14 Oct 2023 7:35 am
Cannonpointer » 13 Oct 2023, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑ Lemmee give ya an example of what chaps my *** about libertarians. They say that animals have no rights, as they are property. They cannot respect rights, therefore they cannot have them.
Okay, I can live with that - as a concept. I get it. That's fine - I don't give my dogs rights. I don't think the framers fought for my dogs' rights.
But then they go farther. As pets are property, and as no man has a right to tell you how to dispose of/treat your property, therefore animal cruelty laws have no legitimate basis. And this is where ya gotta separate the randians from the religious ones. Because the religious ones understand that there is Something greater than ourselves making the rules - and that tautologies cannot override that Something. So, we are responsible to more than just concepts and more than just social compacts. We are responsible to our Creator, and we are responsible to the conscience He endowed us with. So when we see a fellow mistreating an animal, we have not just a right but a DUTY to move on that ****.
So, half of your libertarians understand that we have a natural right - given us by God Almighty - to protect animals from **** heels. And the other half? They are aghast at this idea, because they do not believe in God, and therefore they do not believe in our duty of stewardship, and therefore they cannot see - from within their pathetic tautology - any justification for society protecting animals from freaks who would abuse them.
That's just one quick example - but one that particularly irks me. And it leads me always to wonder, "What does this fellow mean by the world 'libertarian'?"
It's the definition of "animal cruelty" that will always be argued about. The extremists would like to stop me from farming pork chops or riding my horse.
Look into California prop 12 and the effect it will have/is having on our food prices.