Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[2Parties]

Question: If you call yourself a German, but aren't actually German or from German descent, are you German anyway just because you choose to care yourself that?

No

Why would anyone equate anarchy to system that espouses the level of government control communism does? That makes no sense.

Because to many self-labeled anarchists no one owns anything and everyone owns everything. It doesn't have to make logical sense. Just look at socialism and facism. They don't make sense but government continues to try them out.

Anarchy isn't logically extended from liibertarianism either.

Have you ever heard of the non-agression principle? (If anyone wonders it's not why I would call myself a libertarian)

It's not like libertarianism is the anarchists compromise.

To some it actually is.

There indeed are societal roles that libertarians would say are best suited to government, there just aren't that many.

Depends what libertarians you ask. Libertarians are very diverse in their opinions whether their solutions involve government or not.

I'm pretty young (24) but I've been reading about libertarianism, it's history, the political party, and it's implications for about 6 years. I don't know much but I do know more than Chris Matthews or any other corporate media hack on the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are of the belief that libertarians are just people that don't have the balls to call themselves anarchists? Your problem is you think you know what libertarians believe. If you and Rabbi can see the differences between Anarchy and Libertarianism, this thread will go nowhere fast.

Ah yes, the ole "YOu don't really understand Libertarianism" ploy.
Trouble is, we understand narco-libertarianism all too well. I think it is the people calling themselves libertarians who don't.

Since narco-libertarian is you term you yourself have coined for the convenience of your argument, I would have to say, no, you don't. Case in point. Anarchy, first and foremost, espouses a lack of government. Libertarianism doesn't.

It's only a difference of degree, not of kind.
Narco libertarians believe they are intellectually descended from the Founders, and 18th century Enlightenment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Ravi]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

Of course they do. Chickens and dogs don't own property therefore they have no rights.

If chickens and dogs didn't want to fight they wouldn't.

 

[Bern80]

No

So you understand that just because the latest radical group of the moment chooses to call themselves libertarians, doesn't mean they actually are.

Have you ever heard of the non-agression principle? (If anyone wonders it's not why I would call myself a libertarian)

Had to look it up. What I've read so far indicates that certain so called factions of libertarians espouse it (or don't espouse it) as do some so called anarchists. I guess the only extension I see of libertarianism to anarchy is on a spectrum of ever decreasing government involvment in people's lives. But again I would maintain that most libertarian thought does see some semblance of a government as a neccessity for some things.

I'm pretty young (24) but I've been reading about libertarianism, it's history, the political party, and it's implications for about 6 years. I don't know much but I do know more than Chris Matthews or any other corporate media hack on the subject.

I'm sure I will be accused by someone of being a sheep after saying so, but John Stossel may be the most well know 'media hack' espousing himself as libertarian. From what I have watched of his show so far, I believe he is genuine and least practices what he preaches and knows what he's talking about. He at least is a media outlet for a different point of view.

 

[editec]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

You may want to address the inherent presumption in that statement first to ensure that it is actually valid. As a libertarian, I'm fairly certain it isn't.

Sure it is.

From an extremeist Libertarian standpoint animals are PROPERTY, ergo you can do whatever the hell you want to them.

 

[Bern80]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

Of course they do. Chickens and dogs don't own property therefore they have no rights.

If chickens and dogs didn't want to fight they wouldn't.

Again look at the presumption in the question. What is libertarians' view on stewardship to nature? Would they say that animals should be considered property in the first place?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

Of course they do. Chickens and dogs don't own property therefore they have no rights.

If chickens and dogs didn't want to fight they wouldn't.

Again look at the presumption in the question. What is libertarians' view on stewardship to nature? Would they say that animals should be considered property in the first place?

If they aren't property, what are they?

 

[manifold]

My pets are my property. But that is irrelevant.

Libertarian bashers are always trying to ascribe bogus principles to libertarian ideology. This is an example of one of the more popular strawmen: That libertarians believe you can do whatever you like with your own property without limits or lawful restrictions. And of course that's a steaming pile of horseshit. Libertarians simply believe that there needs to be a DAMN good reason to lawfully restrict what people do with their own property. And USdipshit suggesting that torturing animals doesn't meet this standard for libertarians exposes what partisan assclown he really is.

True story.

 

[topspin]

I think libertarians are lose on convictions, but heavy into dissliking victory

 

[Bern80]

Of course they do. Chickens and dogs don't own property therefore they have no rights.

If chickens and dogs didn't want to fight they wouldn't.

Again look at the presumption in the question. What is libertarians' view on stewardship to nature? Would they say that animals should be considered property in the first place?

If they aren't property, what are they?

A companion to most. I'm asking the question above because wouldn't it also mean that libertarians believe they can do whatever they want to, without exception or limitation, to nature and nature's beasts?

 

[uscitizen]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

You may want to address the inherent presumption in that statement first to ensure that it is actually valid. As a libertarian, I'm fairly certain it isn't.

Sure it is.

From an extremeist Libertarian standpoint animals are PROPERTY, ergo you can do whatever the hell you want to them.

Blacks used to have the same standing in America.
Back when we were more libertarian in government.

 

[uscitizen]

Again look at the presumption in the question. What is libertarians' view on stewardship to nature? Would they say that animals should be considered property in the first place?

If they aren't property, what are they?

A companion to most. I'm asking the question above because wouldn't it also mean that libertarians believe they can do whatever they want to, without exception or limitation, to nature and nature's beasts?

Torturing small animals builds character. Just ask Jeffery Dahmler.
All animals are not owned.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again look at the presumption in the question. What is libertarians' view on stewardship to nature? Would they say that animals should be considered property in the first place?

If they aren't property, what are they?

A companion to most. I'm asking the question above because wouldn't it also mean that libertarians believe they can do whatever they want to, without exception or limitation, to nature and nature's beasts?

If an animal is property (adn they are. Many farm animals have UCC1's filed on them) then presumably whatever you wanted to do with your property is your business and no one else's. As long as you aren't harming anyone.
It is the same ethos that says if you have a restaurant you should be able to refuse to serve blacks or Hispanics or whatever.

 

[Ravi]

You may want to address the inherent presumption in that statement first to ensure that it is actually valid. As a libertarian, I'm fairly certain it isn't.

Sure it is.

From an extremeist Libertarian standpoint animals are PROPERTY, ergo you can do whatever the hell you want to them.

Blacks used to have the same standing in America.
Back when we were more libertarian in government.

Bingo.

 

[Bern80]

Sure it is.

From an extremeist Libertarian standpoint animals are PROPERTY, ergo you can do whatever the hell you want to them.

Blacks used to have the same standing in America.
Back when we were more libertarian in government.

Bingo.

So the fact that at one time much of the country was racist and bigoted proves what about libertarianism?

 

[Ravi]

Nothing to do with bigotry...more to do with property rights.

 

[Bern80]

Nothing to do with bigotry...more to do with property rights.

True. The issue is your argument and it's a fairly commonly used tactic. A person with idology x cheats on their spouse, which then becomes an indictiment of the ideology as oppossed to a character flaw of the individual. It's really quite lame.

 

[Ravi]

Nothing to do with bigotry...more to do with property rights.

True. The issue is your argument and it's a fairly commonly used tactic. A person with idology x cheats on their spouse, which then becomes an indictiment of the ideology as oppossed to a character flaw of the individual. It's really quite lame.

Well then, what exactly do you mean by stewardship of the environment (I think you are the one that brought this up)?

Requiring oil companies to drill relief wells along with the main well?
Requiring people to cut down on light pollution during turtle nesting season?
Outlawing DDT?
Outlawing force-feeding cows corn?

Those are all under "stewardship" and if you object to those why would you object to cock fights and dog fights?

 

[manifold]

USDipshit's poorly disguised thesis: Libertarians support an individual's right to torture animals.


That's about as legitimate a thesis as: Democrats support the government's right to take every last dime you own because they know how to spend it better than you.

 

[Bern80]

Nothing to do with bigotry...more to do with property rights.

True. The issue is your argument and it's a fairly commonly used tactic. A person with idology x cheats on their spouse, which then becomes an indictiment of the ideology as oppossed to a character flaw of the individual. It's really quite lame.

Well then, what exactly do you mean by stewardship of the environment (I think you are the one that brought this up)?

Requiring oil companies to drill relief wells along with the main well?
Requiring people to cut down on light pollution during turtle nesting season?
Outlawing DDT?
Outlawing force-feeding cows corn?

Those are all under "stewardship" and if you object to those why would you object to cock fights and dog fights?

Because they encompass different realms. The OP presumed that propery rights are sacrisanct and that whatever a peson owns, no mater what it is, he/she can do with as they please. I again still think that is a premise that needs some further testing.

I did bring up the stewardship idea becuase i would consider animals part of the environment. Admittedly I'm not up on the official libertarian stance on that, maybe there isn't one or maybe I don't care. My instinct tells me though that libertarians are probably not for raping and pillaging the environment and the animals contained therein.