Libertarianism: Political sociopathy?

[Paddy]

I think so.

 so·ci·o·path    Pronunciation[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] noun Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

A response to the Pet Peeves: Dogs in pickups thread:

Feh.

Let their owners put them in the bed if they want.

seems to reflect classic libertarian thought-dogs are chattel and as such they have no 'rights'.  The owners are free to do anything they want with their property.  No one else has any authority over the owner's treatment of his own property (in this case a dog).

I recently heard a prominent libertarian apologist-Ilana Mercer-try to make the case that Michael Vick should not be punished because he committed no crime.  Never mind he tortured, hanged, electrocuted and drowned dogs.  There should be no legal consequences since he did not murder, rape, rob or defraud anyone.   She attempted to bolster her argument with the irrelevant assertion that 'dog fighting' is a centuries old 'sport'.  She then went on to attack animals rights activists (introducing a red herring) with the specious 'slippery slope' argument of increasing animal protection legislation in an ultimate attempt to subordinate man to the state.

Few-very few-people buy these wackadoodle extremist radical notions.  I think some of these libertarians are so caught up in their own 'dogma' (as it were), they have abandoned all rational thought about man's moral obligations to others, people and animals alike.  It is as though they belief they live (or should live) in a vacuum devoid of any responsibility or subject to any authority whatsoever. 

Am I somehow misinterpreting libertarian thought?

[Brad Johnson]

seems to reflect classic libertarian thought-dogs are chattel and as such they have no 'rights'.

They don't.  To have a right infers that you are also able to accept responsibility for acting under said right. Animals have no rights for the simple reason they have no innate knowledge of right and wrong.  They act under instinct and are unable to rationalize any other behavior.

However, that does not give animal owners carte blanche to deal with the animal as a mere possession.  To be an owner also means that you willingly accept the duties as that animal's ward.  Even though the animal has no rights as we would recognize them in human terms, animal owners are still directly responsible for the health and well-being of that animal. 

I think some of these libertarians are so caught up in their own 'dogma' (as it were), they have abandoned all rational thought about man's moral obligations to others, people and animals alike.

Agreed.

Brad

[roo_ster]

RileyMc:

Nice trick: defining deviance from your particular set of values and preferences as mental illness.  Almost like you ripped that one off from the marxists, the 20th century's master of that practice.

If you think my reply was doctrinaire libertarianism, you might want to buy new reading glasses and peruse my critiques of it elsewhere on the forum.  Reading is fundamental.  Reading glasses are a useful accessory.

Perhaps you are not aware of the 300+ millions of other folks who might not share your particular "sense of moral responsibility or social conscience,"  but are not sociopaths.  Some of those folks might see some of your actions or purchases and want to, "...chain [your] lardass in the back of [your] own [object you bought for the reason of conspicuous consumption*] for an afternoon [in unpleasant circumstances]."



* Take an inventory.  I bet just about everything you or I own and everything you or I do can be objected to in heated remarks by some crank. 

[Paddy]

jfruser- Thanks for the cogent explanation.  It helps explain why libertarianism remains in a minority status. 

[Brad Johnson]

I bet just about everything you or I own and everything you or I do can be objected to in heated remarks by some crank.

Hey... Mike is not a crank.

Brad

[AJ Dual]

Just one of the reasons I consider myself a "Little l" right-libertarian, or perhaps more appropriately, a "liberty caucus Republican". Like animal torture and dog fighting, there's a million and one moral situations where by the "reasonable person" standard you know it's wrong, but the Libertarian philosophy does not adequately address a way for third parties to intercede and stop or prevent the transgression.

I suppose the pure-Libertarian answer would be voluntary economic sanctions against those who practice animal torture and have sexual intercourse/incest with toddlers.    When pushed into a corner, you'll generally get some variant of the argument that governments have killed/abused more animals/children/people than individuals ever have. There's a certain harsh logic to that, but that does not make it acceptable to not have mechanisms to protect innocent animals and people either.

[Hugh Damright]

Libertarianism: Political sociopathy?

I have found myself saying that "libertarianism precludes society and culture". I think there are collective rights and individual rights, and that the way in which these rights are balanced is what defines a society. And so I find the libertarian view, that there are only individual rights, to be completely unbalanced.

[tyme]

Current politics are closer to political sociopathy than Libertarianism is.  Everyone's so concerned with the law and with procedure and bureaucracy that few people really care how policy affects people anymore.

If someone wants to build up from Libertarianism/minarchism using carefully-reasoned arguments for individual policies and institutions, fine.  Starting with the modern political system, however, and adding or subtracting from there, is not tenable because there are too many unsupported, duplicate, or nonsensical arms of the current political system.

[Tallpine]

mass ad hominem ... wow 

[Perd Hapley]

I love dogs.  That said, they are not humans.  They have no rights at all.  Nothing one does to a dog constitutes a real crime, unless someone's rights are infringed thereby. 

[tyme]

I love dogs.  That said, they are not humans.  They have no rights at all.  Nothing one does to a dog constitutes a real crime, unless someone's rights are infringed thereby.

Is the reason for the law that a dog is getting hurt, or is the reason for the law that other people feel hurt when someone hurts a dog?

[Euclidean]

A dog, while it is a living creature which can feel physical and I believe even some rudimentary (but still strong) mental or emotional pain, has no role in the law beyond being someone's property.

I believe Vick did do something illegal by running an underground enterprise at the very least, but I'm really against the idea that a dog is anything, in a legal sense, anything but a toaster, a piece of property.

That sounds cruel and heartless, but to have it any other way is just to open a can of worms.  After all if the dog has a legal right to life, can liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. be far behind?  Can PETA use their huge budget to sue your ass off because you feed your dog commercial dog food without its express consent?

My private morality about animals is well below that of many others.  I believe that an animal is not sentient.  I believe that I have the right to destroy animals at will so long as the animal is not someone other entity's property.  However, I also believe that it's sick and depraved to kill or torture these creatures meaninglessly.  I believe if I do decide to kill an animal, it must be a meaningful death for a reason which I believe is sound and reasonable, and that the death I give that animal must be tempered with mercy: it must be swift and painless as possible for the intended purpose under the circumstances.  That doesn't mean there won't be any pain, just that it needs to be minimized and done for practical reasons, not some sick sense of twisted satisfaction from torturing the critter.  I also believe that humans belong on this planet just as much as any other creature and are just as natural, if other creatures can't contend with our presence in the world, then that's just nature taking its course.  I also believe the most sensible, responsible, and kind thing to do is look for a viable commercial use as many species as possible, so that they will never go extinct.  How do you keep cows from going extinct?  Get people to buy milk and beef.

Should that be the law though?  Should I seek to make my personal beliefs about how to treat animals the law we must all follow?  No, I have no right to force you to think or feel or act a certain way about this issue.

If I believe in my ideas so strongly, the only meaningful and morally defensible way to go about implementing them is to get others to see the merit in them, and adopt them voluntarily.  Sure, some people will never ever agree with me, but that's life.

That's why I feel Vick's cruelty to animals, as much as I personally abhor it, shouldn't be something that's against the law.  What should be done instead is people who believe that it's wrong should:

#1.  Practice their beliefs.
#2.  Persuade others to adopt their ideas in reasoned discourse.
#3.  Heap scorn upon those who do such reprehensible things.  As far as I'm concerned, a private individual has every right to cut off financial support from Micheal Vick in any way he can (boycott the league or team for instance), and to spread news of his misdeeds far and wide.

While Vick may not necessarily deserve a criminal penalty, I believe the sanctions a private party can impose can be quite severe.  I don't believe that we can, or should, trust the government to deal with matters which are purely of right and wrong, where no other person has been victimized.

Remember folks, legal and right have absolutely nothing to do with each other, never have, never will.  The government of men is about what's legal.  I sincerely believe that we should look to a higher power (of your choice) for an authority on what's right.

What Vick did is reprehensible, it truly is.  The problem is though, that we are so upset about that, and yet so many are completely indifferent to the way people are just as badly mistreated, daily.

[Perd Hapley]

I love dogs.  That said, they are not humans.  They have no rights at all.  Nothing one does to a dog constitutes a real crime, unless someone's rights are infringed thereby.

Is the reason for the law that a dog is getting hurt, or is the reason for the law that other people feel hurt when someone hurts a dog?

Both, I suppose.  I presume you're going somewhere, Socrates?   

That's why I feel Vick's cruelty to animals, as much as I personally abhor it, shouldn't be something that's against the law.  What should be done instead is people who believe that it's wrong should:

#1.  Practice their beliefs.
#2.  Persuade others to adopt their ideas in reasoned discourse.
#3.  Heap scorn upon those who do such reprehensible things.  As far as I'm concerned, a private individual has every right to cut off financial support from Micheal Vick in any way he can (boycott the league or team for instance), and to spread news of his misdeeds far and wide.

While Vick may not necessarily deserve a criminal penalty, I believe the sanctions a private party can impose can be quite severe.  I don't believe that we can, or should, trust the government to deal with matters which are purely of right and wrong, where no other person has been victimized.

Sounds good.  This would also apply to racial discrimination in housing, hiring, or other private transactions, rather than enforcing such things by law. 

[Euclidean]

That's why I feel Vick's cruelty to animals, as much as I personally abhor it, shouldn't be something that's against the law.  What should be done instead is people who believe that it's wrong should:

#1.  Practice their beliefs.
#2.  Persuade others to adopt their ideas in reasoned discourse.
#3.  Heap scorn upon those who do such reprehensible things.  As far as I'm concerned, a private individual has every right to cut off financial support from Micheal Vick in any way he can (boycott the league or team for instance), and to spread news of his misdeeds far and wide.

While Vick may not necessarily deserve a criminal penalty, I believe the sanctions a private party can impose can be quite severe.  I don't believe that we can, or should, trust the government to deal with matters which are purely of right and wrong, where no other person has been victimized.

Sounds good.  This would also apply to racial discrimination in housing, hiring, or other private transactions, rather than enforcing such things by law. 

Exactly.

It's true that some people are never going to be "good" (for whatever that means) no matter what happens, but ultimately, two wrongs don't make a right, and trying to shoehorn someone into your idea of "good" is morally indefensible.

Even if it's something where it's clear that there is but one just course of action (for example not discriminating against any racial/ethic groups in hiring practices), government interference inevitably turns a noble sentiment into a SNAFU. 

Note that this should not be confused with laws which say the government must treat everyone the same, that's different, that's the government abiding by the Constitution (14th Amendment etc. comes to mind).

Say tomorrow Target Stores announces that whites are the supreme race, so Jews and Blacks can't work there, nor be allowed to shop there, and it was perfectly legal.  Does anyone really think that such bigotry will go unpunished by the general public?  I'm white and I'd be pissed off.

Sure a thin margin of people will commend the policy and even celebrate it, but the overwhelming bulk of people who refuse to have anything to do with Target afterwards would drive the whole chain out of business or else force some other change, such as rescinding the policy.

Right and wrong cannot be entrusted to the state, but rather, we have to find what is right and wrong in our own moral compass and stand up for it.

[Perd Hapley]

Another really good post.  I would add that the company that turns away applicants for racial reasons is going to endanger its own existence by missing out on some very good employees.  Not to mention the money lost by turning away "wrong-race" customers. 


I may disagree with you here, though:

Remember folks, legal and right have absolutely nothing to do with each other, never have, never will.  The government of men is about what's legal.  I sincerely believe that we should look to a higher power (of your choice) for an authority on what's right.

There definitely seem to be some moral judgments in your last two posts, which is a good thing.  Laws ought to be based on the moral idea that one person may not violate the rights of another, via murder, robbery, etc.  It is likewise moral to insist that laws ought to be limited to such objectives, rather than feeding the populace, censoring offensive literature, etc.  To say, "Govt. should do this, and not that" is a moral judgment. 

[SteveS]

That sounds cruel and heartless, but to have it any other way is just to open a can of worms.  After all if the dog has a legal right to life, can liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. be far behind?  Can PETA use their huge budget to sue your ass off because you feed your dog commercial dog food without its express consent?

What Vick did is reprehensible, it truly is.  The problem is though, that we are so upset about that, and yet so many are completely indifferent to the way people are just as badly mistreated, daily.

As to the first, I don't this as being all that close.  Has PETA expressed this as a goal?  Have states passed any legislation in regards to this goal?  Has any court allowed a suit based on the food you are feeding your dog?  Animal cruelty laws have been on the books for over 100 years (and pre-date child protection laws) and have stayed mostly the same during that time.

As to the second, I realize this case has gotten a lot of press, but it is mostly due to the status of Vick.  If some NFL start tortured and electrocuted a person, I can guarantee it would get 10 times the coverage as the current case.

Though I can see the logic in your argument, I guess I fall into the 'little l' category, too.

[Euclidean]

To say, "Govt. should do this, and not that" is a moral judgment. 

One could argue, I suppose, that any argument on what a person's "rights" are is a moral argument, but I believe that's stretching the meaning of moral.  Hobbes argued that rights come from a man's right to prevent his own violent death (of course humans have an inherent right to prevent their own violent death, otherwise we'd have gone extinct long ago) and others have echoed such arguments of rights from utility for quite some time.

It's true that I happen to think, just for example, that it is morally wrong to force someone to worship a can of beans.  However, that "right" to freedom of religion comes from utility: if the state can force you to worship the can of beans, it can force you to accept the bean worshiper's credo that you cannot eat beans, therefore you're more likely to starve to death, which is a threat to your life and a clear violation of your rights.  Not being allowed to eat a widely available foodstuff is a threat to your health.

I realize that's a ridiculous example, but I didn't wish to mention any specific religion lest I invoke the connotations of that faith.  Anyway, the point is that the law of unintended consequences means that the more government interference we have, the greater the possibility of infringement.  Just as sound mathematical theory can be applied to physical reality, we need to find sound political theory which has practical real world applications.

There's really nothing "moral" about that argument.  The fact that it can be used to validate some concepts I or another party may find to be "moral" is just happy coincidence.

Or, alternatively, we could simply view every law as its own moral statement which is forced on everyone while holding to the idea that it's wrong to force morals on others.  Even if we take that view, that simply means we just make the least restrictive set of such moral statements possible with the ultimate (unobtainable) goal of creating a government which can't force morals on its citizens.

As to the first, I don't this as being all that close.  Has PETA expressed this as a goal?  Have states passed any legislation in regards to this goal?  Has any court allowed a suit based on the food you are feeding your dog?  Animal cruelty laws have been on the books for over 100 years (and pre-date child protection laws) and have stayed mostly the same during that time.

As to the second, I realize this case has gotten a lot of press, but it is mostly due to the status of Vick.  If some NFL start tortured and electrocuted a person, I can guarantee it would get 10 times the coverage as the current case.

Though I can see the logic in your argument, I guess I fall into the 'little l' category, too:

I suppose the pure-Libertarian answer would be voluntary economic sanctions against those who practice animal torture and have sexual intercourse/incest with toddlers.  rolleyes  When pushed into a corner, you'll generally get some variant of the argument that governments have killed/abused more animals/children/people than individuals ever have. There's a certain harsh logic to that, but that does not make it acceptable to not have mechanisms to protect innocent animals and people either.

Well my PETA example wasn't meant to be taken so literally, I was just pointing out what could happen if we treat a dog as anything beyond a piece of property.  I personally don't find it that much of a stretch that such lawsuits could occur in an environment where there was too much legal leverage for it.  In fact, I believe that such a lawsuit could in fact even be successful if it were well funded and took place in a leftist jurisdiction (but I also believe a higher court would most likely reverse the decision in the end).

As for the animal cruelty laws on the books, the fact that you pointed out they predate children protection laws says it all.  Animal cruelty laws are a prime example of some people trying to force a question of pure morality on others, the fact that 100 years have passed without much change is immaterial, it's still wrong.  The Alien and Sedition act was/is wrong too; a bad law is a bad law regardless of how long it's been on the books.

It probably is about Vick and not the dogs, but I've seen in my life people incur massive penalties for hurting animals while also seeing people hurt other people and receive little or no penalty whatsoever. 

There are those who would imprison or tax me for my belief I have the right to eat meat, hunt, etc.  While these more radical initiatives have not gained much of a foothold yet, I personally find the idea that someone can force their moral beliefs about what's right when it comes to animals on me like that to be quite frightening, so the only solution is that no one's moral beliefs on the issue should be law.

There are already concrete examples of people who are being penalized in the US because the government is forcing someone else's morality concerning animals onto them.  I personally think it's absolutely insane you can be fined $100,000 or go to jail for 10 years for accidentally shooting the wrong bird, or defending yourself against a mountain lion.  I think it's absolutely nuts you can't control your own property just because the government thinks there might be an an endangered animal on it.  The animal cruelty law on the books has already given itself to the idea that animals are legal entities and are entitled to some kind of protection.

The only sensible and practical thing to do is acknowledge the (federal) government really doesn't have authority to do this anyway, and strike all these laws down.  So while my example may have been ridiculous and extreme in the current legal climate, I have some very real evidence I should be concerned that it could come to pass.

And in response to this which I believe is from the OP:

I suppose the pure-Libertarian answer would be voluntary economic sanctions against those who practice animal torture and have sexual intercourse/incest with toddlers.  rolleyes  When pushed into a corner, you'll generally get some variant of the argument that governments have killed/abused more animals/children/people than individuals ever have. There's a certain harsh logic to that, but that does not make it acceptable to not have mechanisms to protect innocent animals and people either.

One is an animal, one is a human with rights including the right to not be raped.  That is a tremendous difference.

For the record, I've been called "libertarian" before and I guess that describes my basic impulse, but I don't really consider myself a "Libertarian" either.  I think political candidates should run on their platform, not their party association, and in fact I resent party politics much as the Founders did.

[jeepmor]

governments have killed/abused more animals/children/people than individuals ever have

But the government does it in the name of science, not entertainment.  Primate research in Portland, OR area for example.   They do inflict great trauma on these beasts and then attempt to save them for the furthering of medical research.  Sometimes the animal makes it, sometimes it doesn't, they do it for science, not entertainment.  Nazi germany studies on jews, I'm not touching that, but they did conduct some tests that were enlightening in regards to medical research.  The ethics behind using their data is pretty touchy, too touchy for me to hope to argue for or against.  Morality argument is not my thing, physics and science are.

I love my dogs, but as stated, they are a possession.  I make this distinction because if my dog bites someone viciously, I do have the right to take said dog to the woods and put it down to prevent it from attacking again.  On the other hand, if the dog is hit by a car and I choose not to pursue it's rehabilitation for financial reasons or otherwise, I can again take it out in the woods and deal with it myself or have the dog put to sleep via veternary means.  Can't do any of that with a child or human, not near as easily, but there are extreme circumstances where the person would be allowed to perish naturally by pulling the plug.

However, should someone see me putting my dog down in such a fashion, using a gun for example, it would likely land me in the pokey with some stiff fines, scathing media coverage and a long lasting effect that would not bode well for me in my community.

As a dog lover, I can not fathom what Vick did to these animals as anything but inexcusable.  I am by no means a pitbull or agressive breed dog lover.   My nephew was bitten in the face by a rottweiler and now bears a scar that will likely last a lifetime.  The irresponsible owner did little to nothing to address the aggressive dog and the court system being what it is, it took nearly three years before the dog was put down.  And this did not take place until the dog bit another child and caused injury.  These laws come about due to social pressure.  If they did not exist, Mr. Vick would still be a world of hurt because his employer and the communities that support that system would make it a wise decision to take action against him or lose some football fans over it.  They would be guilty by association because no action would be taken as condoning of said activity.

All legalities aside, with Michael Vick participating is such activity, what would a social scientist conclude about him.  He would be put into the same ranks as Bundy in that the torturing of animals leads to, eventually, the torturing of humans.  Animal torture has long been an indicator of the path serial murder.  So, do we just stand by and wait or do we enact some laws to place some protection on the animals?  Is the law there to protect the animals, or is it there because we know this type of activity will eventually be turned on humans for the perpetrator of these activities will eventually grow bored of torturing animals and want to move up the food chain for more thrill?

There is some great debate on this thread, but I am by no means qualified to compete, just chime in on how I feel on the matter.

[Paddy]

Hi, Euclidean welcome to APS.     I have some questions.  First you said:

A dog, while it is a living creature which can feel physical and I believe even some rudimentary (but still strong) mental or emotional pain, has no role in the law beyond being someone's property.

followed by:

I believe that an animal is not sentient.

Sentient means having the power of perception by the senses; conscious;characterized by sensation and consciousness.  A dog definitely has the power or perception by the sense and is certainly conscious, it is not like a tree or a rock.  Did you mean 'self aware'?  Dogs are self aware, as well. They can distinguish between their own name, for example, and the name of another pet or person. 

It seems those two statements are in conflict.

In between you said:

I believe Vick did do something illegal by running an underground enterprise at the very least,

What do you mean by 'underground enterprise' and why is it illegal?  Do you mean something not sanctioned  or licensed by government?

That sounds cruel and heartless, but to have it any other way is just to open a can of worms.  After all if the dog has a legal right to life, can liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. be far behind?

The 'slippery slope' argument; kind of a reverse prior restraint, isn't it?  There are already different levels of legal (codified) 'rights.' Children do not have the same 'rights' adults do. Mentally infirm adults do not have some of the legal rights shared by able adults.
 

My private morality about animals is well below that of many others.   I believe that I have the right to destroy animals at will so long as the animal is not someone other entity's property.  However, I also believe that it's sick and depraved to kill or torture these creatures meaninglessly.  I believe if I do decide to kill an animal, it must be a meaningful death for a reason which I believe is sound and reasonable,

What is 'meaninglessly'?  What is 'meaningful'? What if someone else has a different definition or criteria or their threshold for 'sound and reasonable' is different than yours?

Should that be the law though?  Should I seek to make my personal beliefs about how to treat animals the law we must all follow?  No, I have no right to force you to think or feel or act a certain way about this issue.

If you are familiar with Thomas Hobbes' writings, you are familiar with his advocacy of the social contract, and you understand the concept of self interested cooperation.  No need to restate all that here.  You further understand the law arising from that social contract reflects the will and conscience of the governed.  If some activity is undesirable or offensive to the governed, there will likely come a law against it.

Your 'laissez faire' argument may be attractive (to some), but it is impractical under anything short of reversion to the state of nature, where anarchy and force rule.  That is the inevitable result when you have no standard other than individual opinion.

If I believe in my ideas so strongly, the only meaningful and morally defensible way to go about implementing them is to get others to see the merit in them, and adopt them voluntarily.  Sure, some people will never ever agree with me, but that's life.

I, for one, am completely unwilling to surrender to rule by force and shrug it off as 'that's life'.

That's why I feel Vick's cruelty to animals, as much as I personally abhor it, shouldn't be something that's against the law.

Equivocation?

While Vick may not necessarily deserve a criminal penalty, I believe the sanctions a private party can impose can be quite severe.

Either or.  No standard, no reflection of public conscience, just various individuals doing power according to their ability?
 

I don't believe that we can, or should, trust the government to deal with matters which are purely of right and wrong, where no other person has been victimized.

Again, social contract, representative government, of, by and for, and yet government is somehow an adversarial power?   I don't get it.

What Vick did is reprehensible, it truly is.

Reasonable men will agree with you.

The problem is though, that we are so upset about that, and yet so many are completely indifferent to the way people are just as badly mistreated, daily.

Which relates to Vick's depravity...........how?

It's true that some people are never going to be "good" (for whatever that means) no matter what happens, but ultimately, two wrongs don't make a right, and trying to shoehorn someone into your idea of "good" is morally indefensible.

Again, we have the social contract, reflecting the sensibilities of the governed.  That is not 'shoehorning', we are setting a standard.

[Euclidean]

It seems those two statements are in conflict.

Yes I meant "self aware", good catch.  A dog has awareness and some cognitive capability, obviously, but conscious thought seems to be completely absent.  I've yet to find the ruins of the great dog civilizations.

In between you said:

I believe Vick did do something illegal by running an underground enterprise at the very least,

What do you mean by 'underground enterprise' and why is it illegal?  Do you mean something not sanctioned  or licensed by government?

Well is it not illegal to run a business without appropriate regulations, taxpaying, permits, etc.?  I mean if I started a business and did all my work under the table but got caught by the IRS, wouldn't I face charges?

Note that I'm not saying it's necessarily right or proper that such would be the case, just that in the real world, would that not happen?

The 'slippery slope' argument; kind of a reverse prior restraint, isn't it?  There are already different levels of legal (codified) 'rights.' Children do not have the same 'rights' adults do. Mentally infirm adults do not have some of the legal rights shared by able adults.

True, but what does this have to do with animals?
 

What is 'meaninglessly'?  What is 'meaningful'? What if someone else has a different definition or criteria or their threshold for 'sound and reasonable' is different than yours?

Exactly!  You get it, that's why my thinking on the matter should not be the law, it's just my opinion.

If you are familiar with Thomas Hobbes' writings, you are familiar with his advocacy of the social contract, and you understand the concept of self interested cooperation.  No need to restate all that here.  You further understand the law arising from that social contract reflects the will and conscience of the governed.  If some activity is undesirable or offensive to the governed, there will likely come a law against it.

Hobbes is the Freud of political philosophy.  That is to say, both men were instrumental in their field to advancing it to higher degrees of thought and practice never previously obtained, but the beliefs and methodologies of both men, we now know, were nearly completely wrong.

That's not to say they weren't important or brilliant or that one shouldn't at least have a passing familiarity with either figure, but rather one must observe how they were the impetus for new thinking and new ideas that ultimately led to something which was far greater than their original work.  And at the core, they were both onto something.  Hobbes was onto something when he stated that every man has to prevent his own violent death.

However, we have advanced beyond Hobbes' work and found that while it was a sound working theory in Hobbes' time, the "social contract" is ultimately complete bunk.  David Hume wrote a paper in 1748 or so establishing an argument against it, and I'm quite partial to this quip from Roderick Long:

"I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But theyre assuming the very thing they're trying to prove  namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it  at least they haven't given me any argument that they do  and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over  but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You cant assume it as a means to proving it."

In other words, social contract theory assumes itself.  Therefore any argument based on the social contract idea is not sound.

Social contract political philosophy is kind of like the Bohr model for an atom.  It's a useful starting point for understanding how it all works, but a serious adherent to advanced thinking ultimately realizes its flaws and discards it.

Your 'laissez faire' argument may be attractive (to some), but it is impractical under anything short of reversion to the state of nature, where anarchy and force rule.  That is the inevitable result when you have no standard other than individual opinion.

But you are assuming that everyone will have a completely, radically, different opinion.  Now to some degree, you are naturally correct that there will be all sorts of opinions.  I have often quipped that I could get 200,000 Americans to agree to any statement if I but had the media and polling resources.

However, I don't see that as being the case.  American history is as much consensus as it is conflict.  And I believe in the power of good old fashioned greed.  As long as there is a sizable moral minority with any sort of economic power, the bulk of society will attempt to placate it.

Don't believe me?  I'm working for a major retailer right now, and they are trying to appeal to blacks because as 11% or so of the population, they have considerable buying power.  As a result everything this company does is tuned to not offend or discriminate against people of any color, and it honestly has nothing to do with it being right, it's about greed.  If we can get one in five people to be so decent as to think that there's at least a problem with making dogs fight each other, we're fine.  I'm pretty cynical of human nature, and even I think that's easily done.

I, for one, am completely unwilling to surrender to rule by force and shrug it off as 'that's life'.

Innocent and free men cannot be ruled by force, only criminals can be ruled by force.  I for one rather resent that the only reason I pay taxes for things I don't believe in is because if I don't, I'll be shot or imprisoned by agents of the state.  Is that okay with you, that I pay money to support things I vehemently oppose because of the threat of violence?

Either or.  No standard, no reflection of public conscience, just various individuals doing power according to their ability?

And why not?  If you think Big Tobacco is evil, don't buy tobacco.  If you think that what Vick did was wrong, boycott his team/games.  That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 

Again, social contract, representative government, of, by and for, and yet government is somehow an adversarial power?   I don't get it.

There is no social contract.  And we don't have a truly representative government, we've been conned into thinking we're a democracy.  The laws on the books that say things like it's illegal to own a machine gun made after 1986 doesn't reflect me or my beliefs at all.  How is that a representative government?

Which relates to Vick's depravity...........how?

It doesn't, I just wanted to make the point and observe that I think it's messed up to be so concerned about animals but now show the same concern for people.  For whatever that's worth.

Again, we have the social contract, reflecting the sensibilities of the governed.  That is not 'shoehorning', we are setting a standard.

But again the social contract is a nonstarter, and the government doesn't reflect my sensibilities at all in some ways, that doesn't represent me.  I set my own standards and find right and wrong in a power well above some corrupt and ineffectual government.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that one problem with all this yak about libertarianism and rights is symptomatic of modern US society:  Folks worry about rights without thinking about responsibilities.

The responsibility thing is why I say that libertarianism will never work:  It requires that a significant majority of all people assume personal responsibility for decisions and actions.  Nope; no way.  Won't happen.

So, my view:  Dogs, or "dawgs", on their own don't get into serious fights of their own volition.  Bluff; territorial stuff, yeah, but not normally to the death.  To train a dog into killing-style fighting is wilfully cruel.  Irresponsible immaturity on the part of a human.

Your dog likes to ride in the bed of the pickup?  Yeah, your right to allow it.  But your responsibility to drive in a manner such that the dog is unlikely to be tossed out.  And if for some reason he does exit the truck--voluntarily or otherwise--it is your responsibility to either pay the vet bill or kill the dog as humanely as possible.

I dunno.  To me, for every right there is at least one responsiblity.  One right I often wish folks would excercise more is the right to shut up.

Art

[Euclidean]

Seems to me that one problem with all this yak about libertarianism and rights is symptomatic of modern US society:  Folks worry about rights without thinking about responsibilities.

The responsibility thing is why I say that libertarianism will never work:  It requires that a significant majority of all people assume personal responsibility for decisions and actions.  Nope; no way.  Won't happen.

I agree and disagree.

I agree that human nature doesn't always lend itself to what we'd like it to be, if that makes any sense.  People do have a tendency to do  what's convenient.  I'm not saying it's necessarily good, or bad, or indifferent, but rather that's just how it is.

And to some degree, we all have to live that way, it's a survival tactic.  I think it's terrible that people in Africa are starving.  But there's also a million other problems which are far more immediate and much more personal at the moment, so I let it go, even though one could argue I should be weeping and gnashing my teeth.

It's for that reason that there will always be some people who will never get with the program.  However, I submit that the way things are right now, we actually encourage that kind of behavior.  Don't want to work?  Here's your welfare check.

I disagree that it would never work.  For a very long time in history society managed to grow or at least not collapse under a much smaller government than we have now.  Jefferson ran the federal government with the aid of five scribes.

There only has to be a responsible minority, much like there is now.  If anything, our current system greatly exaggerates the burden of this responsible minority.  Most people get WIC or food stamps or Social Security payments and stay at home all day.  I go to work and pay for their WIC, food stamps, and Social Security, and lo and behold, the minority takes care of the majority.

In a less restrictive environment, a trend will emerge.  People who aren't responsible, who don't have a big government to support their enterprise, will ultimately fail to amount to anything.  People who do try may not become as rich or powerful as they'd like, but they'll tend to get ahead of those who don't.  We do see this trend now because to a limited degree we have a free market, but we fail to fully embrace the power of a free market so the effect is lessened.

But I ramble; the point is that the majority of people may be irresponsible but it doesn't matter, because an irresponsible person who doesn't receive public welfare will not have any resources.  It's like I said earlier, there just has to be a sizable minority, and the bulk of the populace will be motivated to placate it.

[Paddy]

Seems to me that one problem with all this yak about libertarianism and rights is symptomatic of modern US society:  Folks worry about rights without thinking about responsibilities.

 

Gotta love straight talk that cuts through the BS and goes right to the bottom line.

[Euclidean]

Without the freedom to do the right thing, no one can act responsibly.  A restriction on one's rights precludes any possibility of responsibility.

[BrokenPaw]

They don't.  To have a right infers that you are also able to accept responsibility for acting under said right.

By this standard, the unborn, babies, children, the mentally handicapped, and the mentally ill have no rights either.  I imagine that's not what you actually mean to imply.

Animals have no rights for the simple reason they have no innate knowledge of right and wrong.  They act under instinct and are unable to rationalize any other behavior.

Perhaps you have not spent much time observing animals, if you believe they do not have (or cannot develop) a sense of right and wrong. 

Children do not have an innate knowledge of right and wrong, either.  It is inculcated (hopefully) by the parents.  To suggest that a knowledge of right and wrong is a requisite for the possession of rights once again excludes the classes I have mentioned above from those who have "rights".

Further, the simple fact that we cannot communicate with certain types of creatures has long been used as a sweeping basis for all manner of disregard for their abilities and sensitivities.  Yet animals as "simple" as crows have been shown to have not only awareness of their surroundings, but also of the skills of active problem-solving, tool-creation, and tool-use.

It is arrogance to assume that simply because we have not yet figured out how to understand the minds of other creatures, that they have none.  I am not suggesting that, given only a paw-friendly typewriter, a dog could write lucid poetry.  But animals, in their own way, have intellects suitable to what they do and how they live.  They are capable of feeling pain and suffering, and to gratuitously cause those things upon a creature that is aware of them is morally wrong.

-BP