1
106
107

How Libertarians Deal With Endangered Species (youtube.com)

submitted by nobody25864There's no government like no government!

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CSHufflepuff 11 ポイント12 ポイント

I'm not a hunter and find the idea of hunting for sport repugnant. I've also struggled with the idea of animal rights for about 3 years now after I was introduced to the idea of marginal cases. With that said, the woman in the video is an idealistic pig and a coward. She didn't have the fortitude to actually say what she really thinks, that she would rather see the animal go extinct than to see 10% of the population of a species being hunter per year. The reserves in Africa suffer from corruption, bad management and poorly trained security. They can not stop the poachers or the money that's coming out Asia (for the most part) to fund these poachers. The numbers don't lie, this works.

[–]cyberdark10 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I'm probably going to start a debate, but hey, discussion is important. I agree with everything you've said in your post except this bit:

I'm not a hunter and find the idea of hunting for sport repugnant.

It depends on the animal that's being hunted. Wolves in Alaska need to be culled lest they overpopulate, kill everything, then die themselves due to starvation. We need to cull deer in some parts of America because they cause millions of dollars of damage to crops and houses, it's the same with wild boar and pigs. (Plus it's expensive and annoying when you hit like 3 while driving home.).

and

is an idealistic pig and a coward.

You don't have to be so rude. Just sayin'.

Other than those two and a couple exceptions that I most likely missed I agree with you.

[–]B-24J-Liberator 1 ポイント2 ポイント

We need to cull deers in some parts of America because they cause millions of dollars of damage to crops and houses

That's one instance where hunters can absolutely say that what they are doing isn't bad, but they are also serving the community on their own time and money as well. In the lower southern states (Excluding Florida), deer are a major problem if hunters don't keep them in check. Not to mention they usually eat what they kill as well.

[–]cyberdark10 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Yeah, that's my point. Generally I don't consider hunting for sport moral when it comes to most animals, but there are exceptions.

Also:

deers

sighs and clicks the edit button

[–]B-24J-Liberator 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I know, just adding more information to your point.

[–]cyberdark10 [score hidden]

I know, I was just clarifying for those who may thing we aren't agreeing.

I admit reply was somewhat useless, and this one is too.

[–]Tawsix [score hidden]

Michigan is the same, and it's getting worse because there are less people hunting, so the deer population is increasing and so are car accidents.

[–]TupacShakur1996 [score hidden]

How else is he supposed to get up votes in this sub, if he isn't rude?

[–]cyberdark10 [score hidden]

I don't know, act kindly to those who disagree with him/her and respect their opinions?

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

My thoughts on animal rights are basically against it. I think man has rights because of our self-ownership derived from our ability to reason. We can think and act purposefully, while animals only have their instinctual behavior. Man's ability to reason allows us to engage in social cooperation and not merely interaction, thus allowing us a division of labor and to have the social protection of individual rights, while animals couldn't be brought into this even if we tried. Thus man can exorcise his dominion over all the beasts of the earth.

I suggest looking at chapter on animal right from Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty: The "Rights" of Animals, and also looking at chapter 9 from Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

[–]Balrogic3 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Man's ability to reason is secondary to man's instinct. The fact that people can choose to act against their instincts doesn't mean they tend to act against their instincts. Social cooperation is an instinct itself, with numerous instinctive components to make up the whole. Remove any of those components from a participant and people will instinctively react in negative or hostile ways. It's incredibly commonplace, easily observed in any wild human you care to examine.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

On the contrary, man's reason must be greater than his instinct by the very nature of what we are discussing, as a man's purposeful and rational actions are always overriding what he would do by instinctual. A man may renounce immediate gratification for the hopes of greater pleasure in the future by use of his reason.

Man's social behavior is entirely a product of his reason and the differences men find between themselves. By the differences in conditions, ability, and interest between men, people can see the benefits they may receive under the division of labor. This form of interaction is categorically different from what animals do by instinct, and is thus called cooperation, as it is done purposefully. Inequalities exist among the animals as well, but without reason they cannot form social relations like man can.

"Instinctual" social cooperation is not social cooperation at all, but merely social interaction. Cooperation is entirely a matter of reason. This is covered in detail in the chapter I mentioned from Democracy The God That Failed. I suggest you read the first section of the chapter in particular.

[–]Sky_Light [score hidden]

Man's social behavior is entirely a product of his reason

That's not actually true. People are animals as well, and do many things that we don't know why we do. Otherwise, there'd be no need for therapists.

Even leaving aside habitual or instinctual actions, there's evidence that viruses can affect our behavior, such as the common cold making people more social.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

Whether a virus makes a man want to be more social is an entirely different matter. What I'm saying here is a matter of praxeology, not of psychology. Why we care about what we do is irrelevant, the point is that purposeful cooperation is categorically different from just interaction in general, and things that are purposeful rely solely on the mind's ability to reason.

Find me a common cold virus that makes a man social and strips him of his reason, and you'd be closer to a case. Even then though, you wouldn't be overcoming the praxeological distinction.

[–]GonzoNovatoreLibertarian Individualist [score hidden]

Some classes of animal reason more than some classes of people. Dolphins and chimpanzees are more intelligent than babies or retards.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

Perhaps, but dolphins and chimps are still not intelligent to engage in purposeful behavior, while babies and retards do have the potential for it. Dolphins are incapable of reason entirely, not because they aren't fully developed yet or because they suffer from some sort of affliction, but because they cannot by their very nature. This is covered briefly in the Ethics of Liberty chapter posted above.

[–]GonzoNovatoreLibertarian Individualist [score hidden]

Dolphins and chimps can reason. Rothbard didn't know 30 years ago what we know today.

http://phys.org/news181981904.html

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

Show me a dolphin that can talk and get a job, then I'll reconsider them. Until then though, studies on brain size are irrelevant to me. So far the only case I've seen that comes close is Koko the gorilla, and even that is still up for debate with how close it comes to actual human speech.

Even then though, that would not change Rothbard's fundamental points there, as you'd see in the chapter I linked to by his discussion of hypothetical martians.

[–]lincoln_loggers [score hidden]

How do you know dolphins aren't down in the water saying "show me a human that can talk dolphin and figure out the social hierarchy we've developed and then I'll consider them."

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

I don't. I just act on the evidence that has been presented before me, and so far all the evidence points against that being a thing.

[–]Motherbrainzebes [score hidden]

No you don't. You have a predetermined idea of what you think is right and then you blast any idea that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of truth. Basing rights on the ability to reason is not any more rational or intelligent than giving something rights because it can fly. You do understand rights are a created concept by man correct? They are not some divine mandates handed down by the gods. We created rights because we see the value in their existence.

Animals can rationalize, and gorillas have even been show to suffer from bad memories and contemplate their own deaths. If they can reason at the level of a 2 year old and you deny them rights, then does a two year old not deserve rights? Your response to this will be that eventually that human will be able to reason, so it has rights. So what about the mentally disabled, they'll never get better or be able to reason. So should they not have rights? But you will say, "Motherbrainzebes, but they're human, of course they have rights!"

And I will say you're conception of rights is simply based on whether an organism is human or not, and has nothing to do with any of the other rubbish you said. You're not acting on any evidence, you're just doing the very human thing of choosing a side in an argument and sticking to your guns no matter what.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

No you don't. You have a predetermined idea of what you think is right and then you blast any idea that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of truth.

And what evidence do you base this on? Or is that a predetermined notion of your own?

[–]urbanpsycho [score hidden]

I would like to know how many questions Koko asks.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

That's actually a good point. Questions would probably show deeper mental understanding of subjects. You'd probably have to rule out some questions though like signing for food though.

[–]urbanpsycho [score hidden]

yeah, I was going to caveat that. Intelligence to me isn't so much understanding a situation and reacting to it, than it is wonder. A human can imagine music they have never heard before, see an image in their mind that they have never seen. Humans ask the question, "why"? Language isn't even a barrier anymore as clearly a primate can learn to sign.

Have they gotten two sign language knowing gorillas together? What would they talk about? would they even attempt to sign to each other?

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

If they have, I don't know about it. I got a transcript from one of the "conversations" she had. It's mostly her calling things pink that aren't actually pink and wanting candy.