/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

>>629 (OP) 
Well, Rothbard didn't think animals have rights. But if they do have rights, then it follows logically that one would be allowed to go to a slaughterhouse and stop the whole thing, stop anyone from buying meat in a supermarket... troublesome, as you can see. I've been browsing the vegan subreddit, and this problem emerges in a lot of threads, with some people saying stuff along the lines of "veganism is a personal choice, you can't force people to stop eating animal products blah blah" and some people immediately responding with "it's not a personal choice to take the animal's life"... which is honestly a good argument to such a weak statement.
I have to say that some vegan thinking can lead to unpeaceful thoughts. It's not absolutely not a necessary part of veganism, but you'll see a lot of misanthropy in vegan circles. Some vegans claim to not want to have children in order to avoid creating potential abusers. It can mess with your thinking and daily life, you will no longer go do the groceries as carefree and peacefully as you did before. With environmentalism it's even worse I think. Environmentalism taken to its logical conclusion honestly leads to high skepticism of human development, high misanthropy in general. Personally I've recently stopped eating meat, and if it's true that eating meat is wrong, then I'm afraid I will no longer be able to enjoy sushi, salami, and other seafood ever again.
Anyways, in a libertarian society animals really wouldn't have rights. The privatization of animals would probably lead to both some protection (no tragedy of the commons) but also continued slaughtering. An advantage is that there wouldn't be governments banning lab-made meat, so way less animal abuse.

>how do we deal with people who torture cats and dogs?
<we don't
LMAO

Ancap_Patrol.png
[Hide] (1.2MB, 2847x1737)

just came across this pic and it's kinda funny that dogs would support an ideology that holds they don't have rights... thought the same thing the other day when I saw a pic of a guy attaching an ancap badge to his dog

>>631
>But if they do have rights, then it follows logically that one would be allowed to go to a slaughterhouse and stop the whole thing, stop anyone from buying meat in a supermarket... 
That's not right at all. The NAP is about defending your property or helping somebody who has asked for help. It's not a license to put on a superman cape and start fucking around in other people's affairs.

>Well, Rothbard didn't think animals have rights.
More specifically he said animals can have rights when they ask for them. 

>>632
>>how do we deal with people who torture cats and dogs?
><we don't
All he said was that animals are not covered by the NAP. That means you can't shoot somebody who is abusing a random animal just because it makes you upset or whatever. That's actually the law now to be frank. And it's not like animal charities will just disappear without the state either. The fact that they exist without state subsidies is proof of how much people care about animals to begin with.

>>633
>it's kinda funny that dogs would support an ideology that holds they don't have rights
You understand that dogs don't have the mental capacity to "support" any kind of abstract idea. I'm sure there are commies who put marxist paraphernalia on their pets too. It's the same as putting a bumper sticker on your car.

Not an overt libertarian but what I'd do is I'd have a statist law that says: "You must put an animal ~even your own animal~ down humanely. Then I'd pay third-party insurance to the securior to enforce it. You start killing animals in a Chinese way? Then I'd send in my own firm to come and take the others from you. Don't like it? Take me to court for it.

Best I can do btw still not a lib.

3d51153e71ccda7c0660fb2de27214ee15dd9a57f9e62191dbb1c576692939a8.png
[Hide] (215.9KB, 640x570)

>>634
>More specifically he said animals can have rights when they ask for them.