animal "rights"
this is the only post i expect will be less popular than the military posts. that's unpopular! the subject is animal rights. you may be able to guess already that the idea of animal rights will be diminished here, but i urge the reader to check emotion at the door and hear the argument through based on logical merit.
there are no such things as inter-species rights. much of the confusion on this issue is due to the fact that very few people understand what "rights" are in the first place.
the only rights that exist are those between two or more individuals of the same species based on property. all animals have different levels of natural property. some are individualists, like squirrels. some are communists, like bees or ants. the fact that animals are different, genetically, practically insures that they will not have the same natural property propensity as any other. therefore, they will never be able to agree on the exact definition of what rights are and what they aren't, even if they have a thorough understanding of the concept of property. bees, who have no recognition of property, are incompatible on the basis of rights with squirrels, who have a strong proclivity for property. because animals can never know what the "level of property proclivity" is for any other species, there can never be an inter-species standard of rights.
animal rights activists will use the idea that animals have rights to use force through government dictate to stop people from "abusing" animals. animal abuse is, in my opinion, abhorrent, but it is also a vague term, likely to be defined differently by any observer. allowing government to initiate force upon people for animal abuse is wrong in two ways: 1) animals are the legitimate property of others and they have right to treat them as they see fit. 2) once laws are enacted against animal abuse, they can be manipulated to the most ridiculous extremes without recourse.
The key is that rights are the entitlement to one's property, which is any material asset acquired without the initiation of force, including one's own body. All humans, being human, have the same rights, because we all have the same natural relationship to property. That can't be said of humans compared to other species.
there are no such things as inter-species rights. much of the confusion on this issue is due to the fact that very few people understand what "rights" are in the first place.
the only rights that exist are those between two or more individuals of the same species based on property. all animals have different levels of natural property. some are individualists, like squirrels. some are communists, like bees or ants. the fact that animals are different, genetically, practically insures that they will not have the same natural property propensity as any other. therefore, they will never be able to agree on the exact definition of what rights are and what they aren't, even if they have a thorough understanding of the concept of property. bees, who have no recognition of property, are incompatible on the basis of rights with squirrels, who have a strong proclivity for property. because animals can never know what the "level of property proclivity" is for any other species, there can never be an inter-species standard of rights.
animal rights activists will use the idea that animals have rights to use force through government dictate to stop people from "abusing" animals. animal abuse is, in my opinion, abhorrent, but it is also a vague term, likely to be defined differently by any observer. allowing government to initiate force upon people for animal abuse is wrong in two ways: 1) animals are the legitimate property of others and they have right to treat them as they see fit. 2) once laws are enacted against animal abuse, they can be manipulated to the most ridiculous extremes without recourse.
The key is that rights are the entitlement to one's property, which is any material asset acquired without the initiation of force, including one's own body. All humans, being human, have the same rights, because we all have the same natural relationship to property. That can't be said of humans compared to other species.
Comments
Would you say the proper way to deal with offenders is to alert the public and have them ostracized? For example, to have sex offenders register after the crime has been committed? Or provide an online website like familywatchdog.us? Both are examples of ostracizing and demonizing which claims to give knowledge to the public but also creates panic and fear. However, The usual ploy of a parent or guardian (offender) when being called out on something is to pick up and move and move again. I've seen it too many times to count. It's a continuous cycle. Ostracizing and demonizing may be useful, but it is ambiguous and only a lateral shift.
in any case where a person's rights are violated, there is claim against the property of the offender. in other words, there is a justification for the use of force against the offender, because he has initiated force against his victim.
this post argues that there are no inter-species rights, but that argument is made in support of rights between humans, which, of course, includes children.
rights are purely intraspecies. humans cannot initiate force against other humans. i'm not sure that rights of property work the same way or at all with non-human animals, but humans need not worry about that.
rights, as we know them, are a purely human phenomenon and can only be ascribed to humans.