Tucker Carlson: Michael Vick Should Have Been Executed

When I first read about this clip, I figured Carlson was just being droll. He's a droll guy. But not only hasn't he walked the comment back, but The Daily Caller is promoting the clip on its front page. Which is to say that The Daily Caller is trumpeting the idea that its founder believes the government should kill a man because he was cruel to his animals.

For the record, I'm a dog lover. I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting. (And I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.) I don't think Vick should have been prosecuted federally. I also think he's done his time, has made his amends, and I have no problem being happy about his redemption and rooting on his success. (Unless he's playing the Colts.)

All of that out of the way, Carlson is absolutely out of his mind on this. Seems like the way conservatives show they're serious about an issue these days is by calling for someone to be executed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tucker Carlson should be executed for being such an idiot.

  • Jerry Jones||

    Execute Vick, Eli, and McNabb. Just to be sure.

  • ||

    Even that wouldn't help you.

  • Ska||

    :D

  • hmm||

    From a societal point he's paid his debt to society.

    Personally I'd like to string his ass up by his testicles and beat him into a coma. After seeing the shit people do to pits in and around where I live I'd have no problem sleeping or reconciling my conscience after inflicting the same level pain and suffering on the humans that do so to dogs. Some actions are unforgivable and he regrets his lost money and time in jail more than his actions. If you listen to him talk it's still all about him.

  • hmm||

    Tucker Carlson can be an insufferable assclown. Especially when he's just trolling for ratings. Which I'd bet dollars to donuts he's doing that with this little comment.

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • ||

    I also agree. Fewer jobs in media lead to a distillation of craziness. You have to say nutty things (or take outlandish positions) in order to keep your job.

  • Glen Beck||

    WTF are you talking about?

  • Keith Olbermann ||

    I don't know either

  • Glenn Beck||

    Who's Glen Beck?

  • Kleenex||

    our next official spokesman

  • Waggoneer||

    People do alot worse. Can you believe that some peope still murder innocent animals, and worse, then eat them and wear their skins like clothing! Barbaric!

  • hmm||

    You're talking to someone who used to kill 150 chickens every spring. They were the ones that were hatched the year before in the local mall for Easter week. I've also killed and dressed out deer, turkey, pig, duck, goose, rabbit, squirrel, dove...it's a long list.

    Fighting domestic animals for sport is fucking stupid humans doing stupid shit. Killing an animal to eat is natural. Your simplistic and mildly retarded retort is fucking stupid and misguided.

  • ||

    Fighting domestic animals for sport is fucking stupid humans doing stupid shit. Killing an animal to eat is natural.

    Apparently in your vast "natural" experience with animals you have never seen a cat play with a mouse.

  • ugh||

    Watching people argue with you is like watching a cat play with a mouse. Too bad there is so little meat.

  • hmm||

    Reposting this where it belongs. Reason Squirrels better beware. My shotgun is clean and I have just enough redneck in me to eat squirrel...

    So people are the same as cats? Never mind the fat that I have never seen a cat force and breed two mice to fight to the death for entertainment. Have you seen this? Jesus Herbert Christ that has to be the shittiest attempt at rebuttal in a long time.
  • ||

    So people are the same as cats?

    In the sense that they are both wild animals living in the wild. Yes.

    Also in the sense that humans like cats are mammal predators that play.

    The fact is your argument about natural vs "stupid humans doing stupid shit" is hollow.

    The same sympathy you hold for cute mammals comes from the same place as the desire to play and entertain ones self with the destruction of lesser beasts; nature.

    Neither is more valid then the next.

    It is very funny though that you imply that your sympathy for another animal comes from rational thought though. stupid people being irrational while you being sympathetic is rational.

    I find it cute.

  • hmm||

    You live int he wild?

    You just told me you live in the wild as a person and I have a hollow argument. Are you trolling me or really dumb enough to believe your own bullshit? I'm going to let your complete non sequitor of a cat playing with a mouse go since we are talking about a higher functioning party forcing two lower functioning other parties to fight to the death for entertainments sake. Basically your little cat analogy is borderline helmet and drool bib worthy.

    I don't think people are irrational period. As a matter of fact I have defended that position here. What's funny is you're making no fucking sense, completely irrelevant analogies and trying to be condescending, but your too god damned stupid to do it.

    Fuck that's almost sad.

  • ||

    I don't think people are irrational period.

    Then you do not know the nature of people....which kind of explains why you do not understand my argument.

    You make the claim that killing animals to eat is natural. Therefor i assume ok. One assumes that you think pitting animals against one another for sport is unnatural. I simply posited a cat playing with a mouse, which is very similar to men making animals fight, ie cruelty for the purpose of sport and play and is a natural phenomena.

    Animals can and are cruel and they do it for enjoyment. I stated that cats and humans are both wild animals living in the wild. This is a simple statement declaring that the divide between natural and unnatural is essentially a fabrication. It does not matter if i am in my house or if i am eating green eggs and ham Sam...I am still a wild animal living in the wild.

    Vic is also a wild animal living in the wild. Same with a cat playing with a mouse.

    so back to your claim that killing for food is natural therefor Ok. Well i demonstrated that being cruel for sport or for play is also natural and according to your above claim should also be considered OK.

  • smartass sob||

    If all creatures are necessarily "wild animals living in the wild," then the term wild is virtually meaningless. How can there be "wild" without the possibility of non-wild?

  • ||

    If all creatures are necessarily "wild animals living in the wild," then the term wild is virtually meaningless. How can there be "wild" without the possibility of non-wild?

    I think when using the term wild in a very specific setting such as comparing a wild pig vs a domesticated pig then it has the meaning that you are thinking.

    but when the term domesticated or wild or natural is used to explain morality or reason or justification for putting poeple in prison then i think that is when my broader definition of wild comes into play.

    And you are correct my broader definition of wild has no possibility of non-wild....at least no non-wild that can exist in our material world...i am sure something supernatural and fictional might be able to be non-wild.

  • cbmclean||

    I believe the point that Joshua Corning is trying to make is that Human Beings are natural animals ergo, everything we do is natural. To those that object that this makes the difference between natural and unnatural meaningless, I would agree. This dichotomy is false; an illusion of the human mind. Of course, we have to follow that line of thought and conclude that every "bad" thing that humans do, including racism, torture, genicide, rape, murder, child abuse, religious persecution is natural, as opposed to unnatural.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I simply posited a cat playing with a mouse, which is very similar to men making animals fight, ie cruelty for the purpose of sport and play and is a natural phenomena.

    I reject your proposition. It is, bluntly, incorrect.

    Cats do not play with mice for cruel sport or pure entertainment. They do not make wagers with one another as to which mouse will survive and which will die. Cats are driven by instinct - it is part of learning their hunting behavior and honing the skills necessary to hunt and eat prey, which is - in the wild - necessary to survive. They are not being "cruel"; much less do they posses the cognitive ability to recognize or understand the concept of "cruelty." They are sentient, no doubt, but not reasoning.

    Humans pitting animals against one another is not any part of that natural drive to survive. It is purely for entertainment value.

  • hmm||

    Are you the same guy that was arguing for the boycott of WholePayCheck?

  • ||

    I don't think so.

    What is WholePayCheck?

  • hmm||

    There was a joshua here talking some seriously hilarious crap when the Whole Foods boycott was going on.

  • ||

    I might have been joking around...i don't remember. For the record i do not want to boycott whole foods...but truth be told i would probably not shop there. vegetarian or vegan or hippy food or whatever you choose to call it just isn't my thing.

    But there is another Joshua that comments here as well...could be him.

  • Tucker Carlson||

    All cats should be executed!

  • Deja Moo||

    Cats "play" with mice because they don't know how to kill them efficiently. With experience they kill cleanly, pounce and bite.

  • Dylboz||

    hmmm, your comment is made of win. Meaty, tasty win.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yeah, and how the animals are born, raised, treated during life, killed, butchered and processed are all highly regulated by federal and state governments.

  • hmm||

    BTW I have no problem with cultures that harvest and eat dog or cats for food. I'm not fond of it, but I would never move to stop it.

  • hmm||

    yay for you...

  • MOM||

    Don't play with your food!!!

  • Joe R.||

    I can't believe someone on a libertarian site used the words "debt to society." It's concepts like that that get people jailed for drug possession and other victimless crimes.

  • hmm||

    So people are the same as cats? Never mind the fat that I have never seen a cat force and breed two mice to fight to the death for entertainment. Have you seen this? Jesus Herbert Christ that has to be the shittiest attempt at rebuttal in a long time.

  • hmm||

    oops wrong place...

    You don't believe in a legal structure that requires individuals to atone for acts against others? Or more simply a debt to society. I'm guessing anarchist? Paying a debt for a transgression is common in contract and when one individual harms another, society has operated like this for a long time. Even libertarians.

  • Um||

    Personally I'd like to string his [Vick's] ass up by his testicles and beat him into a coma...I'd have no problem sleeping or reconciling my conscience after inflicting the same level pain and suffering on the humans that do so to dogs.

    Dogs are the equal of humans? They have human rights? Is that what you are saying?

  • Prohibition Kills||

    This is an actual example of insanity.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'm not sure I agree with the proposition that being ok with laws against dog fighting or other cruelty to animals is inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.

  • Devil's advocate||

    Animals are property.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yup, I knew as I hit "submit" that this would be the very first response and there it is.

    The fact that animals are treated for certain legal purposes as personal property does not mean they should be treated the same as any other piece of personal property for all purposes. The law very frequently differentiates between various types of property - real versus personal, tangible versus intangible - and even classifies within those categories.

    It doesn't seem to me to be such an outrageous proposition to state that dogs and cats, although generally considered to be personal property for certain purposes of law, are not the same as an ashtray, handbag, TV set or automobile. Those are inanimate, non-sentient objects. I don't see why it's such a crazy notion to differentiate between the treatment of animals versus other categories of personal property.

    To say "it's my property" does not, in any way, end the discussion.

  • ||

    +1000

    I'm totally ok with laws saying you can't torture animals just like I'm ok with laws saying you can't torture people.

  • SIV||

    PETA, HSUS and other animal rights people define ALL human use of animals as immoral. They consider animal research, circuses,zoos, horse and dog racing etc to specifically be "torture".

  • ||

    So? Groups mis-classify things in their political/ideological interest all the time. That doesn't make it improper to create classifications.

  • Maximum Flow Control||

    If that is the case then don't we have to end all chick and cattle mass production? The problem is that people are inconsistent because dogs and cats are cute.

    Should a person go to prison for pulling the legs off of a daddy long legs?

  • ||

    In my state, it is perfectly legal to take your cat, dog, or any pet into your backyard and shoot it in the head. No inconsistency there. What is not legal is "cruelty" which is defined as causing undue pain/suffering. To give one example, my partner arrested a guy for dragging a cow behind his truck, such that the cow could not keep up and was repeatedly dragged on the pavement, resulting in tons of open wounds as it was dragged for hundreds of yards.

    You can kill the cow. You cannot torture it.

    I certainly wouldn't want to see somebody take Mr Bigglesworth into the backyard and shoot it, but it's entirely legal. Otoh, taking the cat and putting it in a bag and then lighting the bag on fire is another matter entirely.

  • cynical||

    From a more pragmatic and less libertarian perspective, people that torture animals often go on to do horrible things to people, given half a chance, because it indicates that something is severely fucked up with them.

    And since I consider animals to morally be somewhere in-between stuff and people (with smarter mammals being closer to "people"), I don't really have a problem with busting people that hurt them for no reason.

  • ||

    I agree. I don't care if i lose "libertarian purity points" if i believe that people should have the right to do anything whatsoever with animals, since they are "property". they ARE property, but they also feel pain and fear, and i think the law can draw a reasonable line, as it does. i am very pro hunting, etc. again, i am not pro putting a cat in a bag, lighting it on fire etc.

    it's also true about animal torturers. they are generally scary people. i've actually been in close contact with some very scary evil people and it actually convinced me that evil exists beyond just some abstraction.

  • dave||

    Agreed. It is entirely consistent with libertarian philosophy if one extends that philosophy to include sentient beings other than humans.

    I find it abhorrent that animals are most commonly treated as inanimate property under the law. Killing (or torturing) a family pet is not the same as the mere destruction of inanimate property. The punishment for such a crime should be much more severe.

  • smartass sob||

    Why?

  • ||

    1) Because torturing animals is an established, known precursor to torturing and/or killing people. Which, for the record, is bad.

    2) Because animals are creatures with moral standing. That standing varies according to their ability to suffer. If you want further explication, ask your closest philosopher. (Actually, a professor of philosophy would probably be a better resource.)

  • nobody||

    I think the idea is that the animals are personal property and "the general libertarian" position is that one can do to their personal property whatever one wants, as long as it doesn't hurt others. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about it either.

  • Dylboz||

    "as long as it doesn't hurt others"

    Isn't the animal an "other" that's getting hurt? Again, I hunt, eat meat, and have pet dogs and cats, and I am not ethically conflicted about it. I've raised and slaughtered chickens, but I always endeavor to dispatch any animal I must kill as fast and as painlessly as possible. I think that is a reasonable limitation on the disposal of property in the form of animals, due to their capacity for suffering. We owe it to them.

  • Meh||

    Is it okay to value the rights and life of an animal equal to or above that of a human?

  • smartass sob||

    Depends on the particular human in question. ;-)

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Depends on the particular human in question.

    I agree completely with that sentiment. No winky or smiley.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I believe it was Will Rogers who said "the more people I meet, the more I like my horse."

    I'm not a horse person, so I'll subsitute "dog" or "cat" or even "guinea pig" or "goldfish" for "horse."

  • ||

    right. one does not have to think that animals have "rights" (as the PETA folks do), to think that humans have obligations/duties towards them. basically not to cause undue pain etc.

    killing them does not meet that standard. flaying their flesh off live would.

  • SIV||

    A "libertarian" who wants to ban circuses, hunting and horse racing. We get all kinds here.

  • ||

    Right? I got my monocle SPECIFICALLY for attending horse races.

  • Jeff P||

    It's a panel show on Fox. It is not designed to inform and further discourse. It is designed (at great expense, I might add) to outrage, generate buzz, and sell commercial spots. There is no other purpose. Expecting actual thought-out discussion and valid viewpoints is like expecting the bad guy not to cheat on wrestling.

    Anyone remember the Buck Henry SNL skit where he's the call-in host advocating bussing minorities into your neighborhood to kill puppies?

  • juris imprudent||

    And does anyone care to bet what the ratings do for the next few days while this in the air?

  • Meh||

    I'll bet jack and shit, but it was a fine try.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Vick didn't go to jail for dogfighting. Vick went to jail for running a gambling business without the state's permission. No one can believe in personal liberty and think that the state ought to be able to say who can and can't own and operate a gambling business.

    Dogfighting is wretched, but no more wretched than the conditions of your average "farm" animal suffering in a CAFO. If Vick ought to go to jail for torturing and killing a few dogs, what about the executives of Perdue or Tyson, with the torture of a few million chickens on their hands?

  • ||

    what about the executives of Perdue or Tyson, with the torture of a few million chickens on their hands?

    Are you saying that these executives torture chickens for their own gratification or are you saying that the process of putting inexpensive poultry on people's dinner plates leads to conditions that people who tend to anthropomorphize animals would call torture? There is a big difference between the central nervous system of birds and mammals.

  • ||

    Additionaly, I was unaware of the guys at Tyson and Perdue staging cockfights.

    Yes, conditions are not nice in a factory farm, but that's a far cry from willfully pitching the animals into combat for entertainment.

  • Maximum Flow Control||

    So the motives of torture effects its criminality?

  • Jersey Patriot||

    I like to eat meat, so caging millions of chickens in unbelievably cramped, squalid conditions is okay. I like to pet my dog, so sending dogs to fight for sport is wrong, mister.

  • ||

    More about the act than the motivation, I just couldn't come up with any other reason besides entertainment that people would be staging a cockfight. I should have left the motivation out of the sentence.

    You'll just have to condemn me and my morals for wrongly believing it's ok to slaughter an animal for food. Go ahead, I don't mind.

    (Also, I love my dog, but if I was in some sort of Alive situation, she'd become dinner pretty quick.)

  • cynical||

    Does it matter? The process of running a successful gambling and entertainment business for assholes may lead to conditions that people who have the capacity to feel empathy for non-humans would call torture. Why is one business more favored than another -- even if chicken was a necessary part of the diet, that doesn't mean that every means of raising and slaughtering chickens would be acceptable.

  • ||

    Spare us the fucking PETA regurgitation, for fuck's sake.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Great argument.

  • ||

    Why would I present an argument when your entire post is based on bullshit?

    If you want an argument, maybe you should present one yourself first.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Here's the argument:

    Torturing dogs for sport is not morally different than torturing chickens for food.

    I know that was probably tough to glean from a four-sentence post, but try putting your frontal lobe to good use.

  • ||

    Factory farming chickens isn't torture. Try again, Einstein, and this time try it without hyperbole.

  • SIV||

    Fighting pit bulls is "torture"? The animals wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the sports they were bred for.

  • ||

    Ah, so it's an existential question, eh?

    I'll go first: Are you positing, then, that pit bulls only exist for our viewing pleasure and owe us entertainment. . .to the death?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The animals wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the sports they were bred for.

    Well that's bullshit right there.

    First: define "pit bull."

  • ||

    Just a quick--and sad--grasp at notoriety.

    While I'm no fan of conservatives of such, I do think the fact that a couple of fools talked about Wikileaks involving a capital crime and now this even greater idiot saying the same about dog-fighting is insufficient grounds for such hyperbolic references to conservatives at large.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Good point, Glenn Beck in particular said Assange should be executed. His argument behind it was pretty weak, possibly explained by the last line of the blog post.

  • ||

    If you don't watch my show, I'll shoot this dog.

  • ||

    When did you join SWAT PL?

  • ||

    In my defense, National Lampoon, which I was quoting, only threatened to shoot the dog. SWAT teams go way beyond mere threats.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You know who else was a dog lover....?

  • juris imprudent||

    No, no, you should be referring to this.

  • ||

    Is that a grenade next to the kitten?

  • Almanian||

    No, no - he's just happy to see them

  • juris imprudent||

    The caption is about the Nazis liking kittens - it doesn't say anything about what the kitten thinks about Nazis.

  • ||

    Cats are pro-Nazi.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Cats are pro-themselves and don't give a fuck about your Nazis or anyone else.

  • ||

    than explain this:
    http://www.catsthatlooklikehit.....igmiaow.pl

    Obviously, the Nazi's have integrated Hilters genes into cats to preserve them for later.

  • ||

    Are you implying Warty is a Nazi?

  • Meh||

    The caption is wrong. That was obviously a weapon testing facility. They wrap up a cat and a grenade, lob it at the enemy, and chaos ensues. Later in the war they would realize water balloons were cheaper than grenades and just as effective.

  • ||

    You're all wrong. You know how the German grenades looked like potato mashers, with the long handle?

    That was no handle. That was leg of cat.

  • ||

    I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting. (And I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.)

    Well, Nozick does open 'Anarchy State and Utopia' with a chapter on animal rights.

    And I think he even claims to be a vegetarian in it. I'll have to look it up later.

  • ||

    I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting. (And I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.)

    Well, Nozick does open 'Anarchy State and Utopia' with a chapter on animal rights.

    And I think he even claims to be a vegetarian in it. I'll have to look it up later.

  • juris imprudent||

    Given that Nozick doesn't seem to think that book was all that well written it sure would be nice if he would put out a new version.

  • MNG||

    He's going to release that one right after "Secrets of the After-Life" co-authored by Harry Houdini.

  • juris imprudent||

    LOL, damn I didn't realize he died, and quite a few years ago at that. I was reading him in the early/mid 90s - The Examined Life, and he said at that time he wasn't happy with Anarchy, State and Utopia.

  • ||

    Well, it is a little wierd that the book opens with a lengthy reflection on the moral standing of animals.

  • ||

    It's a hell of a lot better written than Rawls' Theory of Justice.

  • BakedPenguin||

    IIRC, he wrote Anarchy... as an explicit academic refutation of Theory of Justice.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And, with all the moves I've made over the past three years, I have no idea where my copy is.

  • Meh||

    There's something poetic about that.

  • Ted S.||

    I'd be curious to know about Lou Rawls' theory of justice.

  • ||

    It can be summed up in just a few sentences:

    You'll never find, as long as you live,
    Someone who loves you, tender like I do.
    You'll never find, no matter where you search,
    Someone who cares about you the way I do.

    Whoa, I'm not braggin' on myself, baby,
    But I'm the one who loves you,
    And there's no one else, no-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh one else.
  • juris imprudent||

    I can't believe you didn't go for this.

  • MNG||

    "I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy"

    I'm not so sure about that. I think it's likely a lot like abortion. If fetuses don't have moral worth then libertarians would have to be pro-choice because it is a voluntary economic transaction. But if fetuses have moral worth, especially the worth of a human being, then a voluntary transaction to abort is no more legit than a contract killing.

    Do animals have moral worth is the key question. If they do then they would fall into the "others" part of do what you want as long as you don't harm others.

    It's silly to think this argument is determined by saying "but animals are property!" All kinds of shit gets designated as property in history, including children, women, slaves, etc. Heck, one can even concede that animals should be property and you still have the question of whether they are a unique kind of property deserving of some protections. The common sense and scientific answer seems to be yes as a dog or cow, as different as they are from a human (and therefore not deserving of the same levels of protection) is very different, in both respects, from a couch.

  • MNG||

    I think if it can be shown that dogs and cats have no moral worth at all though then the libertarian will probably have to allow animal abuse, no matter how much it sickens them, because it would fall into the category of homosexuality for conservatives or Michael Bay movies for me.

  • juris imprudent||

    Your casual disregard for the genius of Michael Bay will not ingratiate you with Epi - although if you deliver it from your knees it might help.

  • ||

    Oh yes it will. Hatred of Bay is the glue that holds all humans together.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Cartman gets a theme park, and Michael Bay gets to keep making movies.

    There is no God!"

  • ||

    Secretary Of Defense: Those aren't ideas, those are special effects.

    Michael Bay: I don't understand the difference.

    Secretary Of Defense: I know you don't. (to guards) Get him out of here!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Jesus, why the fuck do people like you have to come to every post that mentions what might or might not be "libertarian" and open that can of worms? Can't we just agree that some libertarians can think that "moral worth" begins at conception and some can think its worth doesn't begin until it actually enters this world fully formed at its Hollywood premier showing and gets reviewed by critics? (For the record, I think the worth starts as soon as Bay conceives of his project.)

  • Tucker Carlson||

    I'm going to execute you last, MNG

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I think if it can be shown that dogs and cats have no moral worth at all though then the libertarian will probably have to allow animal abuse, no matter how much it sickens them, because it would fall into the category of homosexuality for conservatives or Michael Bay movies for me.

    "Moral worth"?

    Anyway, feeling outraged at someone else's "abuse" of animals has no bearing on the morality of the act. Is another person harmed in his body or property? No? Then FUCK OFF, sanctimonious asshole!

  • MNG||

    Ah, but I explicitly said above that another's outrage cannot be the source for the wrongness of animal cruelty.

    "I think if it can be shown that dogs and cats have no moral worth at all though then the libertarian will probably have to allow animal abuse, no matter how much it sickens them"

    Not very bright are we OM?

    The question is do animals themselves deserve protection from cruelty, not do humans deserve to be shielded from acts of animal cruelty.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Ah, but I explicitly said above that another's outrage cannot be the source for the wrongness of animal cruelty.

    What you said was that if it was shown that animals have "no moral worth" then the libertarian would have to allow "animal abuse."

    MY POINT is that there's nothing to give allowance, as there's no such thing as "animal abuse" [not under the same category as "child abuse," which is the connotation of the term], first, and second, there's no such thing as "moral worth," as only ACTS can be moral, and they have no WORTH.

  • cynical||

    OM, stop being an ass. When MNG says "moral worth", he means that animals may be considered to have some natural rights -- not necessarily all of the ones human possess, and not necessarily when they strongly conflict with human needs. But enough that in certain cases, their rights could be justifiably protected through coercive means.

    Abortion is a completely valid analogy -- whether or not a fetus (or an animal) has rights is beyond the scope of libertarianism. As a result, libertarians who start with different assumptions about the moral status of a fetus can end up with different beliefs about the propriety of the use of coercion in stopping abortion. Same goes for animal cruelty (as well any other animal rights issue).

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What the fuck is "moral worth"? How can the law define it or quantify it?

  • ||

    TOP. MEN.

  • MNG||

    Moral worth just means that they matter morally. When deciding the morality of an action you have to take things that have moral worth into account. You don't have to take into account baseballs or cars but you might have to take into account living things.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Moral worth just means that they matter morally.

    To whom?

    When deciding the morality of an action you have to take things that have moral worth into account.

    False, as actions are objective, worth is subjective. The morality of an action is judged by its objective results - did they damanged someone else's property? Did it infringe on someone else's liberty? Those are objective outcomes.

  • MNG||

    "did they damanged someone else's property? Did it infringe on someone else's liberty?Those are objective outcomes.

    Well, I guess, but then you just have the question, is it wrong to damage others property or infringe their liberty? I'm guessing you think yes and you think it objectively so. I think the same way about animal cruelty.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Well, I guess, but then you just have the question, is it wrong to damage others property or infringe their liberty?

    Would YOU feel wronged if I damaged YOUR property or infringe on your liberty? Consider that before making perfunctory contradictions.

    I think the same way about animal cruelty.

    I would never infringe on your right to abuse your car, your house or your cat. I think that way, which encumbers me with less liabilities than your attitude towards others.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    It's silly to think this argument is determined by saying "but animals are property!" All kinds of shit gets designated as property in history, including children, women, slaves, etc.

    ... Baseballs, cars, houses, real estate, money... All kinds of shit! Thank God for the State to determine these things for us, like for instance, that dogs are all of a sudden NOT property... today.

    The argument is determined by stating a fact: that animals have NO rights, as they don't have the capacity to act purposefully. This is the reason children and women cannot be property, even if self-absorbed jerks thought they were long ago.

  • MNG||

    Self absorbed jerks sanctioned slavery of women, children and dark skinned folks by saying they had no rights as well.

    " Baseballs, cars, houses, real estate, money"

    These are all inanimate things, the question we are debating is: are animate, but non-human, things different because they are inanimate? Or rather, we already know they are different in that they are animate, the question is, does this difference matter in what treatment they are owed?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Self absorbed jerks sanctioned slavery of women, children and dark skinned folks by saying they had no rights as well.

    Yes, the same folk that said God gave authority to the king. Just because their arguments sucked does not mean animals, all of a sudden, have rights.

    These are all inanimate things, the question we are debating is: are animate, but non-human, things different because they are inanimate?

    Amoeba are not inanimate... do they have rights?

    Animation or inanimation are not the sole prerequisites for having rights, MNG. There's more to it.

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure it helps to use the word "rights" as it seems to mean dozens of things, sometimes at the same time to many people...

    I also don't think just because something is alive it has "rights" or to use my terms, much moral worth. But as you go up the ladder of life you get animals that seem to possess, albeit in lesser degrees, the very qualities that people tend to think make humans morally valuable. To that extent I think these animals have moral worth and deserve certain "rights" or "protections." Of course as they possess the requisite qualities in lesser degree than humans they warrant lesser protections and "rights."

  • MNG||

    Bowl game coming on, so I'll end here with my usual challenge in animal rights dicussions: what qualities does a terminally ill infant (one who will certainly die by the age of two months lets say) that warrant it rights/moral worth/protections (whatever floats your boat here) that a fully grown dog lacks that make it not warrant those same things?

    If you say something like "it's human" (or some variant, i.e., "human dna") ask yourself, how is that any more morally relevant than when racists say that some people deserve more because they are "white?" [saying "it's human" is just to say it belongs to some group and just begs the question, what is it about humans that grants them rights/worth/protections, and then you are back to square one: does the infant have that thing and the dog not?]

  • cynical||

    Kudos to you for actually sticking that one out.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    animals have NO rights, as they don't have the capacity to act purposefully

    I reject that proposition.

    Actually, there are at least three propositions in there.

    One is that animals lack the capacity to act purposefully, which easily is refuted. Of cours they act purposefully. It might depend on which particular genus and species within the animal kingdom we're talking about, but the animals we've focused on - dogs and cats - absolutely and without doubt are sentient and can and do act with purpose.

    Second proposition is that a creature that lacks the ability to act purposely has no rights as a result of that failure. Using that test, Terry Schiavo (or pick someone else in a permanent comatose or vegetative state - Karen Ann Quinlan) had no rights, due to not being able to act purposely. That clearly cannot be the determining test as to who or what has rights.

    Third, what "rights" are talking about? The right to life? The right to not have to suffer needlessly?

    The fact that a dog is considered by the law to be your personal property does not automatically give you the right to torture, maim or abuse that dog or treat it as casually or carelessly as you would a baseball or other inanimate object.

    It is surprisingly disingenuous of you to equate a living, sentinet being with an inaminate object in every respect. The fact that both are considered legally to be your personal property does not mean they are equal in all other respects.

    I recall a case a year or two ago in which a person returned home from work to find that someone had partially skinned his dog alive, and the dog was still alive with about half of its skin hanging off its body and all of its muscles and connective tissue exposed. He discovered the barely alive dog, yelping in pain and lying in a pool of its own fluids in his front yard. The dog had to be euthanized.

    Using your argument, the only reason this would be illegal is because the torture was committed by someone other than the dog's owner, but if the owner had flayed the dog, no problem. I reject that proposition wholesale.

  • ||

    As for Tucker Carlson ...

    I think the reason is that conservatives are dog people. And proud of it.
    If Michal Vick was on trial for cat fighting he'd probably be blasting the government for even considering it a crime.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Or even cock fighting. Most Americans don't get nearly upset at cock fighting because nobody (with a few exceptions) keeps roosters as pets.

  • SIV||

    Cock-fighting is a more "natural" behavior. The chickens aren't trained to fight and their ancestors did the exact same thing in the wild

  • ||

    Roosters aren't as cute as doggies.

  • MNG||

    "I think the reason is that conservatives are dog people."

    Well, I guess that explains the crotch sniffing and eating shit at GOP gatherings...Oh, you didn't mean literally.

  • King of the Dog People||

    I command that you play with me.

  • ||

    I guess that explains the crotch sniffing

    The odd thing is this would make them more endearing.

  • ||

    No really. Owning dogs is part of the whole conservative Palinesque zeitgeist. To be a real red blooded American you have to own a gun, a dog, and a truck. A big dog that you can go hunting with or use as a watchdog, not some pansy assed poodle or chihuahua.

  • jacob||

    Had a girlfriend with a chihuahua (sic).

    That little fucker was MEAN. He had more attitude than dogs 5 times his size. He never backed down from any other dog that came near her, no exceptions. Course, he had the luck of never encountering a German Shep or a pitbull.....

  • Paul||

    Or my cat Otis.

  • hehe||

    Or an angry gopher.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Well I've got the gun and the truck anyhow.

    Actually, I've got several guns, including an eeeeee-vil "assault weapon". Does that make up for not having a dog?

  • Almanian||

    I have 5 dogs - I can help out a brother with a loaner as required

    *fist bump*

  • ||

    We got the dog, and the truck, and a bunch of guns (I honestly don't know how many). We're libertarians, although not orthodox (i.e., when I read about Vick's dog fighting I didn't wonder if outlawing it is acceptable under libertarian dogma. I just wished he'd be chewed up close to death by a pack of escaped pitt bulls.)

    The dog, truck, multiple guns and church attendance leads many people to assume we're God-Guns-and-Sarah-Palin conservatives which on the one hand annoys me, but on the other I understand. It's not an unreasonable assumption, it's just an incorrect one.

  • Almanian||

    ^^ditto^^

  • ||

    To be a real red blooded American you have to own a gun, a dog, and a truck.

    Rush Limbaugh owns a cat.

  • Almanian||

    You know who else owned a cat?

  • SIV||

    He donated to radical animal rights organization as well (HSUS). The same kind he used to refer to as "wackos".

  • cynical||

    He's not a conservative blowhard, he just plays one on TV.

  • smartass sob||

    A big dog that you can go hunting with or use as a watchdog, not some pansy assed poodle...

    Poodles were once used for hunting, and the "pansy-assed" hair cuts were to keep them from being dragged down by the weight of wet fur when entering a body of water to chase or retrieve game. Though most people probably think of miniature or toy varieties when the breed is mentioned, full-sized poodles are fairly large dogs.

    Chihuahuas are derived from terriers ultimately and though small, will go after smaller prey such as rats or rabbits like nobody's business.

    Another breed of dog which people often make fun of is the wiener dog or dachshound. Originally they were bred for hunting badgers. Takes a damned brave dog to crawl into a dark narrow hole in the earth after something as vicious as a badger can be.

  • ||

    My theory is that once conservatives get a tiny bit of success on the internet they quickly go insane. read Breitbart.

    Of course the left has the tendency to do this as well....though one may argue they were already crazy.

  • Cucker Tarlson||

    The Skipper clearly endangered the lives of his passengers by keeping Gilligan as First Mate. His performance record is appalling.

    Doctor Bellows numerous wild claims should have gotten him discharged years ago. You have to wonder if he's responsible in part for the Challenger disaster.

    Fred Sanford's property has become a public hazard. God knows how many children's bodies lay hidden in that mess.

  • ||

    Yes, where was Jeannie when Challenger and Columbia were lost? Has Nelson retired?

    Oh, right, he's a senator now.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Barbara Eden was one of the hottest little minxes ever to grace the small screen.

    Even at an advanced age, she still held it together and was, in my book, highly doable. I haven't seen any pics of her recently - I'm thinking she's got to be something like 70 years old at this point?

    But man, back then she was smoking hot property. I'd love me some o' that Jeannie action.

    And there was that moron Major whatsisname, not letting her use any of her magic. What a dope.

  • ||

    Jennie is 76.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Eden

  • juris imprudent||

    I haven't seen that many 60s/70s cultural references in the service of humor since the last Dennis Miller special. Bravo.

  • Jeff P||

    Nelson still has yet to answer questions about his possession of, and later marriage to, a know Islamic supernatural being.

  • ||

    Unbelievable that he's allowed to remain in the Senate when he has clear connections with known terrorist groups.

    Note how Jeannie was also curiously absent on 9/11.

  • alan||

    Though I understand Nozick's idea and have some sympathy for it, I'm really not comfortable with the agenda of animal rights, as the advocacy is focused entirely on the restriction of human agency. You can point to something you could consider egregious like dog fighting (this is pretty much cultural phenomenon though, becoming emotionally attached to dogs is not normal behavior in some societies), but at the same time you are giving petty tyrants an excuse to exert greater power as when police dogs are for the purpose of the law considered officers. That should not be tolerated.

  • Ska||

    The idea that a man should be put to death for mistreating animals is laughable. Especially his own animals, even if you regard it as despicable behavior.

    Cockfighting is completely legal in Puerto Rico (at least in the arenas, I have no idea about back alley cockfighting and would like to keep it that way). I can see buying a rooster and putting it up for a fight as a legitimate use for it. I'd personally have no moral dilemma with that.

    Why are dogs different? Because they're mammals? Because they're smarter? Because dogs are regarded more as part of the family than roosters are (and this might not even be true for some people)?

    I don't know, why is killing animals for sport sometimes OK, and sometimes immoral?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Who says it's sometimes ok?

  • Ska||

    I would imagine hunters, hosts of cock fights and hosts of dog fights for starters.

    Is hunting OK but only if you eat the meat/use the hides?

    Is fishing only OK if you eat the fish, but not if you mount a shark?

    I have no problems with these activities, but ethics obviously have different lines for different people. I guess I'm just asking questions and trying to hear some different takes on the subject.

  • ||

    How much of the animal do you have to use in order to make killing it OK?

    And, are there certain approved uses or is any use acceptable?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Millions of people from Spanish-speaking countries who go to bullfights.

  • ||

    I suppose this is a bad time to mention that, just yesterday, I advocated a new kind of animal fighting: Corrida de Monos.

  • SIV||

    Culture

  • ||

    Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Why are dogs different?

    Because dogs have "feelings".

    [/sarcasm]

  • jacob||

    I remember listening to Tucker Carlson calling in to the Bubba the Love Sponge show last year, whining about how he couldn't find work.

    I think I now understand why.

  • Paul||

    For the record, I'm a dog lover. I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting. (And I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.)

    Is it?

  • SIV||

    Yes

  • ||

    You know who else killed dogs: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....lamp73.jpg

  • quintus canine||

    I'd rather take my chances with Vick than a fucking SWAT team.

  • publius||

    "Why are dogs different? Because they're mammals? Because they're smarter? Because dogs are regarded more as part of the family than roosters are (and this might not even be true for some people)?"

    Because domesticated dogs have a very specific kind of relationship with their owners. Dogs trust their owners, and if you exploit this trust to get them to do things that are extremely harmful to them (and torture them when they fail) then you have deep-seated ugliness in your soul. Whether this should be illegal or not is a different question, but if I find out that someone is doing this to their dogs, I have no problem calling them a sick bastard to their face.

    "I don't know, why is killing animals for sport sometimes OK, and sometimes immoral?"

    See above, regarding the specific canine/owner relationship.

  • SIV||

    Many hunting/sporting dog breeds owe their very existence to being trained and bred to do things that are harmful to them. Bear dogs, hog dogs, war dogs etc.

  • MNG||

    This is awful reasoning: we created the breed therefore we can do with it what we will. How does one follow from the other? If someone genetically engineered a baby in a petri dish would he be able to do what he wanted to with that person?

  • SIV||

    This is what is so sick about animal rights freaks, equating humans with non-human animals. Read your Kipling or the Bible.

  • SIV||

    Besides, working dogs like to perform the task they were bred for. I think it's sad most Yorkies will never get to kill a pit full of rats.They're lucky to get a cockroach every now and then.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: publius,

    Because domesticated dogs have a very specific kind of relationship with their owners. Dogs trust their owners[...]

    "Trust" implies purposeful action, which would then imply you believe dogs can act with a purpose i.e. they can reason. Dogs no more trust their owners that they trust the sun will come out the next day.

  • Alistair Young||

    "Trust" implies purposeful action, which would then imply you believe dogs can act with a purpose i.e. they can reason. Dogs no more trust their owners that they trust the sun will come out the next day.

    Well, now.

    Last I checked, they can certainly give the appearance of reasoning, problem-solving skills, and volition.

    Not that I'm saying we should give them the whole life, liberty and property rights-enchilada until they demonstrate more complex reasoning skills than they have, you understand, but I don't think you can validly claim that reasoning is a special, unique humans-only trait in any sort of scientific, testable way. And thus, things that appear to have lesser degrees of reason and volition should be treated accordingly, i.e., with lesser but still actual rights.

    Particularly since the appearance of reasoning is all we have to go on, at the moment, and I extend to anyone who disagrees on that point my usual invitation to prove that they aren't merely an automaton pretending to be conscious and rational while strapped to a table in a room with me and a red-hot poker...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alistair Young,

    Last I checked, they can certainly give the appearance of reasoning, problem-solving skills, and volition.

    So do robots.

    but I don't think you can validly claim that reasoning is a special, unique humans-only trait in any sort of scientific, testable way.

    Well, Alistair - if animals were self-aware, they would be philosophers. Snoopy has not written the great American novel yet.

    Particularly since the appearance of reasoning is all we have to go on, at the moment, and I extend to anyone who disagrees on that point my usual invitation to prove that they aren't merely an automaton pretending to be conscious and rational while strapped to a table in a room with me and a red-hot poker...

    Well, for one, you beg the question, as appearance of reasoning is not evidence of animal self-awareness; just because animals appear to be reasoning individuals to YOU does not mean they ARE. Second, it is not up to me or someone else to show YOU that animals are not self-aware - the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person making the assertion.

  • MNG||

    This is particularly bad reasoning. Animals are essentially made of the same stuff that we are biologically. They are related to us evolutionarily. And they appear to act in ways that are similar to humans exhibiting self awareness. I'm afraid the onus is on you to show they are not what they seem to be....

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    This is particularly bad reasoning. Animals are essentially made of the same stuff that we are biologically.

    So are sea sponges. Irrelevant.

    They are related to us evolutionarily.

    Irrelevant.

    And they appear to act in ways that are similar to humans exhibiting self awareness.

    Appearance is not evidence of existence. In fact, you're using the exact same argument as used by Intelligent Design proponents - that something that appears designed is evidence of design, also known as question begging.

    I'm afraid the onus is on you to show they are not what they seem to be...

    And the cherry on top of MNG's logical discourse: Asking someone to prove a negative.

  • Edwin||

    OK, by the same token, some guy in 1792 or whatever could ask you to prove Black people are as sentient or whatever as white people

  • Edwin||

    Can you positively prove to me you have rights?

  • Edwin||

    yo, for serial, what's wrong with you? I read your blog once I think. You're like older than 30. Why the hell do you still think that all this libertarian B.S. is written in the sky? That it's all so OBJECTIVE.?
    It isn't. Differing people have differing opinions. You aren't CORRECT because these aren't CORRECT/INCORRECT things - it's all philosophy. Unless you've found some premises that are ALWAYS RIGHT in EVERY SITUATION and describe BROAD aspects of human existence, there is no ultimate correct/incorrect.

    You were supposed to get over all that libertarian B.S. when you got out of college

  • cynical||

    "Well, Alistair - if animals were self-aware, they would be philosophers. Snoopy has not written the great American novel yet."

    Doesn't taking this same line of reasoning further justify putting retarded people in gas chambers?

  • Alistair Young||

    Taking that line of reasoning further leads me to conclude that I can ethically kill everyone else in the world because they can't prove they aren't p-zombies.

    While this is a logically consistent answer, it's perhaps somewhere on the far side of useless.

  • Alistair Young||

    It's not evidence of human self-awareness, either.

    Hell, it's not even evidence of personal self-awareness, unless you can describe some meaningful test to tell the difference in internal states between actually thinking and just nodding along to your automatonically-generated narrative chain.

    Most of us, at this point, choose to resort to inductive logic rather then pursuing the deductive kind straight into absurdity.

  • NeonCat||

    While Vick served his time, I think letting him play in the NFL sends a certain message: you can be a complete scumbag, but if you are a talented scumbag, welcome back.

    Not that it makes any difference, but I don't watch Eagles games. Fuck Vick and the people that gave him a job.

  • ||

  • Sidd Finch||

    Considering that Carlson is against the death penalty (at least by the state), I don't think he literally "believes the government should kill a man because he was cruel to his animals."

  • Ben Rothelsberger||

    letting him play in the NFL sends a certain message: you can be a complete scumbag, but if you are a talented scumbag, welcome back.

    Phew!

  • Special Sauce||

    I will call for Vick's execution right after we decide to off every DEA agent who murdered a dog during a drug bust. Sounds fair?

  • SIV||

    The DEA doesn't kill their own dogs.

  • ||

    I think the libertarian line of thinking that we are free to live our lives unless our actions affect others applies in this case.
    Many breeders will euthanize a dog through electrocution if they refuse to fight, or lose too many fights. However, there are many more who simply let those dogs loose in the streets or neighborhood to fend for themselves. Even though they couldn't make it in the fighting world, they are STILL aggressive, and will attack dogs, kids, and other unsupecting people.

    The pertinent question may be: Is this happening because of prohibition, or would this practice continue if this "sport" were to become legal? And, what would legalized dog fighting look like anyway?

  • ||

    I think the libertarian line of thinking that we are free to live our lives unless our actions affect others applies in this case.
    Many breeders will euthanize a dog through electrocution if they refuse to fight, or lose too many fights. However, there are many more who simply let those dogs loose in the streets or neighborhood to fend for themselves. Even though they couldn't make it in the fighting world, they are STILL aggressive, and will attack dogs, kids, and other unsupecting people.

    The pertinent question may be: Is this happening because of prohibition, or would this practice continue if this "sport" were to become legal? And, what would legalized dog fighting look like anyway?

  • ||

    I think the libertarian line of thinking that we are free to live our lives unless our actions affect others applies in this case.
    Many breeders will euthanize a dog through electrocution if they refuse to fight, or lose too many fights. However, there are many more who simply let those dogs loose in the streets or neighborhood to fend for themselves. Even though they couldn't make it in the fighting world, they are STILL aggressive, and will attack dogs, kids, and other unsupecting people.

    The pertinent question may be: Is this happening because of prohibition, or would this practice continue if this "sport" were to become legal? And, what would legalized dog fighting look like anyway?

  • ||

    YIKES!
    My sincere apologies.

  • KPres||

    For what?

  • KPres||

    For what?

  • ||

    Wasn't this douche on Stossel's show claiming to be a libertarian?

    Between this and bragging about bashing a gay guy back in the day I'm not sure why he's welcome anywhere near our circles.

  • Almanian||

    Yeah, and Glenn Beck's a libertarian, too. He said so, so it must be true.

  • Old Mexican||

    Tucker is libertarian...ish.

  • SIV||

    Like Reason!

  • Old Mexican||

    I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting.

    Despite the fact that these laws violate private property rights.

    And I realize and concede this is probably inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy.)

    But not by much... merely negating the whole concept of natural law, natural rights, the ethics of freedom, property rights...

  • SIV||

    But not by much... merely negating the whole concept of natural law, natural rights, the ethics of freedom, property rights...

    Many "libertarians" don't believe in natural law or natural rights.Republicans who smoke pot, Democrats who don't like to pay taxes, utilitarians...the list goes on and is well represented here in H&R comments.

  • Friedrich Hayek||

    Hi!

  • MNG||

    This is absurd. One doesn't have to chuck all of these things simply by admitting the obvious: that animals, though property, have morally meaningful differences from inanimate property.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    [...] that animals, though property, have morally meaningful differences from inanimate property.

    According to whom? You? Because if everybody is supposed to abide by MNG's standards of what is "morally meaningfull," somebody please stop the Earth as I want to get off.

    Yes, MNG - your little term is subjective. It's meaningless.

  • Edwin||

    All your opinions are just as subjective as MNG's. Oh, wait, I forgot that libertarian theory is written up in the sky by God himself, and if you disagree with it, it's not a difference of opinion, you're just wrong

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Edwin,

    All your opinions are just as subjective as MNG's

    "For instance" . . . [please complete citation under penalty of sounding ridiculous.]

  • Edwin||

    your claim that property has to be all-or-nothing. Just because you can't do one thing with a certain kind of property, doesn't mean it violates your property rights. This idea you have is a premise in and of itself. You're begging the question.

    In my opinion, we need to talk about why something can or can't be property in the first place, and then examine how the different things that you could do with that property are relevant to that discussion. Like for example, animals CAN be considred property because they can be manipulated to a certain extent. But is it right to? Well, they don't have complete volition and reason, so they can't have the full rights of humans, that's obvious. That would lead to nonsense. But at the same time they aren't COMPLETELY without reason or volition or what have you. And they can suffer like humans. So they can't be COMPLETELY property like your couch can.
    Balto saved like 3,000 people and he was a dog. What the fuck have you done lately, OM, besides not get laid and grow even more nerdy and disgusting and antisocial?

  • Edwin||

    *or rather, so I MYSELF WOULD SAY it would be IMMORAL to consider them property like your couch.

  • MNG||

    Good choice of words Edwin as OM is a libertarian fundamentalist par excellence.

  • MNG||

    Actually I suppose animals have moral worth because they share the qualities that give humans moral worth, albeit in lesser degrees (take your pick, reasoning, capacity for suffering, autonomy, etc). My claim that animals have moral worth is actually much more objective than your counter claim that, for some unspecified reason, only humans do.

  • Edwin||

    +1

  • ||

    As a kid i would pit insects against each other in a shoe box.

    Not a lot but i did it a couple of times.

    In most cases they didn't do shit and just sat in the box or tried to get out of the box.

    I think i did get a big red ant to kill a small black ant.

    anyway on a scale of a thousand where does the morel worth of an ant vs a dog vs a human all fit?

  • ||

    I'm okay with state laws against dog fighting.

    I am wondering if Balko would be Ok if the the punishment for breaking the laws was lowered.

    Say a ticket instead of a prison term.

  • ||

    Man! what a fucking douche! Tell me your not that simple Tucker please!

  • Old Mexican||

    I saw the show and Tucker was clearly speaking in jest, like "if it was up to me, he would have been executed for killing the poor woof-woofs!" Definitively he's no more a libertarian than Beck...

  • DDavis||

    I don't believe he is doing it for ratings, because it is just too nutty to be a ploy. It looked like visceral moral outrage.

    It's odd, I've always seen him as a pretty reasonable guy, agree with him or not.

    As for the "pay your debt to society" business, you don't get a clean slate with me. You get let out of prison, but I don't forget, and I don't think anyone else should either.

  • ||

    Tucker Carlson isn't really a conservative, he just plays one on TV (sometimes.)

  • ||

    Was it Don Imus or Jon Stewart who called Tucker Carlson a "bowtie-wearing pussy" on the air? I'm thinking it was Imus.....

  • ||

    My girlfriend just told me it was Imus. Thank you.

  • ||

    You are a useless human being

  • Edwin||

    I love how when the discussion turns towards animal rights, all of a sudden all you libertarians realize that property rights are by no means absolute - that justr because something CAN be property doesn't mean you can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING you want with it. Such ideas ultimately lead to nonsense, and in the first place have extremely shaky premises. The only one here still sticking to that shit is the ultimate nerd douche fuck ree-ree Old Mexican.
    You jagaloons should take this concept here, look at it, look at where you disagree with Old Mexican, and seriously actually think about property more in general. If he can be so wrong about property here, maybe you're wrong about your absolutely involable property right elsewhere.

    Full disposition of property being the only legitimate system of property rights leads to nonsense both in effect of policy - of people abiding by said rights - and on the face of it in terms of definitions. Assume you have the right to own land. OK. So then do you have the right to smack someone who's on your land? Why not? I thought you owned the land. OK, then what can you do to kick someone off your land? How far can you go? Can you shoot them? What if you know he poses no threat to you or your property? Google "Free Ward Bird". If Someone's land is in front of your land before the street, can they stop you from leaving your house by stopping you from trespassing on their land? In common law, he has to give you an easement for access to the road. Seems reasonable to me, for the only way to truly own land you need access to it. How about public property? I've seen libertarians claim there can be no such thing as public property. Really? But if I own something, I can just give it to someone, or a bunch of people, can't I? So why can't I give it to everyone, deed it to the public, for the public to use, just with the proscription that no one hinder anyone else's use of it? If I can't do that, why not? What's wrong with the bundle-of-rights view? If I don't have that, then I can't sell mineral rights, either.
    Same with personal property. If someone's in my car, why can't I smack him? He's in my car. Yes, it violates his rights. But that whole you can't-violate-someone-else's rights thing is itself a restriction on this whole concept of full disposition. If I own a car, can I drive it drunk? That causes serious risk to other people. I think serious risks ought to be considered the same as outright damage of other people's property. And more on personal property - if for decades, property, both real and personal, was awarded to people in an unfree market, that is in a biased fashion favoring one group versus another, why are the property rights so damn legitimate now just because NOW we have equality under government? How many changing of hands does it take before it's fair? Here's another - how long does it take before property can be considered abandoned? Should it just be a matter of time or does intent of the original owner matter?

    And the premises are specious at best. Who says you get to own a piece of the world? Did you make it? Even if you assume that people have the right to own what they produce, that still leaves open the raw-nature question of real estate - who says you get to own a chunk of the earth? Homesteading? Who gets toi decide what the lot size a person can get is? Is that the only answer to the question?> In Hong Kong you can't OWN land like we can. Maybe that makes more sense
    Who says you can own anything period? I've never heard of a libertarian philosophy that actually explains why I should accept that premise. What about human nature? Is property in human nature?

    NONE OF THIS HAS SOME MAGICAL OBJECTIVE ANSWER. That's what you ALL can't seem to grasp.

    Here's a better question you ought to consider. In a world where so many people will have such differing ideas about these questions and many more, HOW ARE WE ALL SUPPOSED TO GET ALONG, specifically when we are multiple people are dealing with the same pieces of real estate and property? How are supposed to get along EFFECTIVELY? Especially if we also want to have a highly economically centralized society, where one employer can empoy hundreds of thousands of workers, and millions of people live together in cities.

    What Old Mexican doesn't grasp about this animal rights issue is what you all don't grasp about society, governance, and civilization in general.

  • cynical||

    True. Also, relativity and shit, so Newton was a dumbass and no one should bother learning his laws of motion.

    I actually wrote a longer response, but decided not to bother. The universe being what it is (complicated), a fundamental moral principle, much like a scientific law, is actually just a very strong heuristic that may cease to be applicable under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean you should abandon it lightly.

  • Edwin||

    a fundamental moral principle is a premise without any proof as to why it should be accepted. Not to mention they tend to be so vague as to be meaningless.

    Libertarian ideas are not "objective" like laws of science. They're just opinions like any other political philosophy. Again, see the nature of premises and logic
    http://world.std.com/~mhuben/skept/logic.html

  • CJ||

    I think serious risks ought to be considered the same as outright damage of other people's property.

    So do Republicans. See the current wars.

  • sevo||

    "Assume you have the right to own land. OK. So then do you have the right to smack someone who's on your land?"

    "How about public property? I've seen libertarians claim there can be no such thing as public property."

    Sorry, it's entire too boring to go through the rest of you strawmen, false alternatives, question begging and other logical failures.
    Let's just give you a 1.0 and suggest you check back once you have learned to think.

  • Edwin||

    what strawmen? The point was that the rights of FULL DISPOSITION for any piece of property ultimately leads to nonsense. And the violate-others-rights exemption is itself a restriction on what would otherwise be full rights to do whatever the hell you want with your property. And even with that exemption, there are clearly major issues.

    Why don't you try actually thinking about the last two paragraphs i wrote there

  • sevo||

    Edwin|12.29.10 @ 9:44PM|#
    "what strawmen?"

    Let me direct your attention to:
    "FULL DISPOSITION for any piece of property ultimately leads to nonsense."

    "Why don't you try actually thinking about the last two paragraphs i wrote there"
    Only by ignoring that bit of whining, special pleading, and appeal to emotion can you get a 1.0. If it were included, why, we'd have to find a lower grade.
    Why don't you try to learn what logic means?

  • Edwin||

    I dunno what the hell you're talking about

    there was no appeal to emotion. The questions I asked drive directly to the heart of matters concerning societies and people getting along in them

  • Edwin||

    and by I dunno what the hell you're talking about I literally mean I don't know what you're trying to say

    try just reading and thinking about the questions

  • Edwin||

    think about not only your answers but how other people might answer

  • Ronald Reagan||

    this guy is a complete idiot. Once an racist always an racist. I think he's upset because Mike Vick is doing a great job in rebuilding his life. Calson should be executed for making that crazy comment.

  • ||

    Tucker Carlson should be punched in the face for being such an idiotic, fascist pseudo-christian, and so that he can turn the other cheek for another punch in the face for being just plain narcistic and stupid stupid stupid.

    He is pretty though.

  • ||

    Has Carlson's ratings slipping? I think this more of a cry for attention.

  • ||

    Animals have no natural rights. I have two dogs, and I do not abuse them because I believe it is morally wrong to do so. If someone else wants to abuse their dogs, it is on their conscience and none of my fucking business.

  • ||

    Vick is a depraved SOB. Carlson is a waste of space.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Edwin, of course, seems incapable of seeing any difference between inamimate objects and living, breathing, brain-having, beings.

    If animals are to have any rights, sure the the basis for such has more do with the brain-having than with some perverse need of Edwin's to prevent humans from using their property.

  • Edwin||

    WTF is wrong with you? When did I say that?

  • Old Man with Candy||

    I've always been a fan of Balko. Until now. He's a fan of the Evil Irsays? Sorry, there are things that are beyond the pale. The Irsays and their fans deserve execution. Following torture.

  • Jerry Jones||

    So now were escalating the death penalty to someone who legally avoids a tax liability or has the audacity to move out of a shithole?

  • Old Man with Candy||

    Yes. Although I'd characterize him as "someone who won a legendary and beloved team in a card game, spent the next decade running it into the ground and alienating the most loyal fans in the NFL, then stealing out of town in the middle of the night because he couldn't extract sufficient money from poor taxpayers to prop up the business he thoroughly mismanaged."

  • Ray||

    Animals, by nature, are predators and prey, and they kill and maim each other a billion times a day. However, using our status as humans to pitt animals aginst each other for nothing other than sport, which causes genuine suffering, is disgusting. Slaughtering animals for food and clothing is much different, as we need those items to survive, the same way a lion takes down a zebra to survive. The argument about animals being property is valid, but making them fight each other is, and should always be, illegal. Common. Fucking. Sense.
    BTW, if this argument is about housecats, it's open for discussion.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    And, BTW, there are plenty of people who would maintain that it's wrong to consider sentinent animals your personal property in the first place. Even as personal property, they clearly are a different class of property than inanimate objects - and have been treated as such by the law for centuries.

    For example, there is plenty of law regarding the owner's responsibility and liability for wandering livestock - see "fencing in" versus "fencing out" laws. There also is plenty of case law regarding who owns the offspring of an animal - was the animal pregnant when sold? Etc. These questions simply cannot arise with respect to a fencepost or end table. It is nonsensical and absurd to try to make animals legally equivalent in every respect with inanimate objects as personal property.

  • IceTrey||

    Vick should have been rewarded for killing dogs. Dogs suck, CATS RULE!

  • ||

    Humans do the same things to themselves, no? Vick himself is put into an arena on a fairly regular basis and made to play at stylized war. In that war he can be severely hurt or even die. This is his job.

    If he does well he gets paid more.

    Like a fighting dog, he is trained, and paid during that training(fighting dogs are 'paid' by getting better food and bitches).

    There are numerous types of entertainment that center around humans being violent towards humans.

    Why such horror that 'man's best friend' is allowed in on the entertainment?

    Because he can't say no? Because he is given no choice? How skilled at making choices are untrained dogs, anyway?

    How unpleasant is the life of a sucessful fighting dog? Does it compare to the life of a sucessful athlete?

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement