/liberty/ - Liberty

No, they cannot supply their protection, or sign or accept a contract. Unless they develop enough that they can hire someone to protect them the only protection they can get for sure is their own strength. You could try to prevent this stuff yourself, but it is very unlikely to end good for you, as you cannot justify intervention, it will still be violation of property rights and protected accordingly. You might even take its place of you do

Which animals? Because as far as I know, the number of animals which can even pass a mirror test can be counted on your fingers.

And I doubt magpies and bottlenose dolphins are victims of some overwhelming cruelty from humans.

>>84401

Fishing nets come to mind, but in a scenario in which sectors of ocean and schools of fish are privatized it would probably become a non-issue relatively quickly.

>>84398

>Should animals have legal rights against cruelty by humans?

No of course not, and neither should Humans. The deciding factor is property rights. Should a human or Animal be the property of another they have no such rights.

>>84409

So do animals have property rights? Would it violate the NAP to build a house in a spot that a dog has claimed as its territory?

>>84410

>So do animals have property rights

Sure, stupid humans have property rights, no reason smart animals could not have them. That being said with smart animals as with very stupid humans, I doubt anyone would respect them and their rights will probably be violated. There is only so much that a 55 IQ entity can do.

>>84398

Does a bear shit in the woods?

>>84401

Even though vermin and magpies should be killed on sight, they should still be killed quickly and humanely.

some animal should self-possess

>>84410

Pretty much this >>84399 They can protet something that is claimed to be their property, but it all boils down to if you can protect it. No rights will save you if you cannot, so on a larger scale you would probably need to get a contract with a PMC to protect it to also participate in courts on that basis, instead of just imprisoning and forcing intruders to something.

>>84398

Paraphrased from Peter Singer, a person is defined as an entity that perceives its own existence over time. Ah fuck, or is that Johnathan Tooley? No, its Micheal someone… Anyway, animals are people, just not sapient like dolphins or human like humans.

>>84508

is not ability to feel pain enough to apply morality in regard of interactions with that entity?

>>84752

Horrible pain for all eternity does not justify a single property / NAP violation.

>>84752

Pain is a very basic reaction to mimic, organisms don't even need a brain to experience pain. Hell, they don't even need to be in the animal kingdom, there are plants with nerve endings out there.

>>84752

Pain in the biological sense and pain in the phenomenal sense are very different. Even a computer could be prorammed to accept some definition of pain that mimics the threat-response nature of pain in organisms. The real question is whether a thing can suffer, whether it can truly feel pain the way we do.

An insect has a basic nervous system that reacts to damage. An insect can panic, become stressed, and react to physical pain. Even plants and microbes are responsive to damage in some fashion. Of course, nobody asserts that plants or insects experience human-like qualia. We generally assume that biological closeness implies a closeness in experience. If you were a chimp or neandertal, you'd probably be able to suffer much like you do now. But the cut-off for "human like" and "not human-like" pain is ultimately arbitrary. We can only infer the nature of experience in animals, but never truly understand it.

>>84752

If nothing else we ought to ensure that animals are treated as humanely as possible/at least have basic rights against abuse if we are to make a truly peaceful and prosperous society.

>>84753

depends on private judge :^)

>>84811

If judge acts like this, he technically forms a state. Private courts are essentially the same as private detectives, just with more formalized and documented system. It finds out what things are, any other decisions are still for actual actors to make. Better luck next time.

>>84811

>depends on private judge :^)

Judge has no power over me bud. Have him talk to my PMC.

>>84820

This. Judges don't create the law, they are supposed to discover it. Same as now. Do they always act that way? Certainly not, but then why not level the same charge against our modern republican and democratic governments, that the law is ultimately decided by the judges and not the legislators? That's just half true for countries with a common law. They, too, have statutes, though, and in the last instance, these are usually applied by the judges.

>>84401

Anytime someone mentions the mirror test as a consciousness litmus test, I cringe a little. EX: where you do place an image recognition program that can recognize itself in the mirror? In this case, we can PROVE that it is not a conscious organism identifying itself in the mirror, yet it still passes the mirror test. It gets worse when most people using the mirror test fail to recognize that some animals "see" through completely different physical mechanisms, so if you could somehow convert what their sensory organs "see" to an image, it would look entirely different from what a human would produce. I.e. creatures that have more than 2 eyes, or ones that see in different EM frequency ranges.

Regardless if animals are covered by the NAP or not, the simple fact is that in ancap system (or any society for that matter), I'm not going to interact with people who are intentionally cruel to animals. That's a pretty reliable sign a person is a psychopath, and should not be trusted.

A law provider that refuses to punish someone lighting a kitten on fire won't last very long. It's not a hill to die on and the people who are cruel to animals cannot be tolerated within a community. It doesn't violate the NAP but the NAP cant dictate every social interaction.

If people who want to abuse animals want to set up their own community with that being one of their protected privileges then they can go ahead but there is no reason to tolerate them within one's own community. There will not be a single voluntary community that treats respect for the NAP as its only principle that has a chance of lasting long, there will be other requirements. Eitherway, weeding out faggots who want to abuse animals is just good gatekeeping

>>84820

That is such a weak definition of what a state is. It's also a terrible understanding of legal systems. How exactly does one discover the formalities required for a will to be valid or equitable estoppel in the capacity of a private detective? Legal systems require complex rules to function suitably for the situations that are going to arise in society and judges creating concepts and law to deal with them is required and unavoidable if you want this legal system to actually work. There are elements of discovery in terms of natural law but judges creating law does not violate the natural law nor does it form a state. The natural law is not the whole of the law, it is a higher law which must be obeyed, positive law is both valid and necessary so long as it does not go against this higher law. "Unjust law is not law" and a judge can create law so long as it is not an unjust law. These two beliefs do not contradict.

>>84398

Yes, but niggers shouldn't

No, the animals themselves shouldn't have rights and the idea of conferring rights to beings that can't appreciate, act on, or understand them is absurd. Humans, however, should have the legal right not to suffer cruelty inflicted upon animals in their societies. One may argue that it's a red flag sign of a psycho killer, that it engenders eventual violence against humans, or simply that it is so obscene as to disrupt the orderly lives and mental welfare of observing parties.

Whichever or another justification is picked, though, it's a question I keep returning to when giving libertarian ideas fair consideration. In my experience, no libertarian has ever been able to justify banning animal cruelty in a way that doesn't violate their esteem for agency over private property. The all-purpose idea of forming an idealized community that shuns the nonbelievers sidesteps the question of whether it "should" be illegal to abuse animals even if some people would want to.

>>84399

>They cannot supply their protection or sign or accept a contract

Children, imbeciles, and invalids are also unable to supply their own protection or enter into contracts yet they are still conferred "rights" in the sense that they are guarded from abuse.

>>84940

No rights should exist, the only rights that should exist are property rights, as protected by the NAP.

Animals aren't covered by the NAP, but that doesn't mean there will be no consequences from your society if people find out you're hurting animals. If you live in a place where everyone is a hunter, they might not care, but if you're living among vegans then they might be so upset that you'll have to leave town. This is all possible because unlike in today's society, in Ancapistan communities will be more/less close-knite and people will have to consider your reputation. In modern society, nobody cares about reputation or about who we live with in a community because Marxism dismantles society with both hyper-collectivism and hyper-individualism simultaneously.

>>84946

The "rights" will effecitvely pop into existence when people decide that, reputation or no, they are willing to make the trip to the doorsteps of abusers and enforce their beliefs against abuse of animals, kids, etc. with a beating stick.

Just today I saw an edit of the Gadsden Flag where the closed socialist fist was strangling le snek of smol gubberment against a red background declaring "We'll tread wherever there is inequality." If people find out your community is sheltering or permitting abusers to perpetrate such acts without consequence, what's going to stop them from saying to hell with your NAP and enforcing their morality by force John Brown style? They gonna take up rifles and go to war over the inalienable right to be dicks to their living property?

>In modern society nobody cares about reputation

So why is image management more important than ever and why do people and businesses live in fear of bad Yelp! reviews and social media rumors? Why are people getting fired over shit they wrote on FaceBook years ago?

>>84957

You seem to think that these communities are living under a totalitarian government which prevents them from making rules of their own or something. If something like goat fucking is banned in your village, then the community can do whatever they want to the goat fucker.

>So why is image management more important than ever and why do people and businesses live in fear of bad Yelp! reviews and social media rumors? Why are people getting fired over shit they wrote on FaceBook years ago?

Do you personally know all the people living in your neighborhood? Are you friends with them on Facebook?

>>84964

The question posed is whether or not animals should have legal rights against cruelty by humans. This proviso of an an-cap wet dream were innumerable values fiefdoms can be founded were people can chose to ban or permit whatever they want is weaseling out of the constraints of the thought experiment and can applied as such to any other moral query. It's useless for discussing the point. The question isn't how a goat fucking ban would be enforced by the community it's whether people should be allowed to fuck goats ever.

>Do you personally know all of the people in your neighborhood?

Not all of them, but that doesn't undermine my point that reputation is still important. It's just the scope of the community and the voices being accounted that's changed. I might not give a fuck what my senile retiree neighbor who doesn't know Instagram from Golden Grams thinks about my business, but I sure as hell don't want a 0.5 star rating on Google and a media firestorm accusing my employees of racism putting me in the headlines and encouraging the people of my neighborhood, town, and county to shun or ignore me.

>>84967

On a national level, there shouldn't be any rights at all except property rights because it requires a powerful government to enforce all those rights, and people in government are only too happy to give you all sorts of "rights" so that they can get more involved in your life, so no, fuck off with your question.

On a local level, based on the property rights, people will have the right to decide whether to give animals some kind of protection or not and whether they want to live in a community that protects goat fuckers.

>reputation is still important

It will be more important in Ancapistan, I promise you that.

>but I sure as hell don't want a 0.5 star rating on Google and a media firestorm accusing my employees of racism putting me in the headlines and encouraging the people of my neighborhood, town, and county to shun or ignore me.

That would suck, but at least you'd be able to do your business in a city where racism isn't shunned, because you won't have a federal government run by Jews enforcing "civil rights" that punish white people in the harshest ways possible while protecting niggers no matter what inhuman crimes they commit.

>>84981

>so no, fuck off with your question.

It's the OP's question. If you can't take the hypothetical seriously, then you aren't contributing anything to the discussion based off the prompt. The question is whether or not animals should have legal rights against abuse. Not whether people should have the right to live in a community that condones abuse but whether any community should allow it.

I'm cool with a government powerful enough to force people not to abuse their animals, their so-called property rights be damned. It's alright to violate some absolute notion of property rights to put a stop to that with violence if necessary. Certain moral imperatives trump non-aggression.

I doubt my reputation will matter measurably more in Ancapistan than it does under a state. It just might be based on a different value system at most. Even if somebody couldn't torpedo my good name with a racism allegation, then the same spite would find a way to libel and slander me according to the commune's virtues. My reputation as it stands today isn't based on anything that requires the state to sustain it.

>>84983

I answered the question, your problem is that you didn't like my answer. You want a black and white solution to everything, where something is either totally banned everywhere or it's totally permitted. For something to be both true and false is incomprehensible to you, you also want everything to be absolute.

>It's alright to violate some absolute notion of property rights to put a stop to that with violence if necessary.

Civilization is based on property rights. There can be no civilization if you're worried about someone stealing your money, kicking you out of your house or telling you what you can or can't do on your own property. It's shit like this that reminds us that no matter how much they hate to admit it, natsocs are the same socialist scum that they pretend to dislike, just non-Marxian and racist.

>Certain moral imperatives trump non-aggression.

Is racism immoral? Because according to some people, judging niggers for being niggers is immoral and fucking goats is perfectly moral, and frankly I'm sick and tired of every nigger out there trying to push their own brand of morality onto me and I sure as fuck don't want them trying to conquer every last corner of the world so that I can't escape it.

>>84987

>I answered the question

Not really, no.

>The problem is you didn't like the answer.

It's a non-answer that undermines the thought experiment with a cheap "take a third option" cheat. It's like playing "would you rather" with somebody. The interrogator is asking if you'd rather be morbidly obese for the rest of your life or be perfectly fit but paralyzed from the waist down, but you're doing the equivalent of going, "Uuuugh, NEITHER. Let me tell you about a GOOD choice!"

>You want a black and white solution to everything

Kind of here, yes. That would be appropriate within the framework of this discussion to adhere to a "yes or no" framework. Since we're supposed to be talking about whether or not something should exist or be done at all, that's the correct limitation to embrace.

>For something to be both true and false is incomprehensible to you.

It's incomprehensible period because it's illogical and autistic.

>You also want everything to be absolute

In the sense of responding to a question of whether or not something should or should not be, yes. That's the only rational way to address the premise.

>There can be no civilization if you're worried about someone stealing your money, kicking you out of your house or telling you what you can or can't do on your own property

Yeah that's why there are limits to it and we don't accept it happening all of the time for any reason whatsoever. It might be a calamity in your libertarian dream world, but in the real world civilization works just fine, and even optimally, when there are limits to what people are allowed to do with their property. Civilization hasn't and won't come to an end because we say the fact that animals are property doesn't mean you're allowed to treat them however you like. Honestly the enforcement of some basic morality safeguards civilization from degenerates who use muh rights as license to do absurdly dickish crap like abuse animals. Civilization doesn't exist without some degree of moral rectitude.

>Is racism immoral?

Yes, but I'd argue it doesn't require the use of force by the state or even an anarchic society to correct. In fact, free market economics is the only real remedy to racist thinking and behavior I trust.

>Judging niggers for being niggers is immoral

I wouldn't call that being racist. Calling blacks who shit in their hands and pelt Burger King employees niggers is judging them by their behaviors. It's putting a somebody like the black guy who owns that franchise and has to put up with nogs chimping on the same level that's racist.

>I'm sick and tired of every nigger out there trying to push their own brand of morality onto me and I sure as fuck don't want them trying to conquer every last corner of the world so that I can't escape it

Better buy an assault style rifle and invade Sea Land then.

>>84398

Whatever private justice system arises to replace the current government mandated one will determine cruelty to animal laws. I suspect the majority of people would be for something close to what most western societies have now and as such would vote with their wallets to get something similar.

>>84401

>only things which pass the mirror test can be considered protected under the NAP

Humans don't pass the mirror test until several years of age, I guess by your logic its perfectly acceptable to murder children?

>>84996

>replace the current government mandated one will determine cruelty to animal laws

>majority of people

>vote with their wallets

>>84988

>It's a non-answer that undermines the thought experiment with a cheap "take a third option" cheat.

Ahh, the magical third option, isn't that what natsocs do when discussing economics?

You're making me pick between a central government that forces people to punish goat fuckers or a central government that forces people to protect goat fuckers, I already told you that I don't want any central government forcing anything on me. It can't get any easier to understand than that. If it's my own personal preference that you're asking for, then I would shill for punishing goat fuckers.

>Kind of here, yes. That would be appropriate within the framework of this discussion to adhere to a "yes or no" framework. Since we're supposed to be talking about whether or not something should exist or be done at all, that's the correct limitation to embrace.

If your mind is so simple that it can only process Boolean logic then I can't help you at all here, there are good reasons to not want a large federal or (God forbid) a global government that forces one ideal on everyone.

>Honestly the enforcement of some basic morality safeguards civilization from degenerates who use muh rights as license to do absurdly dickish crap like abuse animals. Civilization doesn't exist without some degree of moral rectitude.

Morals exist because of civilization (property rights), not the other way round. If people aren't sure if what's theirs will still be theirs tomorrow morning or if they are afraid that everything they constantly worked for their whole lives could be taken away from them any moment then they will simply degenerate into animals who only live in the moment, what you'll get is Calhoun's mouse utopia. You can see this in modern Russia for example, where despite strict enforcement of morality by the government, people are still degenerate as fuck.

Property rights are vital to a moral society because without them people are forced to have a high time preference which causes a decivilizing effect on a population, leading to a behavioral sink.

>Yes, but I'd argue it doesn't require the use of force by the state or even an anarchic society to correct.

That's just you, but you're not in charge here. The guys who are currently in charge are aiming to make it illegal to criticize black people all over the country (assuming we're talking about the States here). If people push for a law like that in one shithole, then that's ok, because there are lots of other cities that allow you call blacks out when they act like niggers, but when you give a whole country to a centralized totalitarian government, you can be sure that it won't have your personal favourite combination of rules and laws that you totally agree with.