Saturday, January 18, 2014

Would Animals Have Rights In a Libertarian Society?

I was really surprised by the comments to the post, What Will Libertarian Chumps Advocate Next?, and the many calls for seeming open-ended animal rights, so I do want to make a brief note about my own thinking on animal rights.

First, I want to make the point that I view rights in a society as designed rather than existing naturally. So the question, from my perspective, should technically be "Should we assign rights to animals in a libertarian society?"

Let me start by making clear that, in my view, just because something is a living creature does not mean it has a right to life. As most of us have, I have swatted my share of flies that have annoyed me and slaughtered many mosquitoes that were in the process of sucking my blood.

I am not a hunter, so I have never killed any game. However, I eat beef almost daily. I also eat on occasion escargot, Manila clams, lobster, fish, rabbit, deer and chicken. I also eat eggs regularly, which, I guess, just a rooster step away from eating early-stage aborted chicks. Of  course, almost everyone else does the same. In other words, to believe that we are one with other living creatures on this planet does not fit the facts.

To a large degree, man is the master of the bird, fish and animal kingdoms. We evolved that way and we survive by eating fruit, vegetables, birds, fish and animals. To think otherwise is absurd.

Further, it should be clear that animals do not necessarily respect the life and property of humans. I would hate, without a gun, to come up against a lion, tiger, rattlesnake, polar bear, pit bull or shark.

Thus, not only do we survive by eating various creatures on this planet, but we protect ourselves from attack by various creatures. It's a jungle out there in which we are pretty good at surviving by mastering the elements and mastering other creatures. It is at the core of our existence.

When we consider whether rights for animals are justified in a libertarian society, we must keep all the above in mind. But most important, we must remember that a libertarian society would be based on a fundamental level on the private property rights of humans. Thus, a mosquito or fly on my property is a trespasser and I should be free to kill it. The same goes for any animal or bird on my property. We are the masters and we make the rules.

Thus, animals, in my view, in a libertarian society, should have no right to life or liberty. They are at the mercy of the property owners upon which properties they find themselves. It is the property owner who should set the rules on how animals should be treated on his property. He decides whether they live or die, whether they are allowed to run free or be caged, otherwise restricted in their movement, or prepped for the slaughter mills.

As a footnote, I would add that in a libertarian society, it would be appropriate, if a specific socierty wanted to, to ban the torture/cruel treatment of animals, in that, as humans, we can empathize with the horror of unjustified pain. But, I would make the ban extremely narrow to pain inflicted without any type of benefit to humans (outside of the jollies of the pain inflicter). Thus, I would not, for example, ban horses pulling carriages filled with tourists (as NYC Mayor de Blasio wants to do) nor would I ban animals being used in laboratory experiments which advance medical knowledge. Indeed, to emphasize how narrow I would make such a ban,  I would give a pass to young boys, who pull wings off of flies or who tie strings of cans to the tails of cats, on the theory that it is youthful discovery.

39 comments:

  1. What about in a case like Michael Vick's? Someone has a dog fighting business on their property and people come from all around to fight their dogs to the death. I think you are saying this would be banned, but would the same thing apply to people fighting Betta fish? Where do you draw the line? Just curious what you think here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. I have a detailed answer, but it will take at least a full post to cover. I'll try and put it together sometime this week.

      Delete
    2. Some points I strongly suggest you revise before we continue: 1. Birds and fish *are* animals (as much as I get your point). 2. Chicken eggs eaten are almost never fertilized, and so calling them aborted is like calling male masturbation abortion.

      In terms of theory, I think you raised valid points, though this has always been a bit of a gray area for me (although I generally side more with saying that animals do not have political rights).

      Delete
  2. Regarding marrying a chimp (or other animal), the difference between two *people* marrying, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman is they both give consent. The chimp or other animal lacks the capacity to consent to the marriage...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other difference is that the Govt has to give consent to the marriage, otherwise the pact is null and void. The Govt does not yet have a large enough voting block of human-chimp marriage pro/con advocates, so it lacks motivation to consent or not consent to such matings.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous #1

      You are taking that example out of context.
      Laurence Vance used it as an example of why animals should NOT have rights and are NOT equal, while you are using it as an example of a chimp not giving concent and therefor being "disadvantaged" somehow by such a marriage. Surely, if animals do not have equal rights to humans (or any rights at all) in a libertarian society, marrying them would then be choice for the human to make. In other words, libertarians that are anti-rights for animals CANNOT have a problem with human-chimp marriage. That was my point to Laurence Vance's argument.

      Anonymous #2

      We are talking about things from a libertarian perspective (as libertarians who discuss moral issues always do). In a libertarian society, government has NOTHING to do with marriage. In my version of a libertarian society, government would not even exist.

      Delete
  3. While I mostly agree with the thoughts expressed here, I think there is a fundamental error with the question.
    That is, given the scope of what libertarian theory covers (interactions among humans) it seems erroneous to derive some sort animal rights conclusions from it. It is like asking what is the libertarian position on where someone should invest there money (there is none).
    Libertarian society or not, libertarianism itself can't be used to justify any bans on animal cruelty itself, I believe, no matter how inhuman I personally think it to be.
    Such actions should be dealt through social shunning which shouldn't be difficult if most people share this sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This should be obvious, given that libertarians do not apply the NAP to animals. . .

      Delete
  4. My friend's cow was named Charlotte. Being a city folk person, it was difficult to admit that Charlotte was delicious! I felt what must have been the gratitude to the animal for its 'life gift' to me that "primitive" folks do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In order to live you have to kill something and eat it. That's not the way I want it, it's just the way it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that you don't...Leonardo Da Vinci got along just fine without killing anyone (human OR animal), and so do the 5% of vegetarians in the USA and throughout the world.

      Delete
  6. "As a footnote, I would add that in a libertarian society, it would be appropriate to ban the torture/cruel treatment of animals, in that, as humans, we can empathize with the horror of unjustified pain."

    That's pretty weak.What is it about my personal horror that allows me to use force against my fellow man to prevent them from doing something that in no way visits violence or force upon me?

    Should my horror at a starving child allow me to raid your pocket to provide food?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Empathizing with the horror of unjustified pain is a weak link? You are a sociopath.

      Delete
    2. Libertarians claim that the only basis for initiating force against other people is self defense or defense of justly acquired property. It is not against "empathizing with horror" or voluntary charity.

      However, it clearly makes binary moral judgement and using force against your fellow man because of you feelings or charitable thoughts is not moral within the system.

      Delete
    3. According to your definition, you would not be allowed to stop a man from beating up another because it would not be self defense. Insane, man.

      Delete
    4. The person being beat up has the right to respond with force,and through agency,a government or good Samaritan could respond with force on his behalf.That's a lot different than initiating force against other people because of your feelings One of the attractive things about libertarian ism is its bright line limiting the use of force in human relations.It leaves almost everything to voluntary agreement. Rationalizations like"everyone agrees people should not starve because of economic setbacks", do not justify using force against people who do not agree. People can rationalize a million good reasons why they have to use the brute force of the state against you and the slippery slope seems to rapidly lead to everything either proscribed or prohibited by force.

      Delete
  7. Well you could be a vegetarian...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think anyone in their right mind is arguing for any kind of open-ended animal rights that would in any way equal to rights of human beings. I also don't think any libertarian in their right mind would want to ban eating meat or horse-drawn carriages.

    I think there are two separate issues, at least as I see it. The first issue is unjustified animal cruelty. Would there be laws against such acts in a free society? Would such laws contradict libertarian principles? Perhaps such behavior would be dealt with severe social ostracism and consumer education, such as the campaign against puppy mills today. Perhaps some jurisdictions would recognize an animal cruelty tort that someone could bring against an accused torturer. I don't know. If I had a choice between a jurisdiction that recognized such a tort and one that didn't, I would choose the one with the tort.

    The second issue concerns the great apes, who have a certain level of self-awareness. For example, they recognize themselves in a mirror (the only other animals that can do this are dolphins and elephants). Koko, the gorilla that knows over 1,000 signs, which include signs for 'love' and 'want.' Should we provide a certain level of higher protection to the great apes, compared to other animals? I am leaning towards a yes here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Elsie, as a sovereign cow,
    1. You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
    2. Anything you say or moo may be used against you in a court of law.
    3. You have the right to consult an attorney before being barbecued and to have an executive chef present during carving, seasoning, and serving now or in the future.
    4. If you cannot afford an chef, one will be appointed for you before any meal preparation, if you wish.
    5. If you decide to be cooked now, without a chef present, you will still have the right to be delicious at any time until you talk to a chef.
    6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to be consumed without a chef present?

    Give me a break, have you bozos have nothing better to do???

    [Good lord above, protect us from the rampant stupidity that surrounds us and threatens to leave our bellies as empty as our minds...]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous and your poor cow... I am hoping you are just "missing" the difference between animal cruelty and animals raised humanely and killed as close to humanely as possible, for food??? If not, your parens prayer is oxymoronic...

      Delete
  10. You don't believe that rights exist naturally?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then they can justifiably be removed or deconstructed?

      Delete
    2. I'd say rights do exist naturally. That right is power (in practice)

      Delete
  11. "As most of have, I have swatted my share of flies that have annoyed me and slaughtered many mosquitoes that were in the process of sucking my blood."

    This example is about violation of the NAP. If a human were to suck your blood you'd have the right to defend yourself too.

    "However, I eat beef almost daily. I also eat etc...Of course, almost everyone else does the same. In other words, to believe that we are one with other living creatures on this planet does not fit the facts."

    I would never argue we are "one' with animals. I believe we are superior and therefor certainly have MORE rights. It does not follow from this that animals have NO rights.

    "To a large degree, man is the master of the bird, fish and animal kingdoms. We evolved that way and we survive by eating fruit, vegetables, birds, fish and animals. To think otherwise is absurd."

    This arguments could just as easily be applied to various animals, such as lions, hyenas, crocodiles etc. Mankind is capable of being dominant over crocodiles and lions (but crocodiles and lion can just as easily kill people), but crocodiles and lions are dominant over the rest of the animal kingdom. This suggest a hierarchy of domination. This does NOT suggest one layer of rights for mankind, and NO rights for all the rest. At least, the argument above doesn't.

    "Further, it should be clear that animals do not necessarily respect the life and property of humans. I would hate, without a gun, to come up against a lion, tiger, rattlesnake, polar bear, pit bull or shark."

    Obviously, human beings are no more capable, as a rule, to respect life and property of humans (or we'd be living in a libertarian society now). The capacity to articulate rights has not made any improvement in that worthy of speaking of. And you would hate just as much, without a gun, to come up against a burglar, robber, rapist, murderer, terrorist, or invading army.
    So again, the above is not a valid argument for a clear difference between people and animals.

    "Thus, not only do we survive by eating various creatures on this planet, but we protect ourselves from attack by various creatures. "

    Again, this principle also applies to predators in the animal kingdom. And even if not, the mere notion that we can master animals, does not lead to the conclusion we have the right to do anything we want with them. Once upon a time people had a way to master people. It was called slavery. Just because people COULD master other people, doesn't mean they should have or had a right to. So the argument is a non-sequitur.

    " But most important, we must remember that a libertarian society would be based on a fundamental level on the private property rights of humans. Thus, a mosquito or fly on my property is a trespasser and I should be free to kill it."

    When it comes to private property, the same would apply to people. Not just animals. Therefor there is still a failure to make clear why humans have rights and animals have none. Nobody is suggesting you can not use violence against trespassing animals.

    While i believe animals cannot have equal rights to humans, i still see a big failure to argue logically why animals should have NO rights. Most of the arguments used above are non-sequiturs or apply to human virtually as much to animals or vice versa. I see justifications, but not valid arguments.
    If the issue of animal rights are to be made crystal clear, i believe rock solid arguments must first be made to serve a libertarian case pro or anti. I have yet to see one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we need to spend a lot of time on thinking about how to do that. There does seem enough differential between levels of development to afford a rational system of rights for organisms and beings on all levels. I would imagine that the amount of consideration each organism/being affords to the others is integral to its development in addition to the organisms capacity to think, feel, and exert volition in general or otherwise process and ponder data.

      We should opt for synthetic meat and stop farming animals for food or profit. Humans should replace the concept of ownership of animals with stewardship. It seems to be in our own interest over the long run if not at least easier on the eyes.

      Delete
  12. I think this article makes great points that many libertarians miss. However I disagree on two counts. One is that it isn't the owner of the property in which the animal occupies that determines the fate of the animal. Rather it is the owner of the animal. Now very often they are the same person. However in a situation where a Crusoe's dog has wandered onto the property of Friday, Friday couldn't just kill the dog. That would violate the libertarian legal principle of proportionality. The Crusoe has only trespassed on the property of Friday.
    The other point is that even though it unfortunate I don't think that the libertarian society can ban cruelty to animals. People would have the right to kill or torture animals for no other reason than their own sick enjoyment. However one would hope that because of the abhorrent nature of such acts the general public would ostracize people who perform them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How advanced would a computer program have to be before you would grant it rights?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great question. I think it also dovetails nicely into IP. If a computer program becomes self-aware and sentient, and we recognize its rights for self-ownership, what does the computer program own? If only physical matter can be owned, as the anti-IP crowd suggest, does it mean that it only owns the hardware on which it currently resides? What if it copies itself onto someone else's hardware property? Interesting questions, these.

      Delete
    2. Ah, but if you would grant rights to something by virtue of its nature as a self-aware and sentient being ... then you fall into the natural rights camp.

      As for self-ownership for computer programs ... it is important to define what "self" means for computer programs. For humans, it is obvious: the "self" refers to the body. Nobody is able to control my body the same way I am. My body is a far more basic extension of my will than my property is. It is the medium through which the world and my mind interact. Because of this, my claim to my body trumps anyone else's, even if such a second-party claim could be based on homesteading or contract with the just owner. In the case of computer programs, there is no such natural extension of the program mind. Any computer code running the program could, not just in theory but actually quite practically, be transported onto different hardware. I would say a computer program is bodiless and hence self-less. Any property right in the hardware on which the program runs would have to be based on just homesteading or contract with the just owner; contrary to human beings, there is no "self-ownership" claim for computer programs to trump other legitimate claims to the hardware it runs on.

      (As a side note enclosed in brackets, it is not the contention of the anti-IP crowd that all property must be physical. For example, bitcoins are entirely virtual but can be owned even according to anti-IP folk. Rather, the criterion is whether use by one actor precludes use by another. Bitcoins fit this criterion because if you spend some, others can not. On the other hand, if you use Mr Wenzel's Drudge formula to promote your blog post, this does not preclude Mr Wenzel from using the same formula for promoting his own.)

      Delete
    3. @ alan.szepieniec:

      I see many problems with you concept of self. According to this definition, if we somehow realized that we all live in a virtual reality (e.g., like in the Matrix), we would suddenly become self-less. Also, if we figured out how to upload ourselves into a computer, as some futurists propose, a similar problem may arise. Finally, I could come up with a thought experiment that replaces your neurons, while keeping all their connection intact, with artificial substitutes. This would completely remove your body, while keeping the functionalist mind that gives you the subjective experience of the self. The key here is this: the self is a subjective experience, not some objective standard. You are trying to sneak in an objective theory of values.

      As for the whole "property must be rivalrous" concept, consider club goods. Say I own a large resort which can accommodate more users than the possible demand. I sell admission to the resort. One user's use of the resort does not preclude another user's use. Use of the resort is thus a non-rivalrous good.


      Delete
    4. Ed Ucation:

      As far as I can tell, the implications of my concept of self which you enumerated are correct. Why are they problematic?

      As for the resort, if it was not rivalrous, why would anyone pay for it?

      Delete
  14. In a libertarian society, custom would count as much as law. People would by or not buy products that are produced with cruelty towards animals. I'm a meat eater, but I am against cruel meat production. I would not buy cosmetics or medicines which are tested by being cruel to animals. You do not need a ban to keep animals from being abused, you just need enough people to not buy the products to cause the companies to change their ways or go out of business. A ban implies a gov't to enforce it, and therefore is not a libertarian society.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How dare you disagree with Rothbard on Natural Rights, Wenzel! Nobody is allowed to disagree with Rothbard!

    ReplyDelete
  16. With all due respect, in a libertarian society custom would not count as much as law. Law is force and the point of libertarian society is to reduce the use of force in human interaction. I would think in libertarian society one would be allowed to flaunt custom without fear of the state. Also, why do you assume that anyone abusing animals would be a corporation selling products to the public? Some people abused and killed other people, so presumably some people would abuse and kill animals for no gain. It seems that exposes a problem with doctrine - the rules applied consistently do not prohibit wanton animal cruelty. RW wants a different result, but the rules do not get to it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. With HUMAN rights declining lately let's worry about that right now or we won't even have the (idiotic) luxury or bitching about animals.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The hour is late, and perhaps I did not read the article and comments carefully, but it appears that little boys tying cans to cats tails is okay because it is YOUTHFUL DISCOVERY? Horses pulling carriages full of fat tourists around busy New York streets on hot summer days is okay? No restriction on unneeded or redundant vivisection is okay. I suppose kosher slaughter houses tearing the esophagus out of a cow and letting her bleed to death while fully conscious is okay, too, because she is going to be made into your hamburger. Taking 30-foot orcas from their pods in the oceans to swim around a chlorinated pool is okay because that orca became someone's property when it was taken. That Jr. thinks it is fun to see an orca makes the shortened, miserable life of the orca okay. Mr. Wenzel, just because people CAN do something does not mean they SHOULD do something - like shoot elephants for their ivory.
    I went to this website to research issues that are important to me as I am not liking the Republican party all that well these days. Uh, I think it will be a while before I sign up to be a Libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why is human territoriality acceptable while the territoriality isn't other organisms. Such things cannot be handled on any other basis than power. The rightful master of the territory is the most powerful one only because there is not a greater power to claim the territory. The description in the article does not establish the territory by any other means than coercion. If the territory is initially established through coercion and is maintained that way, the "owner" has not procured the territory in a more ethical fashion than any other organism would.

    I do not believe there is a non-power metric that would establish a territory, and I do not believe that a bigger, more functional pre-frontal coretex makes it more "morally" proper. The ability to give consent is not restricted to purely the human capacity. Alternatively, who "should" have rights or more rights. A high functioning chimp or a low functioning human (the chimp is smarter than the human in this case which is entirely a real thing)?

    As an additional note, I don't find the term "moral" as being accurately used. People seem to want to believe that morals require conscious thought and some form of institutionalization. A better way to conceptualize morals that is not intrinsly designed to afford humans a form of leverage is to consider that "morals" are in fact just social relationships between cooperative organisms. It is like with Dogs. There are certain group responses to certain behaviors that change somewhat over time. There is an official hierarchy that is also dynamic and depends on group consent. The structure of the hierarchy can be established in a way that dogs do not even construct on their own by humans. Dogs also experience emotions (indeed, this is what drives their behavior) but also show a surprising degree of planning behavior. Some dogs seem apparently more clever than some humans. Is it morally proper for an owner to be dumber than it's property (which dogs are considered to be)?

    Alternatively, if extraterrestrials decided to claim humans land as property, how would their actions be different from ours since we are talking about scale here? How is it that they would accomplish their goals in a manner different than the author's description of mosquito's on his "property?"

    Alan's proposition of self is not valid. His body is no more conscious than any other body and the "self ownership" clause cannot be dependent on "consciousness" as that would disregard some humans as having rights. It also sets an arbitrary delineation at this time against who is more or less conscious since is definitely not an either or scenario and we do not have enough observations as a group to make a good decision. The "self" that distinguishes humans "self" from other animals "self" is a few groups of neurons assembled in a particular order which varies which varies somewhat. The self that results from that could theoretically be organized much differently and display the same result. Defining the self as that particular organization would not be a fully valid position. EdUcation is right in a way. Alan is trying to establish an objective theory of values, but EdUcation is wrong about its existence in the ultimate sense (if he that is actually his position which I am reading into). I think what he is talking about is that people's value judgements seem arbitrary if he is a determinist and that peoples value judgements are ultimately arbitrary if he is an indeterminist. For instance in art. People like to say that art is subjective and it is. The objective value in the art is defined by the experiencers response to it or from some other utility it serves to it's creator. Gosh, now its out. I am a naturalistic utilitarian who is bent on determinism- what crooked webs we weave. The pun is derived from the fact that there is evidence that does appear to show indeterminate relationships from some perspectives (ours).

    ReplyDelete
  20. go to parental control android if worry for your children and want to find more abouyt their life

    ReplyDelete