/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

>>323 (OP) 
Epic science bro! But the Bible says only humans are capable of blind acts of kindness, i.e. prepared to die for you without being cultured/trained to do so (such as a dog/horse), therefore "accept no compulsion" applies only to humans and not to inanimate objects or even to intelligent companion animals.

Also I'm not sure I even agree with libertarianism, not just because it's naive and can't compete with the NWO capitalism-socialism chimaera for example on economic funnelling terms to the fattest of society (where it's from +50 years prior/out of date/has lost out), but because of the basic fact of human organization, even in the smallest kind of tribal example a man must not merely "opt-in" to keeping the fire but accept the compulsion that somebody i.e. him *must* do so. So either "true libertarianism has never been tried", or it doesn't work. Or rather; "works better than some others, but works worse than some different others" to the degree it's been beat.

It's a nice ideal it really is. But it must be sustained and real and be able to outmaneuver the evil demi-god class that have gamed the system to hell since.

You need to make it economically superior to/have better immunity from the money-hoarding feudal serfdom system we have now (again).

>>323 (OP) 
>why should we apply the NAP only to humans?
In the words of Rothbard: animals can have rights when they ask for them.

In short the NAP only applies to humans because only humans have reason. Animals don't have the cognitive capacity to understand values and ethical principles. You're just smelling your own farts by "applying the NAP" to your cat who will literally eat your flesh hours after you die alone in your house.

>>323 (OP) 
I unsarcastically feel bad about killing bugs, bacteria and other microscopic living beings everyday

>>343
Ya gonna cry crybaby?

>>323 (OP) 
>>343
Sadly this is a world where living beings necessarily have to kill other living beings to survive, even without knowing it or realizing it. Non-animal living beings do this too. Non-living things or matter (including atoms) don't have any form of will or consciousness, so I think it's impossible to act either ethically or unethically towards them.
Even if we did go full vegetarian, what would justify this preference of animals over other living beings? Besides, if it's true that other animals, like cows, kill other microscopical living beings (or even just plants) to survive, what would justify vegetarianism?

>>326
I don't see why being able to argue or reason is relevant to determine rights.

>>324
>the Bible says
KILL! KILL! KILL!

Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.


Leviticus
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

0bb610a21c2ddf8d11f1161e0fe4bab4c1402e22f39f9d6c3a34d4bbc43f66a0.jpg
[Hide] (99.3KB, 1170x980)

>>350
veganism (not necessarily vegetarianism) also has this problem to deal with... by plowing the field, a vegan is basically denying the existence of some smaller animals like bugs (ignoring other non-animal living beings as well). How to solve this contradiction?

>>350
>I don't see why being able to argue or reason is relevant to determine rights.
It's the only secular explanation for why humans are special. Even the smartest gorillas that can be trained to use sign language are still utterly incapable of asking questions or engaging in any other kind of abstract thought.

>>360
The reason for these frameworks, however primitive they were for the times they were in, established in trial after bloody trial what the correct and "best for you" way to live was along with the rationale for why it is so, Christ being necessary after all.

What I'd given you there was some of that rationale. You will know whether that rationale is valid or not, independent of one's theology for that matter, if you test it against alternate ideas and alternate theories or rationale and see which ones function as they are supposed to.

With mine and in what I gave you, it logically follows. Whereas the "animals should have personhood status ~ they are equivalent/have as much rights as man" argument made by modern law or modern lefty liberals will not logically and consistently "follow" when a lion mauls their offspring and their response is not "I'm glad that lions have the right to be lions".

>>360
Also props to the Blood Brothers - Papa Roach

>>361
It is true that smaller animals and other living beings die during crop production, but by far the vast majority of crop is fed to livestock. Only a smaller portion is directed towards human consumption. So, almost paradoxically, being on a vegan / plant-based diet leads to way fewer deaths of not only bugs, mice, and other small animals, but also plants as well.