Exactly!
Any decent breeder, shelter or rescue org could have a contract pertaining to accpetable treatment of their animals.
Rental units could have it in their leases if they so chose, the list goes on…
The rescue I worked for had a pretty extensive contract to be permitted to take an animal
Exactly!
Any decent breeder, shelter or rescue org could have a contract pertaining to accpetable treatment of their animals.
Rental units could have it in their leases if they so chose, the list goes on…
The rescue I worked for had a pretty extensive contract to be permitted to take an animal
Yes, I’m certain privatization could be highly creative about reducing animal abuse,
short of transgressing rights.
A nation-wide register of offenders linking vet clinics, breeders and stores, under some
association. Private animal rescue teams unsubtlely pitching up at people’s homes with PET
RESCUE on their trucks, for a little chat and some professional advice for the homeowner.
Dedicated online newsletters reporting on cases of cruelty with photos and details.
The worst culprits might not be embarrassed or completely prevented from buying and stealing
animals, but a culture of non-tolerance of abuse would grow, and ignorance would become
a lesser factor.
All fine and good, but why should people be prohibited from owning animals, and why are animals fundamentally different to humans than any other human commodity?
I didn’t say that people should be prohibited from owning animals-only those subhumans who torture and mistreat animals. Animals are different from all other commodity because they are alive and we share some values with them.
Leonid,
I understand your emotions in the matter but they are simply not rational.
The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists.
They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur.
You say that it is the senseless vicious murder of animals for pleasure that you are against. An animal rights activist would say that since as a society we are able to clothe and nourish ourselves without using animal products that we are commiting senseless vicious murders for the pleasure of eating a steak, or having leather shoes, or the warmth of a fur collar…
I’d suggest looking up the lawlessness and jackasssery of the anti-foie gras protests for a good look.
There are plenty of ways in an Objectivist legal system to discourage and punish acts of criminality commited on animals (I named several a few posts back) - notice I am saying “on” not “towards” as animals cannot possess rights to be broken.
You know that cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
Your intentions are good Leonid, but what you suggest is not proper for a free and rights respecting society.
Leonid,
I understand your emotions in the matter but they are simply not rational.
The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists.
They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur.
You say that it is the senseless vicious murder of animals for pleasure that you are against. An animal rights activist would say that since as a society we are able to clothe and nourish ourselves without using animal products that we are commiting senseless vicious murders for the pleasure of eating a steak, or having leather shoes, or the warmth of a fur collar…
I’d suggest looking up the lawlessness and jackasssery of the anti-foie gras protests for a good look.
There are plenty of ways in an Objectivist legal system to discourage and punish acts of criminality commited on animals (I named several a few posts back) - notice I am saying “on” not “towards” as animals cannot possess rights to be broken.
You know that cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
Your intentions are good Leonid, but what you suggest is not proper for a free and rights respecting society.
You should pay more attention to my arguments. I never said that animals have rights. I also clearly stated that there is a hierarchy of life and man’s life takes a preference over that of animals.
You should pay more attention to my arguments. I never said that animals have rights. I also clearly stated that there is a hierarchy of life and man’s life takes a preference over that of animals.
At no point did I claim you did.
I was specifying with utmost clarity the meaning of my word choices to prevent anyone from going on a semantics tangent.
At no point did I claim you did.
I was specifying with utmost clarity the meaning of my word choices to prevent anyone from going on a semantics tangent.
Then why you said "The arguments you are using are the same ones used by radical animal rights activists.
They are the arguments used against eating meat, wearing leather, wearing fur."?
As for rationality I presented rational reason why we cannot allow psychopaths to roam free.
This is actually quite interesting. Under a government without animal cruelty laws, I could definitely see such clauses becoming widespread, even ubiquitous in pet sales. That might actually be a way for civil society to erect animal protection without rights-violating legislation.
And how do you propose to enforce breeders to include such a clause? What if they refuse?
Yes, I’m certain privatization could be highly creative about reducing animal abuse,
short of transgressing rights.
A nation-wide register of offenders linking vet clinics, breeders and stores, under some
association. Private animal rescue teams unsubtlely pitching up at people’s homes with PET
RESCUE on their trucks, for a little chat and some professional advice for the homeowner.
Dedicated online newsletters reporting on cases of cruelty with photos and details.
The worst culprits might not be embarrassed or completely prevented from buying and stealing
animals, but a culture of non-tolerance of abuse would grow, and ignorance would become
a lesser factor.
And what to do with psychopaths and sadists who don’t give a damn ?
As for rationality I presented rational reason why we cannot allow psychopaths to roam free.
The problem is that it wasn’t rational.
You proposed imprisoning/institutionalising people for things they *might* do.
That there is a correlation between torture of animals and future violence towards people there is no disagreement.
But a just society does not imprison people based on things they are statistically likely to do.
And how do you propose to enforce breeders to include such a clause? What if they refuse?
I think that is a fundemental problem in the argument here.
You keep wanting to find justifications for use of force.
If one is an Objectivist one believes in the power of the free market.
That means that since the majority of people who have animals have them because they like them, enjoy them and at times find them useful the majority of people who purchase animals and animal related products would be interested in using breeders, stores and shelters that have these clauses.
The majority of landlords would find it in their interest to have a clause in their leases that abuse of animals on premises would result in eviction.
A majority of employers would find it in their interest to fire someone who kills animals for pleasure in their spare time.
A majority of storeowners and barkeeps would not want to allow such people to patronise their businesses.
There are so many free market ways to deal with this, will they end the abuse of animals altogether? Of course not! The thought is silly!
NOTHING will end it altogether.
But you cannot justify the violation of a person’s rights based on theri treatment of something that doesn’t possess rights.
Members of society would justly shun these people and as people get used to a free market solution and start putting these clauses in contracts legal action could be taken on basis of breach of contract.
This is the just and rational way to deal with it.
The problem is that it wasn’t rational.
You proposed imprisoning/institutionalising people for things they *might* do.
That there is a correlation between torture of animals and future violence towards people there is no disagreement.
But a just society does not imprison people based on things they are statistically likely to do.
So, in your view we cannot restrict a person who is driving 180 km/h in 60 km/h zone on the wrong side of the road against traffic and ignores traffic lights? We cannot stop a person who drives a heavy train under the influence of alcohol or drugs? We cannot isolate the mentally ill who never hurt a person but believes that only massive killing will bring a redemption and ready to act on his beliefs?
I think that is a fundemental problem in the argument here.
You keep wanting to find justifications for use of force.
If one is an Objectivist one believes in the power of the free market.
That means that since the majority of people who have animals have them because they like them, enjoy them and at times find them useful the majority of people who purchase animals and animal related products would be interested in using breeders, stores and shelters that have these clauses.
The majority of landlords would find it in their interest to have a clause in their leases that abuse of animals on premises would result in eviction.
A majority of employers would find it in their interest to fire someone who kills animals for pleasure in their spare time.
A majority of storeowners and barkeeps would not want to allow such people to patronise their businesses.
There are so many free market ways to deal with this, will they end the abuse of animals altogether? Of course not! The thought is silly!
NOTHING will end it altogether.
But you cannot justify the violation of a person’s rights based on theri treatment of something that doesn’t possess rights.
Members of society would justly shun these people and as people get used to a free market solution and start putting these clauses in contracts legal action could be taken on basis of breach of contract.
This is the just and rational way to deal with it.
That all could be true in regard to majority. Majority is sane and sound even in the semi-free economy. However the psychopaths and sadists are minority. What you propose to do about them? Objectivism doesn’t exclude the use of retaliatory force and in certain circumstances, when we deal with the clear and present danger, such a force could and should be used preemptively. Who would hesitate to arrest a drunkard, running amok with the knife in his hand, even if he never hurt anybody yet?
That all could be true in regard to majority. Majority is sane and sound even in the semi-free economy. However the psychopaths and sadists are minority. What you propose to do about them? Objectivism doesn’t exclude the use of retaliatory force and in certain circumstances, when we deal with the clear and present danger, such a force could and should be used preemptively. Nobody would hesitate to arrest a drunkard, running amok with the knife in his hand, even if he never hurt anybody yet.
If he was running drunkedly, in his own yard, with a knife, not threatening anyone he should not be arrested.
If he is running drunkenly through a crowd, in a public space or a rpivate space not his own, waving a sharpened katana he is creating a clear present immediate danger to those around him. Those people have rights. Not only can he be arrested but if someone was running towards him they would be justified in killing him in self defense.
At these point I can only conjecture that you are choosing to be obtuse or you are attempting reductio ad absurdum.
We cannot isolate the mentally ill who never hurt a person but believes that only massive killing will bring a redemption and ready to act on his beliefs?
You cannot isolate him for *believing* it.
The legal justification can and is made based on intention and ability to act and the burden of proof is on the party suggesting commitment to prove that the danger is immenint.
Standards for burden of proof to implement legal involuntary commitment were raised by US Supreme Court rulings in 1975 and 1979.
You cannot isolate him for *believing* it.
The legal justification can and is made based on intention and ability to act and the burden of proof is on the party suggesting commitment to prove that the danger is immenint.
Standards for burden of proof to implement legal involuntary commitment were raised by US Supreme Court rulings in 1975 and 1979.
This is not a legal process. We are discussing a mentally ill person. Such a decision is made by the board of qualified psychiatrists. The same applies to psychopaths. First time offenders should undergo a mandatory psychotherapy.
“At these point I can only conjecture that you are choosing to be obtuse or you are attempting reductio ad absurdum.”
No, just demonstrate that there is a place for the use of preemptive retaliatory force. Seems like you agree. You also agree that people who are cruel to animals represent a potential danger to humans. Why then they cannot be restricted or at least corrected by using such a force?
This is not a legal process. We are discussing a mentally ill person. Such a decision is made by the board of qualified psychiatrists. The same applies to psychopaths. First time offenders should undergo a mandatory psychotherapy.
That is not the case in the US.
It is a legal process here. And rightly an arduous one.
I understand your laws are different (my wife worked under mental illness regs similar to those of SA when we lived and worked abroad and was appalled by how easy it was to take away a person’s freedom under then mental health regulations there) but overall the US is still a more rights respecting nation than SA.
Why can’t someone who poses “a potential danger” to others be restricted or punished?
Because you cannot punish someone for something they have not done!
There is a difference between a potential danger and an immenint danger and that distinction is very important.
That is not the case in the US.
It is a legal process here. And rightly an arduous one.
I understand your laws are different (my wife worked under mental illness regs similar to those of SA when we lived and worked abroad and was appalled by how easy it was to take away a person’s freedom under then mental health regulations there) but overall the US is still a more rights respecting nation than SA.
Why can’t someone who poses “a potential danger” to others be restricted or punished?
Because you cannot punish someone for something they have not done!
There is a difference between a potential danger and an immenint danger and that distinction is very important.
So drunk drivers are not restricted in US? They present only potential, not imminent danger. And how do you measure the difference? How rights apply to the mentally ill, that is- a person who is not responsible for his actions? Besides, we don’t discuss a punishment here but prevention. If you incarcerate a pyromaniac with the proven record, you don’t punish him but prevent a potential danger which he represents.
If you incarcerate a pyromaniac with the proven record, you don’t punish him but prevent a potential danger which he represents.
If he has a “proven record” he has actually committed the crime of arson or something of the sort- that would be what a “proven record” would be. Your argument makes no sense. You can’t have a “proven record” without having done something and having it be illegal, therefore a matter of record.
If someone commits an activity that often correlates to people who commit arson you cannot punish him in advance based on that correlation.
So drunk drivers are not restricted in US? They present only potential, not imminent danger
I have never claimed that the drunk driving laws in the US are just- random tests and checkpoints are absolutely a rights violation.
If one is driving completely intoxicated, driving 120 miles per hour in a business district while swerving wildly through oncoming traffic he is not a potential danger, he is an imminent danger.
This is also beside the point because we aren’t discussing what exists as though it were just- we are discussing what is just.
Lets put it this way:
Several psychiatric and criminal studies show that just over 30% of children who were sexually abused end up being sexual abusers themselves later in life.
Studies vary from 1/4 to 1/3 of children who are abused in some way turning the abuse on animals.
By your logic, because of that correlation we would preemptively jail children who are found to have been abused.
Or do you say no?
Then, at what percentage does your preemptive jailing begin?
When it hits 40%, 60%?
When?
Regarding your question here:
“They present only potential, not imminent danger. And how do you measure the difference?”
There is definite objective criteria used to place an involuntary mental health hold.
Each state’s guidlelines are available online.
They all very clearly state the difference, legally, between “potential” and “imminent”.