defending ownership

sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2983121

if you were unfamiliar with the story, a nfl quarterback has just pled guilty to running a dog fighting ring. his career is ruined because he took his dogs across state lines to gamble and he “brutally murdered” some of his dogs…

briandunne.org/2007/08/01/defend … ights.aspx

"…A fundamental principle of libertarian ideology is that one can do whatever he so wishes with his own property, provided that he not harm another person…

This will hurt some reading this, but dogs are property. They are no more human than my television, Little Red Book, and fax machine. They are chattel – tangible personal property. You can buy or sell dogs. Dogs have no rights of ownership, nor can they pick their owner. We euthanize dogs – in fact, google the word “euthanize” and eight of the first ten links are for animal euthanasia. Dogs are separated from their mother very young and sold to humans a week or two later – does any of this sound human?

Yes, I know, people share ice cream with dogs, as well as long walks in the park. Dogs keep us company and help the disadvantaged. They play fetch and help keep intruders out of our homes. Dogs are wonderful creatures… but they are merely creatures.

I believe that dogs should be treated with respect; they should not be abused or tortured. If an animal is killed, it should bear as little pain as possible. I believe this under the broader principle that no living creature should suffer any more than is required; not because the particular animal in question looks like one I once shared a two bedroom apartment with. This is my own subjective moral, applied to my own private life. Sometimes animals must suffer for human demands – slaughtering for food, the extermination of pests, the euthanasia of pets or beasts of burden – but I do not want to be responsible for more suffering than necessary after balancing the cost-benefit.

If a fly gets in my house, I try to shoo it out. I don’t go fishing because I don’t eat fish and I do not want the animal to die simply for my own temporary amusement. If a cat is in my yard I scream at it and flail my arms until it leaves. The point is I apply my personal moral to my own life, my own interactions with nature. I understand that sometimes a firm hand is needed with nature, but I try not to go overboard and cause greater harm than is necessary to accomplish my goal.

But, those are my private transactions with animals. And just as others have shown reserve in questioning my actions – killing for food, eliminating pests, ending a pet’s painful life – so too must we show reserve in questioning the actions of a person who uses dog fights as a means of entertainment. In the end, both the man who fights dogs and I act on our own subjective morals – we determine what we are comfortable with and we apply our behaviors with chattel, tangible personal property, accordingly. Neither of us hurt other people. Neither of us harms the property of others. You can say my reasons for harming animals are better than his, but in the end, that is a question of individual morality…"

BTW, dog fighting is legal in Japan…

animal rights indeed…

-Imp

Excellent perspective Imp.

Myself, I have a subjectively aberrant moral position, that in any situation where my choice is to favor the animal or “ambiguous” human, my default is to side with the animal, they have more utility in my estimation.

In the case of Michael Vick though, innocence cannot be claimed, because dog fighting is not a simple matter of property versus property. The property in question is egregiously mistreated; beaten, starved, left wounded without treatment, left to suffer and die in knowable agony.

Even considering that your argument is reasonably sound, in the legal perspective that a canine is viewed as property, even the maintenance of property has rules, in any state I am familiar with at current. Leaving your car on the street, disassembled, rusted out, inoperable will cause warnings and fines to be levied against you. An individuals house in any residential area is not allowed, as property under law, to fall into a state of disrepair; litter strewn in the yard, yard overgrown, house in a dilapidated condition of disrepair.

Vick did just those things, and in the instance under inspection, it was that there were a multitude of instances found to exist.

Although I appreciate your position, even under property, laws do apply, (I’m not arguing the veracity or correctness of those laws, simply that they do exist), and with laws come punishments. There is no separation of society and legislation of morality.

and your property owns you…

-Imp

Simulated reality of a consumerist inundated society. Welcome to America.

A couple of my friends used to fight dogs. Not because they were NFL players, but because they were very poor and lived in a shitty house with no electricity. Fighting dogs was the only way that these guys,(with felony convictions) could make enough money to have any financial means at all. People shouldn’t have to be poor so that dogs don’t get killed. That just doesn’t make any sense.

somehow… this imagery evokes laughter.

It’s a good argument Impenitent. If it solves these sorts of issues animals oughtn’t be considered property then…

Japan likes to ignore civil rights too. As gaijin it’s very difficult to get an apartment in the country not to mention service in a brothel.

Just thought I would check on the message boards about the article. First, thank you for reading my essay. It’s great that we can have an open debate about this topic.

Next, you must understand that the passage quoted from the essay applies to those who believe in natural rights of humans – that is rights that predate government and are unique to human beings. Among these is the right to own, consume, and dispose of property. I believe, and many like me, man has the natural right to own, consume, and dispose of property as he sees fit, provided he not harm another person or another person’s property, no matter how immoral others view his actions through their own subjective standpoint.

If you believe that all property rights are vested in the government, to grant to or restrain from individuals (a socialist), then I had further arguments – including that the value of a man’s life and freedom greatly exceeds that of any dog, as well as economic theory – that supports a legalization position.

But, coming from my natural right to property argument, a small “L” libertarian viewpoint, the idea that animals are entitled to rights is absolutely baffling. Rights – natural rights, legal rights, whatever – are a species-bound; that is belonging solely to humans (read: Rothbard, “The ‘Rights’ of Animals”, at mises.org/story/2581). As property we do with them as we so wish. If you don’t believe in individual property rights, but believe that the government has the natural right to control, use, own our property, then this passage is not for you.

Further, the argument that “dog fighting is not a simple matter of property versus property. The property in question is egregiously mistreated; beaten, starved, left wounded without treatment, left to suffer and die in knowable agony,” is incorrect. If we have a principle – freedom of property – we must ALWAYS stand by that principle or else our rights shall be usurped and infringed entirely by the government. That’s what higher moral principles are for, to always provide guidance. They are not there to be eroded away like our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, no matter how it sickens you, if you follow the principle, you must accept such behavior in order to sustain consistent rights for all people.

As for this statement:

You’re off on both these examples – your two examples are civil ordinances, protecting property, not criminal laws meant to impose moral actions.

The car example is misguided. The car being in disrepair is not the problem here; it is that it is on public property. The owner of the car has invaded the government’s property is being invaded. The government, like any property owner, has the right to defend his property – as is the purpose of this ordinance. Besides, these amount to parking tickets, not criminal jail time.

The dilapidated house argument is completely wrong. If you read my full article, you would see that I favor private reciprocal covenants that ban abused animals from property. I even went so far as to say that I would accept municipal property use ordinances – much like what would be imposed on the owner of the dilapidated house. Both these solutions attach to the neighbors’ properties to protect their property rights. They are not criminal laws meant to send people to jail.

Vick was in the countryside, with no one nearby, and so no one else’s property rights were being disturbed.

Pardicat, glad you were amused. I hoped to lighten the article with a few jokes because it is such a sensitive topic.

-BD.org

BD.org,

Check again, you’re wrong.

In most municipalities, even if your car is on your property in a state of disrepair, you can be fined.

This quote shows that you are entirely uninformed as to the founding premise of “law” in the first instance.

Vick is a primordial scumbag, and the moral justifications of “law” find you to be not only uninformed, but wrong. As Imp stated, in this country, your property owns you.

Arguing for him living in the country, is bogus. I grew up “in the country” and strangely, there were a number of instance where the county found reason to impose fines, and in two cases of disregarding fines and warnings, imprison individuals and foreclose on their property.

There is also three cases where individuals breaking laws had their homes taken, in the country, when FBI and DEA showed up, because like “dog fighting”, drugs are also illegal, and can cause you to lose your property, be subject to fines, imprisonment and other penalties.

You don’t own your property in this country, the government does, and at any point can as a matter of law remove you from ownership, under a number of different laws.

P.S. The only rights you have, are the ones you can defend. Vick obviously couldn’t defend his right to destroy property. He’ll remain the loser.

This notion that “I” can do what I please from individual rights has opened a pandora’s box.

Dog Fighting, without any shadow of doubt, is as unvirtuos activity as they possibly come.

Vick shouldn’t hold property if he’s not responsible enough to handle it.

In some countries woman are considered property.

How old are you kid? 16, 17? The fact that you kids believe that the government is our parent, it owns all, it controls all, deeply saddens me. I think our future generations are in terrible shape when you so readily cede all your possessions to men in Washington.

It is even more troubling that you have so little compassion for your fellow man… in fact, you have far more compassion for a dog. Dogs are not sentient, they do not think, they do not love. They are animals, and that is all. Yet, you much prefer to see a dog running free than your fellow man. You can’t even comprehend most of what I write and, yet, you have so much hatred for another person who harmed, not another person, but a dog.

About the quotes, first, they are civil fines, not criminal, like I told you before (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_penalty. I can keep telling you this but it seems that you will never grasp the concept.

Second, I understand that Vick had no legal defense to his crime. That’s why the article was titled “An Argument For Legalizing Dog Fights.” I realize it’s against the law, and I was making an appeal that it not be considered criminal activity. I was trying to make a broader point - with both a principled argument focusing on property rights and economic analysis of the black market.

As for the character who claimed “women are considered property in other countries” as an argument - are you meaning to tell me that dogs should not be property? Are you telling me that dogs should have the same rights as a women? What is it you are trying to say? If you do argue that dogs should be free, non-property animals, then I will call you a zealot and a wacko.

Finally, the “pandora’s box” argument is idiotic. What has opened the pandora’s box is socialism. Man started off free, we did not exist in a natural state of government control. In fact, we formed said governments to preserve our natural rights from being trampled on by our neighbors. We did not form governments because they are good and others know best how to run our lives. Socialism has opened pandora’s box by taking our natural rights - our right to survive (the FDA doesn’t allow sick patients to take experimental drugs because they “aren’t approved”), our right to free enterprise (it involves itself in every facet of commerce, creating huge burdens on voluntary transacting parties), our right to property (it taxes half our income), etc.

All I champion is individual freedom. Is that too much? That is your pandora’s box - man not interfering with the affairs of his neighbor, so long as his neighbor not impose on him. This is a pandora’s box?

And wire taps without probable cause, censorship of political messages, and imposing policy through deadly force or the threat of deadly force is okay? You kids are sick and twisted. Go live in Cuba if you want your revolution. America was founded on freedom, and to it we shall return.

-BD

bd,

You are welcome to whatever induced fallacies bring you comfort, but that post is so full argumentum ad personam, and erroneous information, it barely deserves response. I’m old enough to have fathered four children, two of whom are in their early twenties. Your claims on the law, from the laughable source of Wikipedia, are erroneous. What is civil quickly becomes criminal, so to is the converse true.

That one is blind to the tethers that bind them to their great yoke, does not a free man make.

History, in its oh so glorious repetitions, refutes your claims. Maintain whatever simulated reality brings you comfort, it avails you of nothing, and matters not at all to me.

Setting aside any moral arguments for dog fighting, lets look at the laws.

Its Illegal gambling. Not taxable, which tends to piss off the IRS.

It is an unregulated violent dangerous assault system . Which tends to piss of the the justice system.

It creates hazardous situations for innocent people. Which tends to piss the general population off.

These dogs are bred to kill. Their normal defensive protective instincts have been so warped by selective breeding and maltreatment that if it becomes loose it will kill not only other animals but, humans, mainly children… This has been proven over and over again.

In other words if you can’t build up a very deadly arsenal as a private citizen, you can’t build up a vastly uncontrolable deadly canine army. you see you can’t really ever rehabilitate these dogs to be normal dogs. They will always fall back to killing, they remain unpredictable in a very warped dangerous way.

Then finally;

Property rights don’t figure into it, Social rights do.

What a pile of pernicious poop this is bd. I didn’t read your essay. What you have written here is enough. I didn’t want to get any more on me. Besides, it was far too complicated for me. I believe there is only one human right and to exercise that right we need to be free, liberated from all restrictions including the bonds to possessions. I think Pardicat was laughing at Imp flailing his arms to frighten a cat. I have been there. It is pretty amusing especially if I’m half naked. Regardless of how many jokes you insert in your writing it is hard to laugh while holding one’s nose. I was going to guess that “Mastriani The Kid” was close to 50; and if you return to this dog fight with him I am putting my money on Mas. You on the other hand I am guessing to be at least 70 because this shit can have only been written by someone suffering from both myopia and arteriosclerosis in the arteries leading to his brain. You haven’t got a clue what “individual freedom” is because to experience freedom you would have to let go of your possessions. Your property doesn’t own you; it imprisons you. What “deeply saddens me” is the vision of humanity divided into zones of rights, barricaded behind walls, protecting our possessions and other ways we try to fill the void from each other.

-Imp

Imp,

It is hard to believe that you find his arguments sound … “natural rights of property ownership”, is laughably weak, and more at erroneous without defense.

The only thing that can naturally be owned is one’s person. Beyond that, it just becomes extension after extension of metaphysical bunk, and social contract hyperbole.

The problem is that it falls into a variety of traps. As Raven said, in some places men own their women. In his reply, he suggested that there should be a species divide with respect to ownership . . . why?

I fail to see how his argument couldn’t be applied to a man beating his spouse. Since he does acknowledge that isn’t a good thing, he recognizes that there are lines at which certain other “rights” supersede property “rights”. The argument that property “rights” are no all-inclusive has been shown to be sound in principle, after that it is just a matter of haggling over price.

Because the hominid is the one “free thinking” entity, which obviously makes it superior in importance to all other life forms.

That’s because logically, it could, just as the young woman made lucidly apparent.

From this country, we cry “human rights violation” if a female, who in her own country, is viewed as nothing more than property, is beaten, starved, enslaved and slaughtered.

Which points out exactly the error in the current line of thinking. Society creates certain expectations of “responsible ownership of property”, and society also creates the demand of laws for governance of such. As laws are a matter of social morality, then so to is anything that falls under the protections or penalties of law.

Imp, I was judging his post on ILP. I looked at his essay but even the appearance was intimidating; and since he was defending his essay in his post I didn’t feel I needed to read the essay to find out what it was about. I just reread Pardicat’s post. I wasn’t mistaken. He began with a quote right out of you OP. He said he found the image of you flailing your arms and screaming at cat in your yard amusing. In my opinon there is no “sound and valid argument for control over private property”. I wasn’t questioning the author’s mental health; just observing that perhaps not enough oxygen was getting to his brain. I apologize for saying “you haven’t got a clue”. That was the wrong choice of words. I should have said, “you can’t have a clue”.

Why do anarchists only drink coffee?

Because proper tea is theft!

boom boom
etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer … ision=div1