Dog Ban

[DavidOdden]

Let me ask this: should people be able to own bears?

And lions and tigers. People actually do own these animals, which shows that it is reasonably possible to own such things without causing harm. Under the assumption that the legal system continues to hold a man responsible for the havoc that his property wreaks, if in fact bears have a propensity to kill and maim and they are so powerful that no man can contain them in a cage, then the consequences of owning a bear would be so high that nobody would be willing to take the risk, and a ban would be unnecessary. The social goal would emerge directly from primtive concepts of tort law.

We agree it is moral for a man to kill a wolf that he thinks is a threat to him, yes?

Absolutely not, if the wolf is someone else's property -- it has to be a threat.

Why does the right diminish if the wolf becomes a pet?

Property rights.

In other words, it seems there is a conflict between a property right and a right of preemptive self defense.

No, there is no conflict. In case of property rights, there has to actually be a threat. It's the same as the fact that you do not have the right to kill a man who you feel might be threatening you.

Does self-defense always have to be reactive.

In the case of the individual, yes.

Dr. Peikoff seems to indicate it can be preemptive (war on terror).

That is because you can assess the facts and determine that terrorists are a threat.

In other words, this reduces to the question whether pit bulls are more like Arabs or terrorists. There is a significant correlation between being terrorist and being Arab, but concluding that being Arab causes being a terrorist is a complete misidentification. It turns out that there are Somalis, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Anglo-Americans who are bomb-throwers. So the war on terror is directed against terrorists, not Arabs. Similarly, the war on danger should be directed not against a suspect class, but against the actual threat.

[changeling]

Very few jurisdictions allow people (other than zoos) to own tigers and such. I disagree with your analysis. There is clearly a conflict. If we agree you can kill a wolf that is a potential threat in the woods, there is no good reason the same threat can't be dealt with the same way simply because someone says "that's my wolf, so leave it alone." The conflict doesn't go away by noticing the property rights involved. If we were to insist there is no conflict, I would say it is because no one has the right to own property that is a threat to someone else. We're just arguing about facts, really. You say the wolf isn't a threat until it attacks, but that ignores the nature of a wolf. Live animals are meaningfully different than inanimate property because part of their nature is self-sustained action; in fact, self-sustained action without ethical calculation. For animals with the capability of seriously harming or killing a man, I think a good argument can be made that this amoral self-sustained action makes these animals inherently dangerous. Man is totally free to tolerate them, but he need not do so if he senses a threat. The owner of the animal cannot change this no matter how much he wishes it weren't so or how much he loves his pet or the value of his property. A is A. And it's not the same as killing a man because he might be a threat. A man's right to life is immeasurably greater than a wolf's. I've never read any Objectivist literature arguing for animal rights, except that they shouldn't be tortured or something. Another man is presumed to have ethical capacity until he shows otherwise. He is expected to act in his self-interest, which means not killing anyone. That is part of his nature. A wolf doesn't have the reasoning or ethical capacity to know what his self-interest is vis a vis attacking a man. He moves on instinct, which very well may lead him without rational calculation to attack a man.

[DavidOdden]

Very few jurisdictions allow people (other than zoos) to own tigers and such.

Okay, but I rarely pretend that actual law is the same as what law should be. All jurisdictions should allow it, and enough do that it's not a ridiculous hyopothetical.

I disagree with your analysis. There is clearly a conflict. If we agree you can kill a wolf that is a potential threat in the woods, there is no good reason the same threat can't be dealt with the same way simply because someone says "that's my wolf, so leave it alone."

The point that I think you're not getting is that in the wilds, a wolf is not property, so there are no proper limits on your killing of the wolf. But when it is property, then you must respect the property rights of the other person, and cannot kill the wolf unless it is actually a threat to you. That is a far cry from saying that you "feel" threatened by the existence of a wolf. The emphasis is on objective fact, not subjective emotion. A man and his property should not be distinguished -- if it is wrong to kill a man for bumping into you, it is also wrong to kill a man's dog or wolf for bumping into you.

If we were to insist there is no conflict, I would say it is because no one has the right to own property that is a threat to someone else.

But a wolf is not inherently a threat to someone else. We can probably extend that concept properly to nuclear weapons, but not to wolves. A wolf is at worst a potential threat, but then so is a chain saw, car, or box of tomatoes.

A specific wolf may be demonstrably a threat, just as a specific dog might be, but that is demonstrated by particular facts and not just because it is a wolf or dog.

You say the wolf isn't a threat until it attacks, but that ignores the nature of a wolf.

I don't recall ever saying that. Where did you get that idea? For any animal to threaten other people or property, it has to have access to other people or property, so a well-secured animal is not a threat. Thus wolves are not an intrinsic threat. I don't have personal familarity with "domesticated" wolves, so I can't say whether I think containment is a necessary condition, but it is sufficient.

Man is totally free to tolerate them, but he need not do so if he senses a threat.

That "sense" has to be based in objective reality. Again, you keep emphasizing the subjective, the idea that if you feel a certain way, then those feelings trump another man's property rights.

A man's right to life is immeasurably greater than a wolf's.

And a man's right to his property is a part of his right to his life.

Your argument about the irrationality of wolves is, regrettably, off-target. The wolf has no rights: the man who owns the wolf does. If a man's property actually does threaten other people, then that property can rightly be taken (if the man cannot or will not neutralize the threat). But there has to be an objective threat, not a feeling.

[changeling]

If I used the word "feel," I misspoke, but I don't think I did. I said "sense," which has to do with objective reality. You have experience with wild animals. You realize they are different that domestic animals. You realize they don't communicate rationally or think rationally. You know also that even within the genus of domestic animals, certain species (breeds of dogs) are more likely to attack, etc., and that they might do a lot of damage when they do. This is objective. You might be wrong about the facts, but it's still objective. You therefore calculate based on your past integrations that this breed is intolerably dangerous.

So if a wolf is not inherently dangerous, I think a nuclear bomb is potentially even less so. A nuclear bomb takes human volition to go off. A wolf doesn't. The bomb will do more damage if it goes off, but that's not the entire scope of what I mean by "inherent." It has to do mainly with likelihood, not degree. (As an aside, I think tort law probably conflates the issues a bit.)

I don't know who wrote that a wolf isn't a threat until it actually attacks, but someone did.

I don't know why you say I'm "off-target." We seem to agree on the premises. The wolf has no rights. The owner has a property right in the wolf. And the other man has a right not to be molested by the owner or his property. I said I think there is a conflict when the other man senses a threat from the wolf. I think the way you're resolving what I called a conflict is that until the wolf actually threatens the other man (has immediate access to him and acts in a threatening way such that a reasonable person would sense a threat), the property rights stand with no conflict. But when the other man senses a threat (under the reasonable person standard that a court would have to apply to adjudicate this), then his right to defense stands without conflict. Is that what you're saying? In other words, there is never a conflict. The scope of the property right and the scope of the right of defense meet, without overlap, at the point where the wolf objectively (reasonable person) threatens the other man. So the right to physical integrity that is a corollary of the right to life is greater than the right to property which is also a corollary?

[DavidOdden]

I don't see that there is any possible further refinement of our positions here, without moving from broad generalities into specific facts. We don't have experience with predatory animals, and except for marginal cases, you can't sense that a dog is vicious until it does something.

In a real emergency, you may rightfully defend yourself against a man or his property, and when it is not an emergency, you must remember that you have no right to initiate force against another man. You must remember that it is the exclusive job of the government to regulate the use of force, according to objective law. If an animal does in actual, objectively-measurable fact, threaten others, then the courts can decide that and order some remedy. The fact of being a particular breed of dog does not ipso facto translate into "being a threat". The crux of the matter is, what objectively constitutes "being a threat"?

The scope of the property right and the scope of the right of defense meet, without overlap, at the point where the wolf objectively (reasonable person) threatens the other man.

Yes, and the right of defense is superior.

Wolves and pit bulls not being comparable, and in lieu of substantial experience with wolves (I'm assuming that you don't have pet wolves), I don't think pursuing wolf questions is useful (i.e. it's not something you can likely ground in experience), whereas pit bull questions are potentially more answerable by reasonable men. As a starter, a pit bull roaming around loose in the neighborhood is likely to be a problem; a pit bull running towards you certainly is.