/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.

>>657
you miss the point.

why the fuck are we giving a damn about the welfare of the other sex, let alone other races, let alone oyher species?

i think things would be better if white men just focused on maximizing happiness for themselves, and disregarded the suffering of others (except insofar as it impacts their own happiness).

the nap should not apply to other species, it should no apply to other races, it should not apply to females, and it should not apply to males who are at life stages where they cannot produce any viable sperm for sexual reproduction (little boys and old geezers).

only biologically adult white males should have rights. the laws of the nap must be for them and for them exclusively.

not caring about animals is nigger behavior, off yourselves immediately spineless liberals

>>870
retard

>>870
>>>/fascist/

Reminds me of the faschizo from months ago who tried to say libertarianism needed to include imperialism and also said the same things about what people the NAP applies to. Why do these schizos attach themselves to anarcho-capitalism when they don't believe in its tenets?

>>871
Animals shouldn't be treated the same as humans and be given the same legal rights and protections. That's absurdity.

Actual conversations:
>What's a libertarian's position on nuclear weapons?
>On tarriffs?
>On Big Tech Censorship
>etc.
What we actually get:
>How would the NAP deal with animal abusers?
THIS DOESN'T MATTER!

>>871
say what you want about nogs and kikes, they are far more successful today than whites are, especially when it comes to their status in white countries.

i think white people have been living under a culture produced by niggera and jews for so long that they have forgotten what a white morality or culture would even look like.

i look back through european history and i do not see them acting like white people should according to the users that compare the behavior of whites to those of other races.

i see them fucking and killing animals in torturous ways, i see them marrying children and having sex with them, i see them utterly annihilating their enemies; men, women, and children also.

i think that centuries under the cultural influence of yids has left whites internalizing a slave morality as being the true state of their race, whites are like a domesticated species that has difficulty fully grasping how they should act upon finding their freedom.

>>884
>THIS DOESN'T MATTER!
People get emotionally attached to animals. If niggers are going around setting fire to cats for fun we need a better answer than "not your cat, not your business".

>>883
Browns shouldn't be treated the same as Whites and be given the same legal rights and protections. That's absurdity.

>>915
It would be the responsibility of whoever the nigger belonged to.

Only white male adults should be covered under the NAP, everything besides adult white males should be considered as having the same legal status as a stone.

It can be claimed as property by any human being with a y-chromosome and does not have black or brown colored skin, eyes, or hair, who has sperm capable of sexual reproduction with an egg from a genetically compatible female.

Such an individual can consent to whatever he likes being done with it so long as it does not violate the nap with regard to the person/body or property/belongings of another individual.

>>927
kys faschizo

How would the NAP be enforced?

>>927
I can't tell if trolling or retarded

>>976
>How would the NAP be enforced?
By you. Only you are responsible for defending yourself and your property. If you can't do it alone then ask friends for help. If friends aren't enough then pay professionals to help.

One way security could work without a state is through insurance companies. A nigger steals your car. The insurance company pays you the money. If they still want to make a profit they now have an incentive to track down the nigger and get either the car or the money back from him.

But the most profitable thing for insurance companies would be if there was no crime at all. So they will do the math and figure out the optimal amount of preventative crimefighting to do to maximize profits. That's an example of how market forces can be used to give everyone the right incentives.

>>980
fucking retard

>>980
you tracking down a nigger and using violence to get your car back is violating the NAP. The NAP is the most jewish concept I have ever heard in my life. Libertarians are cucks until they abandon this part of their ideology. Also in a truly libertarian society you would be steam rolled by jews so you'd have to be prepared to fight back to remain free, at all times, cause kikes are constantly scheming. So how does the NAP fit into that fucking faggot? 

Not to mention a libertarian society wouldn't work anyway with non whites.