foobar
Newbie
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 23
|
 |
« on: June 28, 2008, 01:36:27 pm » |
|
Being a pet owner, I do have a soft spot for fuzzy animals and I always get disgusted when someone abuses their pet. For libertarians, this seems to be a tricky question balancing on the issue between an animal's rights and property rights. In my opinion, I think animals should at least get a negative right: The right to be left alone and not have to suffer or die.
What's your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 126
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2008, 07:31:02 pm » |
|
Being a meat eater myself, I understand that animals have to die in order for me to eat. I have no issues with the killing of animals for food. I have no reservations about striking an animal in the roadway if it means avoiding injury to other humans.
If a person dislikes an animal enough that they find a desire to abuse it, then they should release it to the wild at a minimum. There is no reason that any animal should be made to suffer because their owner had a bad day. You have to wonder if those people treat their children the same way. That said, there is a difference between abuse and punishment. An owner should be allowed to perform corrective actions on their animals. The problem is defining that line. Could we ever come up with a hard and fast rule about what is discipline and what is abuse? I think there are some things we could all agree on. I also think there is a fuzzy middleground that we would argue heatedly about forever and come up with no resolution.
Personally, I am more interested in ensuring that the government gets out of my life rather than what my neighbor is doing in his home.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
klapton
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 137
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2008, 09:38:54 pm » |
|
I would define cruelty as causing "unnecessary suffering" of an animal, and I think it's wrong. So, if you need to kill an animal, it should be done as quickly as possible, to minimize suffering. And living animals should be cared for properly, with sufficient food, water, and protective shelter.
I do, however, view animals as property. So I do not know what, in a truly free society, should be done to a human who is cruel to animals. I do NOT believe the animal has rights like a human. So we cannot use coersion against a person who has not aggressed against another human.
I think that everyone who lives near such a person could get together, agree together that the animal abuser is a giant douche, and never speak to the guy again (including conducting commerce with him).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
caomhin10p
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 110
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2008, 01:07:42 am » |
|
People who abuse animals need to be locked up. I love all types of animals, but I do eat meat as well. There's a fine line, but I think many people can see them pretty clearly. I know I've smacked my dog before while house training him, but smacking him on the butt a little is a lot different than whipping him. I just think most people know abuse when they see it, I know that sounds like a bit of a cop out, but maybe you all know what I mean. I think Spain went way overboard giving apes the same rights as people in some respects, however. Neglect, abuse, etc is inexcusable and people need to face criminal charges for these and other acts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
foobar
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 23
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2008, 10:40:44 am » |
|
People who abuse animals need to be locked up. I love all types of animals, but I do eat meat as well. There's a fine line, but I think many people can see them pretty clearly. I know I've smacked my dog before while house training him, but smacking him on the butt a little is a lot different than whipping him. I just think most people know abuse when they see it, I know that sounds like a bit of a cop out, but maybe you all know what I mean. I think Spain went way overboard giving apes the same rights as people in some respects, however. Neglect, abuse, etc is inexcusable and people need to face criminal charges for these and other acts.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I was getting at. Obviously there's a big difference between giving a pet a light smack with a newspaper vs. wacking him in the skull with a 2x4. I had a neighbor who consistently left her pets out in all weather conditions, whether it would be the extreme heat or the extreme cold. We called the Humane Society on them multiple times and she eventually allowed them to take shelter in the garage. I'll agree in that we shouldn't give him the exact same rights as people, but the problem is that there's very little laws (especially in PA) about even basic animal welfare. I would define cruelty as causing "unnecessary suffering" of an animal, and I think it's wrong. So, if you need to kill an animal, it should be done as quickly as possible, to minimize suffering. And living animals should be cared for properly, with sufficient food, water, and protective shelter.
I do, however, view animals as property. So I do not know what, in a truly free society, should be done to a human who is cruel to animals. I do NOT believe the animal has rights like a human. So we cannot use coersion against a person who has not aggressed against another human.
I think that everyone who lives near such a person could get together, agree together that the animal abuser is a giant douche, and never speak to the guy again (including conducting commerce with him). I agree, but I think in a free society, we would still have something like the ASPCA, where a member of that community would contact them and then the ASPCA would look into it. Obviously, I wouldn't want the government spying on me, but the community should have some type of authority it can call upon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 126
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2008, 10:59:40 am » |
|
Lets say I have a problem with gophers, coyotes, or some other animal that I feel is doing damage to my property. I set up a trap for these animals. A gopher trap may be a spring loaded spike that has a pressure plate placed over one of their tunnels. When the gopher goes though this tunnel and trips the pressure plate the spike is thrust into the ground striking the gopher. This may not immediately kill the gopher but instead leave it there to suffer for several minutes to an hour while it bleeds out. Should I be arrested?
Lets say some other animal is damaging my crops. I decide to shoot it but it is moving and my aim is poor. I get a gut shot and this animal scurries back to its hole, or whatever, and then dies after some time from the wound.
I am not saying that I believe abuse is proper and just. But, if you only choose to give the cute furry critters that people keep as pets rights, then are you applying equal justice? Who determines what animals rights are? Who, in government, are you going to allow to make the determination that what is one persons discipline is not another's abuse. Not everyone in this country thinks alike. We do not all have the same descriptions of abuse or neglect. if we all thought alike there wouldn't be more than one political party. We would all receive the same punishment for a crime. Although, if we all thought alike would there be anything defined as a crime?
I know what I deem to be improper treatment of animals. Do you think that every prosecuter and judge in this country thinks the same as you do? Do you think that everyone who would file a complaint in this country thinks the same as you? To some slapping your dog on the backside is unnecessary and abusive. We have to be very careful what we wish for. Remember there are groups such as PETA that have very different viewpoints and can sway legislatures.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
mark.d.crowley
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 218
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2008, 09:45:27 pm » |
|
Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. If animals are given a set of rights, then what responsibilities come with those rights?
This question, to me anyway, is central to animals having rights vs. animals being purely property. I'm sure some will argue convincingly about there being gray areas in-between property and rights. Even in the gray areas, if an animal has a right that people must respect, then what responsibility must the animal assume? If it can't assume it, then what?
Animal welfare seems to be more about minimum standards of responsibility for the owner of the animal. That's more about (putting it coldly) obligations of pet ownership. That's why I think animal rights (animal responsibilities) and animal welfare (owner responsibilities) are different things.
Mark
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 12:27:06 pm by mark.d.crowley »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
klapton
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 137
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2008, 09:02:20 am » |
|
Lets say I have a problem with gophers, coyotes, or some other animal that I feel is doing damage to my property. I set up a trap for these animals. A gopher trap may be a spring loaded spike that has a pressure plate placed over one of their tunnels. When the gopher goes though this tunnel and trips the pressure plate the spike is thrust into the ground striking the gopher. This may not immediately kill the gopher but instead leave it there to suffer for several minutes to an hour while it bleeds out. Should I be arrested?
Lets say some other animal is damaging my crops. I decide to shoot it but it is moving and my aim is poor. I get a gut shot and this animal scurries back to its hole, or whatever, and then dies after some time from the wound.
You have a right to use lethal force to defend your property from HUMANS (who definitely have rights), let alone animals. These animals are damaging your property. If you can get a better gopher trap that kills them quicker, then you should. But if what you have is what you have, you have a right to defend your property. As for the shooting, you did your best to make a quick kill. No one can expect more than your best shot. I am not saying that I believe abuse is proper and just. But, if you only choose to give the cute furry critters that people keep as pets rights, then are you applying equal justice? Who determines what animals rights are? Who, in government, are you going to allow to make the determination that what is one persons discipline is not another's abuse. Not everyone in this country thinks alike. We do not all have the same descriptions of abuse or neglect. if we all thought alike there wouldn't be more than one political party. We would all receive the same punishment for a crime. Although, if we all thought alike would there be anything defined as a crime?
I know what I deem to be improper treatment of animals. Do you think that every prosecuter and judge in this country thinks the same as you do? Do you think that everyone who would file a complaint in this country thinks the same as you? To some slapping your dog on the backside is unnecessary and abusive. We have to be very careful what we wish for. Remember there are groups such as PETA that have very different viewpoints and can sway legislatures.
Indeed. Of course, when I spoke in an earlier post about a "truly free society" I meant one that has no need of legislatures, hehe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 280
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2008, 10:24:30 pm » |
|
I enjoy these types of discussions. If this is the most of our disagreements.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What say you?
|
|
|
sgtmtmiller
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 17
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2008, 03:33:03 pm » |
|
Be careful using animal welfare beside animal rights. PETA will have a new lobby effort "Public Housing for Animals", and say it was the LPPa's idea.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JohnKOTR
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 140
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2008, 04:50:41 pm » |
|
I would say that any permanent physical or mental damage done to an animal for the purposes not involving self-defense of oneself or others, or to prevent capital property damage (save your car, not your rug), or for other reasonable causes; that said damage would constitute a crime, in my opinion.
Such things as dog-fighting, cock-fighting, etc. would warrant a penalty of at least one year in prison and hefty fine, for the first offense. After that, I'd raise that to five years in prison. Third offense gets you ten.
Other things such as simple abuse would get you a few months on the first offense and up to several years for additional offenses.
I am very much in favor of punishing those who abuse animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 126
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2008, 07:06:56 pm » |
|
Here are the FEDERAL regulations we already have on this topic. http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm#L2Do we need more? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
foobar
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 23
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2008, 12:07:13 am » |
|
I know what I deem to be improper treatment of animals. Do you think that every prosecuter and judge in this country thinks the same as you do? Do you think that everyone who would file a complaint in this country thinks the same as you? To some slapping your dog on the backside is unnecessary and abusive. We have to be very careful what we wish for. Remember there are groups such as PETA that have very different viewpoints and can sway legislatures.
True. The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal government the ability to grant moral decisions. I suppose that the best method would be to do the same with abortion: leave it to the state and local governments to decide. That way, the people there can decide for themselves what they deem moral and the local laws would probably best reflect what the population thinks. But yeah, we do have to watch for the legislation that is enacted. What may start out as a small protection welfare act may suddenly snowball into a huge bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samantha1965
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 108
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2008, 08:28:50 am » |
|
But yeah, we do have to watch for the legislation that is enacted. What may start out as a small protection welfare act may suddenly snowball into a huge bureaucracy.
Well I think we need food stamps for pets and nationally funded and mandated health care; it should be mandatory for vets to report any signs of abuse.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mark.d.crowley
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 218
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2008, 11:54:30 am » |
|
Well I think we need food stamps for pets and nationally funded and mandated health care; it should be mandatory for vets to report any signs of abuse....
Let's not forget, of course, some will object the illegal im-migration of tens of millions of foreign birds. They will call for building a really tall fence with a really fine mesh. These invaders will take food and water from domestic birds. They must be stopped.
Then, of course, others will want to grant amnesty for all the birds granting them permanent residency status. They'll be able to chirp and fly around our school playgrounds and emergency rooms, perch on political signs (and do unspeakable acts that can be interpreted as negative political statements), eat at any bird feeder welfare station without showing papers, and fly into windows just like any irresponsible domestic bird.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
