Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[sangha]

Well technically the Libertarians do not support these things, They simply do not support the Governments right to legislate against them. The main reason I am not a Libertarian is because they take personal Freedom to the extreme and will tolerate almost anything in the name of keeping the government out of it.

What specific "things" are you talking about?

 

[boedicca]

Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Charles cannot tell the difference.

 

[sangha]

Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Charles cannot tell the difference.

Libertarians are not always anarchists, but some libertarians are anarchists. To be honest, with your talk about how all states must infringe on people's rights, you do sound a lot like an anarchist.

I'm not saying you are, but you do sound a lot like one

 

[boedicca]

I'm not inclined to accept your analysis of my philosophical and political outlooks as being at all valid.

 

[2Parties]

Sanka,

You are wasting my time. If you want to have an actual discussion quit bitching and moaning. I'm not here to do research for you on libertarianism or answer your questions and concerns. I'm not going to go searching for links on Google to make my point (you seem to have no problem yourself not posting evidence).

If you don't have any concept of negative rights, the foundations of libertarianism, and human nature it's like a calculus teacher trying to teach calculus to kindergartners...

 

[sangha]

Sanka,

You are wasting my time. If you want to have an actual discussion quit bitching and moaning. I'm not here to do research for you on libertarianism or answer your questions and concerns.

I pointed out how libertarians do not protect the rights of animals, and so now you're bugging out. I'm not surprised.

Asking questions and challenging other people's arguments is part of an actual discussion. You are the one who has been bitching and name-calling.

I'm not going to go searching for links on Google to make my point (you seem to have no problem yourself not posting evidence).

Of course you won't. Conservatives never defend themselves. They don't have the guts.

If you don't have any concept of negative rights, the foundations of libertarianism, and human nature it's like a calculus teacher trying to teach calculus to kindergartners...

Now you have to raise all sorts of straw men about subjects that haven't been mentioned. I didn't ask for a lecture about libertarianism. I ask only that you back up your claim that libertarianism supports the idea of animal rights.

And you can't do that. So now, you'll just make excuses for your inability to defend your own words.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Charles cannot tell the difference.

They are first cousins to anarchists. Difference of degree mroe than anything else.

 

[2Parties]

I ask only that you back up your claim that libertarianism supports the idea of animal rights.

And you can't do that. So now, you'll just make excuses for your inability to defend your own words.

I told you exactly how libertarianism is applied to animals but you either didn't like or didn't understand my answer. That's your issue not mine. I know what my position is and I know it makes sense.

 

[sangha]

I ask only that you back up your claim that libertarianism supports the idea of animal rights.

And you can't do that. So now, you'll just make excuses for your inability to defend your own words.

I told you exactly how libertarianism is applied to animals but you either didn't like or didn't understand my answer. That's your issue not mine. I know what my position is and I know it makes sense.

Yes, you did tell me. Here's what you said

I can't shoot my neighbors horse, put an arrow through his dog, or step on his cats head. Those acts are all addressed by the NAP...

It's not that I didn't like your position, and not that I didn't understand it. It's that your position does not demonstrate that libertarian NAG can be used to justify the protection of an animals rights.

All you have shown is that NAG only protects the property rights of the person who owns the animal, and that's presuming that someone owns the animal. Using your description of NAG, a wild (unowned) animal can be captured, killed, or be subjected to any kind of treatment, no matter how cruel and barbaric

This doesn't sound like a protection of animals rights, which is what bern said NAG could be applied to, an idea you continue to defend without explaining how NAG can be applied to animal RIGHTS, and not applied to animals which are owned. If an animal is property without any rights of it's own, then the owner off a dog has every right to kill the dog. Someone else besides the owner (as you have explained) would not be able to harm someone dog, but there's nothing stopping the owner from killing the dog by putting it in a dogfighting ring with a much larger aggressive dog.

And that's what this thread is about. We're talking about whether libertarian philosophy can justify laws that prohibit the owners of dogs and chickens from participating in dogfights and chickenfights. If NAG can't justify protecting an animals rights, then NAG does not and can not justify such a ban

 

[washamericom]

Good God no... i am a suppoter of not toturing any animal. Michael Vick did the most good, by getting caught. Isn't this an example of trolling?

 

[2Parties]

a wild (unowned) animal can be captured, killed, or be subjected to any kind of treatment, no matter how cruel and barbaric

So are you against hunting and fishing?

but there's nothing stopping the owner from killing the dog by putting it in a dogfighting ring with a much larger aggressive dog.

There is nothing stopping it now. I could go to the pet store today buy 2 dogs and put them in a dogfighting ring. Just because there is a law on the books it won't stop it from happening

 

[The Rabbi]

What's stopping it is your desire not to go to jail.

 

[2Parties]

What's stopping it is your desire not to go to jail.

Nope. It's legal for me to eat 20 double cheeseburgers, swallow 50 aspirin tablets, get totally hammered on alcohol, throw a hammer through my windshield, watch the world cup, and DVR 60 hours of the Home Shopping Network.

Why don't I do these perfectly legal things? Because I either believe them to be wrong and destructive or they are things I don't care about. I wouldn't have anything to do with dog fighting or cockfighting if it was legal.

 

[The Rabbi]

What's stopping it is your desire not to go to jail.

Nope. It's legal for me to eat 20 double cheeseburgers, swallow 50 aspirin tablets, get totally hammered on alcohol, throw a hammer through my windshield, watch the world cup, and DVR 60 hours of the Home Shopping Network.

Why don't I do these perfectly legal things? Because I either believe them to be wrong and destructive or they are things I don't care about. I wouldn't have anything to do with dog fighting or cockfighting if it was legal.

So are you positing that laws have no effect on behavior?

 

[2Parties]

What's stopping it is your desire not to go to jail.

Nope. It's legal for me to eat 20 double cheeseburgers, swallow 50 aspirin tablets, get totally hammered on alcohol, throw a hammer through my windshield, watch the world cup, and DVR 60 hours of the Home Shopping Network.

Why don't I do these perfectly legal things? Because I either believe them to be wrong and destructive or they are things I don't care about. I wouldn't have anything to do with dog fighting or cockfighting if it was legal.

So are you positing that laws have no effect on behavior?

No effect? No, and that isn't what I'm implying.

If it takes a law to effect behavior the battle has already been conceded...

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. It's legal for me to eat 20 double cheeseburgers, swallow 50 aspirin tablets, get totally hammered on alcohol, throw a hammer through my windshield, watch the world cup, and DVR 60 hours of the Home Shopping Network.

Why don't I do these perfectly legal things? Because I either believe them to be wrong and destructive or they are things I don't care about. I wouldn't have anything to do with dog fighting or cockfighting if it was legal.

So are you positing that laws have no effect on behavior?

No effect? No, and that isn't what I'm implying.

If it takes a law to effect behavior the battle has already been conceded...

So you admit that laws do affect behavior?

 

[2Parties]

So you admit that laws do affect behavior?

Of course they do. I wouldn't pay taxes if I wasn't threatened with imprisonment for not paying them.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you admit that laws do affect behavior?

Of course they do. I wouldn't pay taxes if I wasn't threatened with imprisonment for not paying them.

OK. So you concede that laws against specific types of behavior can be effective in stopping or limiting that behavior.

 

[Bern80]

Sanka,

You are wasting my time. If you want to have an actual discussion quit bitching and moaning. I'm not here to do research for you on libertarianism or answer your questions and concerns.

I pointed out how libertarians do not protect the rights of animals, and so now you're bugging out. I'm not surprised.

Asking questions and challenging other people's arguments is part of an actual discussion. You are the one who has been bitching and name-calling.

I'm not going to go searching for links on Google to make my point (you seem to have no problem yourself not posting evidence).

Of course you won't. Conservatives never defend themselves. They don't have the guts.

If you don't have any concept of negative rights, the foundations of libertarianism, and human nature it's like a calculus teacher trying to teach calculus to kindergartners...

Now you have to raise all sorts of straw men about subjects that haven't been mentioned. I didn't ask for a lecture about libertarianism. I ask only that you back up your claim that libertarianism supports the idea of animal rights.

And you can't do that. So now, you'll just make excuses for your inability to defend your own words.

Here is at least one argument that the concept of animal rights is not contradicted by libertarian principles (previously posted a couple pages back as well).

Rights Don't Exist

 

[The Rabbi]

One cracked argument from an obviously insane person.