily be the worst preventable problem in the world. More land animals are factory farmed in 4 days than all abortions since 1970.
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
Yeah for the record I’ve been vegan for 12.5 years so I completely agree. But also hate the government having more authority, and I recognize that my personal morals shouldn’t dictate an entire nation. So it’s a tough one for me to sort out for those reasons.
Lunatic_On-The_Grass@reddit
Cool, good to hear. I'm sure we'd find a lot of common ground too on government policy as far as removing subsidies of animal ag, etc.
That the state is already doing something more authoritarian. They are initiating force by preventing people from entering farms and slaughterhouses to defend animals. So I would say that protecting the 'property rights' of Tyson is still dictating one's personal morals. A truly hands-off position would be that the state will not protect the property rights of Tyson nor arrest Tyson.
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
Great point, you’re 100% right.
tacticalwhale530@reddit
Libertarianism is concerned with free human beings and free economic/social interactions between these human being.
All other issues are a matter for the market to decide.
RufusYoakum@reddit
"Do what you will but take responsibility for your actions." - I don't know who said this.
A good test of whether something should be a universal law is this. ***This test only applies to "generally well meaning" people. Which IMO is the vast majority of the population.
Would you be willing to take up arms, potentially kill someone while risking your own life to stop a certain behavior that you abhor? If your answer is NO then it shouldn't be a universal law.
This is to help remind you that every law, regardless of how minor, is nothing but an opinion enforced with guns and the ultimate threat of deadly force.
donniebatman@reddit
If someone is torturing my dog i would be willing to do whatever it takes to stop them.
romanarthur@reddit
Your dog is your property so you would look to property rights
Mountain_Man_88@reddit
Who decides which animals have rights? Do ants have the same rights as elephants? Just pets, just domestic animals, or do wild animals count? Perhaps only wild animals in captivity? Or should people not be allowed to be kept in captivity? Or kept as pets? An injured wild animal taken to a vet doesn't necessarily understand it's situation and wants to get back into the wild. Does it have the right to be free or are humans allowed to step in to increase its odds of survival?
As intelligent creatures, we have a duty as stewards over animals to respect them and treat them humanely. I think that stops short of animals having rights. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to vote? Should the animal population be considered when determining how many Representatives a US state gets? Certainly not!
Sankdamoney@reddit
The right to humane treatment with no abuse or torture.
ronaldreaganlive@reddit
The difficult part with that is defining those terms. A lot of people will define abuse and torture as hitting, lack of care and nutrition, etc, etc. An animal rights activists definition will be much different than that.
Garrison_Forrdd@reddit
It is about "Moral Standard."
-
What is your "Moral Standard" eating Bacon Cheese Indian Sacred Cow Beef Burger in front of Indian in India?
-
What is your "Moral Standard" eating Bacon Cheese Indian Sacred Cow Beef Burger in front of Muslims in Muslim Countries?
-
What is your "Moral Standard" eating Bacon Cheese Horse/Dog/Cat Meat Burger in front of American Pet Lovers?
-
If "Moral Standard" is Voted by UN Democracy, we won't be able to eat Pork Bacon and Beef any more.
-
When you use your colorful eyes of "Moral Standard" judging others' "Moral Standard", they are using their colorful eyes of "Moral Standard" judging your "Moral Standard?"
ProudPlatinean@reddit
They only have the rights we want them to have, any personhood we might assign to them is a mere construction born out of our empathy. However they are, at the end of the day, things and not people.
McShagg88@reddit
Animal rights? No.
DarthArtoo4@reddit (OP)
Thanks, very insightful.
JJB723@reddit
I dont believe they have rights but I am not a bad person so I try to take good care of them and dispatch them as quickly as I can.