This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? Yes. Can a shark or dog respect your rights? No, they don't know any better. I believe rights can only be afforded where reciprocal behavior is possible. An arbitrary belief on your part. |
|
|
|
They've also been extraordinarily successful with regard to eradicating drugs, protecting the environment, curing disease, and bringing the world out of poverty...
In some cases, yes. Your idealized world has no track record at all with regard to the matters, to be honest. It's fun for you to speculate though. |
|
|
|
The animals are not accorded any rights any more than an owned couch is accorded any rights...
Well, in your idealized world, yes. But here in the real world, there are plenty of laws and regulations to ensure animals' safety, well being, survival, prevent abuse, etc. Not nearly enough, but as society matures, the trend is to increase the rights of animals, not decrease them. Read up on the subject. Your way of thinking is a step backwards. |
|
|
|
So, have these measures, regulations, treaties, etc. of yours stopped shark finning? Drug trade? Illegal downloading?
Measures, regulations, etc. have been extraordinarily successful with regard to bringing back certain species from near extinction. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal? |
|
|
|
I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning.
I support measures, regulations, treaties, etc. to prevent shark finning. I cannot claim to be completely aware of what jurisdictions exists where, but where the rules are clear, and individuals are caught, I support fines, and possibly arrest. Said shark finner has the opportunity to comply. I then support coercive force to get said shark finner to comply. His resistance is his choice. Since I wouldn't mourn him falling overboard into a feeding frenzy of sharks, it's unlikely that I would mourn his death if it occurred in another manner. Consider the notion of living in your libertarian land. You run a dog kennel on your property. Some guy keeps coming onto your property and cuts the paws off of your dogs because, apparently, some culture believes their foot pads to have medicinal value. After about the fifth dog maiming, he's caught on video. Next night, you catch him red handed. But he escapes. Is not escalation and death possible in this scenario? |
|
|
|
So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks?
The honest truth? Any scumbag who makes a living slicing the dorsal fins off of sharks, and then tosses the sharks back into the water to die, and does this repeatedly, without remorse, all to make a buck, does not have my sympathy. If one day, said individual fell overboard into the water amidst a feeding frenzy of sharks, I would not shed a tear. Honestly, would you? Or are you not entirely familiar with the process of shark finning? |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family. Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator? Why is that relevant to intellectual property? I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question. My family is diverse in their views. Dad is more of a libertarian hippie, mom is more christian conservative, bro is ex military UFC fighter. Three dogs, two cats, in the end side of a townhouse compex. Huge three story house with plenty of space. Oh, also a fish aquarium and a newt. Parents both have backgrounds in biology, and love animals, so we've always had lots of pets. The house is a $600k+ one in a very upper-middleclass area, too. I moved out a long time ago, though, and live with my husband in our own house. No pets, partially because I'm allergic to cats, but mostly because we travel so much and have little time for them. I used to have a hedgehog though. Back in USSR we had one dog, one turtle, one bunny, two parakeets, one finch, one large fishtank, one small one, two hamsters, a white mouse, and a walking stick bug. All that in a medium sized 3 room apartment on the 8th floor. Thank you. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation. I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go. A death sentence is the logical conclusion of your statist system. Man fins shark: fine. Refuses to pay fine: arrest. Resists arrest: violence. Defends against violence: death. Just because he was killed for using violence against an agent of the state doesn't change the fact that it was over the finning of a shark. Please defend or refute this conclusion. Until you demonstrate that your libertarian society guarantees no escalation will occur during the resolution of contract violations, lawsuits, and general property rights violations, I don't see the need to defend or refute the sad result of someone engaging in selfish, cruel, unproductive and damaging activities. |
|
|
|
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation. I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go. |
|
|
|
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick! Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint? P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own? In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point. So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning? |
|
|
|
Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.
Bummer that life is more complex than property rights. Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner? |
|
|
|
Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too.
They both will squeal if you push them far enough. Is that not enough to make it obvious that cruelty is unacceptable, and that they deserve some rights? |
|
|
|
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.
The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound. Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues not making a case for animal rights. The more verbose transcript is more than I care to manually type in. I provided you a summary, and even conceded that there is room for interpretation. Interpret it as you wish. However, you must concede the possibility that Adams' views are not synonymous with yours. |
|
|
|
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.
Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings. I will concede that there is room for interpretation. If you wish to interpret it as you wish, I cannot stop you. |
|
|
|
I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.
Why? |
|
|
|
Epic fail again. That was a metaphor. He never implied that dogs or horses had rights. If anything, it was a off-handed remark intended to mock a stupid argument posed by a critic of slavery whose conclusion and logic was patently false. That being, the US government would be overthrown, and the liberty of the American people would be destroyed if slaves could petition the government for redress. Same kind of crap I've been reading here about making slavery and animal rights equivalent. As if. Congresscritters give me pause. Nothing ever changes, same ol' ignorance then, slightly different flavor. No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard. |
|
|
|
Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death. And repeat this again and again.
I find that repugnant. And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.
What about you? Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?
Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time? I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg568807#msg568807Before that, you said this: Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.
Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family. Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator? Why is that relevant to intellectual property? I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
