Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of "animal rights"
I've been kindly advised to confine controversial political / philosophical debates to the "Food Fight" area of the forum, so I'm going to start this thread, copy quotes addressed to me from other sections of the forum, and reply here instead.
Alex I think you need to look up the definition of Facisim.
Fascism is a strongly statist (opposite of libertarian) form of government that believes a society exists for a common purpose that trumps individual rights.
The pro-government bias in government-controlled education has tried to redefine fascism for its own benefit, placing it on their irrational left-right political paradigm scale, while in reality it overlaps with communism and many other forms of statism (including what many "animal rights" activists advocate) on the bottom end of the authoritarianism vs freedom scale.
One of the main tenents of such a system is valuing property rights over basic human rights.
That is completely false. Fascism puts the interests of the state above individual rights, including the Natural Right to create, keep, defend, and control your property. A fascist state dictates who may own property and how it is to be used. There is a theoretical difference between fascism and communism in that fascism still uses the profit motive to some degree, but in practice the communist ruling classes have always benefited from their political power in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from a fascist corporatist (the polar opposite of a free market capitalist) making an explicit profit.
It also promotes class inequality and prevents individuals from having a say in their government.
No, in fact there is a strong correlation between a government's authoritarianism and the popularity of its leaders, for very obvious reasons. Places like Nazi Germany and modern-day North Korea are examples of perfect democracy - their governments are very popular and would be reelected in a landslide every single time. The fact that their government has far more influence over the public than the public has over the government is similarly true in any other democracy in the world today. The opposite of all those forms of statism (fascism, communism, democracy) is individual liberty, which in the political context is referred to as libertarianism and in the economic context is referred to as capitalism.
Capitalism does not promote an equality of outcomes of people's actions, which would be absurd, but it absolutely requires an equality of individual Rights. Your capital is your ownership of yourself and the consequences of your actions: your body, your mind, your time, your physical and mental health, your skills, your speech, your reputation, your rights over your children (or any other dependents who don't have full self-ownership), any agreements that you have made with other people, any resource that you have brought into the human economy (i.e. homesteading), and any resource that you acquired from another human being on a voluntary basis. That means Socrates has a Right to life, no matter how many people may vote for him to drink the hemlock, and the same applies to Michael Vick and his property Rights as well!
I would like to know were you get your information.
Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have been the strongest of my philosophical influences, but they stand on the shoulders of a libertarian canon that includes Aristotle, Locke, Bastiat, Spooner, Thoreau, and many others.
It seems that you follow no real economic school of thought or any clear social science theory.
My economic theory is firmly based in the so-called Austrian School of free market economics, which I consider to be the only school to be grounded in solid scientific theory - everything else is politically biased demagogy.
Other noteworthy economic influences have included the three generations of the Friedman family (more David than Milton, and Patri's ideas on intergovernmental hyper-competition played their part as well), and many of the agorist ideas floating around the Free State Project movement, of which I am a member.
(I'll reply to some other posts addressed to me in a bit.)
Wow Mr. Libman. I learned a long time ago that there is no point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't care to look beyond their own person biases. This could go on forever.
My political and philosophical positions are based on the pursuit of truth and nothing else. I have a long and well-documented history of reevaluating my positions throughout my life, admitting my mistakes, and changing when any of my positions are shown to be illogical.
On this thread you have an opportunity to address my long-standing criticism of "animal rights", and I challenge you to approach this debate with the same constructiveness and open-mindedness as myself. (And it would be very easy to trump me in politeness.)
It would not "go on forever" - either I will admit my mistakes in light of new evidence, or your will, or I will complete my arguments and leave this forum as yet another molecule in the ivory tower of the history of human philosophy. I am not here to score converts, I am here to excessive my arguments and strengthen them in the process. I honestly do consider "animal rights" to be an egregious and dangerous fallacy that has very tangible negative consequences of us as well as for future generations, and let it not be said that I've done nothing to correct this injustice.
Your statements scare me frankly.
It is natural for people to be frightened of complicated concepts that they're unfamiliar with, and the present-day government-controlled education system would understandably precondition you against any affinity for concepts related to Anarcho-Capitalism. I now challenge you to rise above your preconditioning, to educate yourself, and either to try to prove me wrong or to adjust your own positions accordingly.
You don't seem to value anything beyond your narrow definition of economic value.
My definition of economic value is actually very broad (see above), and it is the epistemological basis that supports higher concepts like individual liberty.
I don't trust my daughter with anyone, and you just reminded me of why.
You are within your right to be protective of your daughter while she remains your dependent, but she also has a right to emancipation from you if and when she becomes an adult who is capable of reason and taking responsibility for her own actions. You are free to teach your daughter that people who are not compassionate to animals are bad people and deserve to be ostracized, but you are not free to initiate aggression against those individuals, as has been the case described on the original thread.
I hope you never have to live through a situation in your life or the life of someone close to use that makes you eat some of those words.
What type of a situation do you imagine would make me "eat any of my words"?
I have written and subsequently deleted several more things. I guess the point is that you have a right to your beliefs, and I have a right to disagree.
I agree that you have a right to your beliefs, and I share many of them, but I proclaim that you do not have a right to violate the rights of others, which you do by supporting government-imposed regulation on how human beings are to be allowed to treat their animals. You are free to live in a neighborhood association where residents are contractually obligated to treat their pets a certain way, and you are free to ostracize people and businesses whose treatment of animals you disagree with, but you don't have the right to use government force to get your way. If you have this "divine right", why not anyone else? Having to tolerate the fact that some people somewhere are doing things you disagree with - that is the price of liberty!
Regardless, you will convince more people with your arguments without the insults.
My use of "mentally deranged fascists" and other insults has been an emotional reaction to the government tyranny promoted on that thread, but here I am, clarifying and defending it in full. The irrationality and the authoritarianism of the position I was angry at remains entirely factual.
you're annoying
I would rather be "annoying" than be a person who is confronted with factual evidence that contradicts her blind faith and refuses to think about it further, while continuing to promote large-scale violence against others. This isn't directed at you specifically (though I see that you did take a prohibitionist position on some issues), but at the people who explicitly promote "animal rights", like on that fines thread, which is what I'm here to debate.
You consider issuing a fine to be "violent"?
LOL. Go have sex with Ayn Rand's corpse.
You consider issuing a fine to be "violent"?
LOL. Go have sex with Ayn Rand's corpse.
But but but the mean socialists are trying to take his money!
(Also, massive, massive nerd love for the Ayn Rand reference.)
Ayn Rand's corpse is cringing.
What type of a situation do you imagine would make me "eat any of my words"?
Print. Eat.
And.
as yet another molecule in the ivory tower of the history of human philosophy.
So not vegan.
Just sayin'
You consider issuing a fine to be "violent"?
Of course. In the long-term, what could be more violent than that? A human being can only be killed once, and his meat isn't very tasty, so there's simply no profit in pointless carnage. Chattel slavery is also very uneconomical nowadays, when simple tasks can simply be done by robots instead. The worst way in which you can exploit a human being is by imposing a socialist government over him (slavery 2.0) - that's what fines, taxes, and all other manifestations of government force are all about. Refuse to obey, and you will be abducted. Refuse to be abducted, and you will be shot.
LOL. Go have sex with Ayn Rand's corpse.
Then it would have to be a three-way with Murray Rothbard joining in as well (figuratively speaking, of course). Their ideas are very much alive and full of vigor. It is you who is having sex with corpses of idiots like Karl Marx, whose ideas were stillborn from day one!
as yet another molecule in the ivory tower of the history of human philosophy.
So not vegan. Just sayin'
"Ivory tower" is a (self-deprecating) figure of speech. And ivory can come from elephants that die from natural causes. And idioms involving animals are quite numerous. And I'm not a "vegan" - I'm a person who finds animal products nutritionally and economically inferior, especially when you grow your own food, and it's easier to quit them all at once so that the cravings go away.
Lol.
WHY ARE YOU HERE?
A human being can only be killed once, and his meat isn't very tasty, so there's simply no profit in pointless carnage.
And you KNOW this from personal experience?
WHY ARE YOU HERE?
So that I could watch your civilization collapse with a clear conscience.
And you KNOW this from personal experience?
A double-blind study has shown that most consumers aren't willing to pay much more for human meat than they pay for pork, which is much cheaper to grow and harvest.
Lol.
WHY ARE YOU HERE?
I'm going to guess for attention, validation or good, old-fashioned arrogance. And maybe zombie cupcakes, given the whole human flesh thing.
There never will be a perfect society, because their are no perfect people. Your idea of an ideal society scares me frankly, even though I know that ours is far from perfect and getting worse day by day. Someone around here said something along the lines of talking about things that will never be is like asking your father for a unicorn. Hmm. I live in the real world and not in some fictional society of whatever-you-call-it. I admire that you are trying to be self-sustaining, but if you do like in a country, then you are bound by those laws whether you like it, admit it, or not. You have a right to your opinion, but don't forget that I have a right to mine. Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't make it wrong. You do have some good ideas, but the same could be said of almost anyone if you look hard enough. I have no doubt that this society will not stand forever as it, but I'm just as certain that what you describe will fail as well. I just do the best that I can to thrive in the society I am in. My faith is not in a government agency. That's all I have to say about that, for now.
Anarcho-Capitalist is an oxymoron. John Locke sucks.
Anarcho-Capitalist is an oxymoron. John Locke sucks.
Thank you.
There never will be a perfect society, because their are no perfect people.
I never claimed that Anarcho-Capitalism is an instant utopia, but it is a rational ideal that makes the most economic sense moving forward. The present system does not - it keeps billions of people in poverty, it clips the wings of science and technology, and it squanders away the vast majority of the human potential just to remain in control.
Your idea of an ideal society scares me frankly
Why does having to pull your own economic weight and having to respect the Natural Rights of others scare you so much? You can still have your pets and your local government (ex. a voluntary neighborhood association), etc, you just can't force your way on others who choose to live outside of your government. Is that so bad?
even though I know that ours is far from perfect and getting worse day by day.
It's not just "far from perfect", it is built on a rotting socialist / Keynesian foundation that simply cannot function in the long haul. As modern technology becomes ever more powerful, humanity cannot exit the 21st century the way it has entered into it - it will either be a far freer capitalist society or it will be a tyrannical dystopia similar to 1984 by George Orwell or Anthem by Ayn Rand.
Someone around here said something along the lines of talking about things that will never be is like asking your father for a unicorn. Hmm. I live in the real world and not in some fictional society of whatever-you-call-it.
I said that about things that are contradicted by reason. 2 + 2 does add up to 4, even if the rest of the world thinks it doesn't. Logic -- not chronological snobbery and not the easily-manipulatable mob of voters -- should decide what is real and what is fictional!
I admire that you are trying to be self-sustaining,
In a capitalist system everyone is required "to be self-sustaining": if you want to put 10,000 kittens a day in a giant blender, then you have to pay for it. If there's a shortage of kittens or giant blenders, then their prices would naturally rise, and some of the thousands of businesses looking for a crack in the market will find it cost-effective to start producing more of those things. (It's very easy to produce as many billions of kittens as the marketplace will bare.)
If you're referring to my veganism, however - I'm only a vegan in a descriptive sense, I am not a part of the mainstream vegan movement. That's why I call what I'm doing "The Tax Resister Diet" instead. Any region trying to achieve secession should at least try to achieve agricultural independence first - who do you think would have won the American Revolutionary War if 90% of the colonies' food was imported from Mommy England?
but if you do like in a country, then you are bound by those laws whether you like it, admit it, or not.
A person is only bound by Natural Law (including the authority of her parents / guardians if she's still a minor) and by the contracts that she has entered into voluntarily. The Natural Law is a universal economic concept - it can even be observed in AI entities in a computer simulation and hypothetically even in extraterrestrial societies, as long as they have the similar capacity for rational thought and individual action that humans do.
So why then a person born on one plot of land be a subject of one "government" and a person born elsewhere a completely different one? I'm a big fan of Singapore, for example, as almost like a giant neighborhood association - almost everyone is there by choice and anyone can leave at any time, but that level of legitimacy fades away as the size and scope of government grows. Governments do not have a legitimate claim to property, as individual human beings do in exchange for bringing those resources into the human economy, governments only exist through violent force, and that is how ours has spread itself, from sea to shining sea and a thousand military bases all over the world! Even libertarian projects like Seasteading don't guarantee easy freedom, because if we ever get too annoying the government that has to compete with us will just send its navy to make us disappear, and the tax-victims paying for that navy will have no choice but to support it!
You have a right to your opinion, but don't forget that I have a right to mine.
Your freedom of speech is not in question here, what I am challenging is your alleged freedom to impose fines and other penalties on people who treat their animals in ways you don't agree with.
Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't make it wrong.
Initiating aggression against people like Michael Vick is in fact wrong, for the reasons that I will continue to list throughout this thread.
I have no doubt that this society will not stand forever as it, but I'm just as certain that what you describe will fail as well.
We are not asking for anyone's support, just that you stop initiating aggression against us. You are free to think that free market capitalism will fail, but history has demonstrated otherwise - every single time!
Anarcho-Capitalist is an oxymoron.
You're thinking of Anarcho-Socialism or any other flavor of anarchism that leaves behind the massive power vacuum originally held by the state, which is inherently unstable and very quickly leads to a bloodbath as various fractions fight over who gets to make the rules. Gradualist Anarcho-Capitalism on the other hand doesn't aim to destroy the state, just compete with it and gradually prove itself superior due to tax competition and an inevitable inflow of brains and capital (read Atlas Shrugged). An Anarcho-Capitalist society is stable because it is decentralized, the power vacuum of the state is filled with every individual's rights (including property rights, the right to self-defense, parents' rights, contract law backed by polycentric arbitration authorities, etc). The numerous "Bill Gates will just take over the world" scenarios have been debunked ad nauseum.
Actually, you know what, you've convinced me. Let's all go be Daleks.
I am entirely unfamiliar with Doctor Who (which, BTW, is funded by the U.K. government), but I suppose "Daleks" are some sort of a Borg-like species that violate the Natural Rights of (other) rational economic actors - like the governments and other bullies I fight against today. If there are Doctor Who characters who root and cheer as the "Daleks" violently spread themselves through the universe, then that is what you are analogous to!
you're annoying
More like boring. I'm not even annoyed anymore. It just becomes so banal.
Initiating aggression? I hope you never find out what that is.
I have no problem with having to pull my own economic weight and expecting others to do so. I have no problem with respecting so-called natural rights. I just know that this is a system that is doomed to fail on many different levels. I too would like to see some major reforms, but I doubt it will happen. I just do the best I can in the place I'm at. I could expouse on this a bunch more, but this is not the place for that, and this discussion would be too time consuming for me to be able to get my day's work in.
I said I admire you for being self-sufficient but that really didn't have anything to do with veganism. I would love to be more self-sufficient but I really don't have the time, capital, or motivation. I have friends in Arkansas that went weeks without electricity, gas, stores, banks, etc. My house is not set up for such an event by design. It would give me great peac of mind to know that no matter what comes my way, I'd be able to keep my tiny family going to a while with no outside assistance.
I guess my big problem with your proposed society is that there is no room for compassion, and I'm NOT taking about animal rights here really. My of what I would like to say would not be welcome here, so I'll not say more. I'm not a stereotypical vegain myself. However, the more time I spend here, the more I find that there is no stereotypical vegan really. We come from all walks of life, all areas of the globe, all religions, etc. You are making the mistake of assuming we all fit the stereotype.
Pages