DestinFlPackfan Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 37 minutes ago, retrofade said: It's a really interesting question, especially given how much the Non-Aggression Principle is ingrained into true libertarianism. However, the NAP fails to truly apply in all situations. If we were take the NAP to it's logical end, we would end up in a state of complete anarchy, therefore there must be some reasonable limitations in place. We also must recognize that while the NAP needs to have reasonable limitations, there also need to be reasonable limitations on how we treat animals, treat each other, and be able to interact in a civil society without it breaking down into anarchy. I come down on the side that we shouldn't be needlessly cruel to animals, as per the NAP, but I also believe that raising animals for food is essential to modern society, both from a sustenance and "pleasure" perspective. I personally choose to purchase my beef from a local butchers market, even though I have to drive 30 minutes to get there, but I know the animals they use pasture fed meat and not treated like this: I choose to purchase organic hormone free range chicken, cage free eggs, and milk. It's not that I believe the term "organic" as a savior for anything, but because I've found that those items taste better, and fit in with my beliefs in the NAP. It costs more money, but I believe it to be more humane, and more healthy for myself and for my family. That all being said, you can make an argument for complete veganism in a strict interpretation of the NAP. I don't begrudge libertarians or others that choose to walk that road; but I am not one of them. The difficult part of the question comes up when we consider government regulations as it relates to animal cruelty. I don't personally have a "right" answer, but I also don't think that any of us truly have the right answer, because "right" can be nebulous in this sort of situation. I agree wholeheartedly with trying to buy 'food stuffs that are grown or raised ' humanely or organically. But, at the end of the day when I'm hungry I will eat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonkee Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 4 hours ago, bluerules009 said: I believe you get what's coming to you. Look at yourself as an example. Why, because your a city person that is so far from reality you don't even understand the effects of your actions. The car you own destroyed more wildlife then a whole herd of lions. You are worried about meat intake because you are just barely smart enough to understand it comes from an animal. What about all the animals killed for your electricity needs moron? What about all the animals killed for your housing needs? What about all the animals killed for the roads you drive on? What about all the animals that died to provide you clothing? You are so out of touch like most city idiots, you are clueless about the world and your effects on it. Libertarianism like any government model is not going to make people respect animals. Authoritarianism would seem to be your answer but in practice it doesn't work either. 6 hours ago, Joe from WY said: No. It's just a means for the weak masses to control the strong. I can't even anymore. Time to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonkee Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, retrofade said: It's a really interesting question, especially given how much the Non-Aggression Principle is ingrained into true libertarianism. However, the NAP fails to truly apply in all situations. If we were take the NAP to it's logical end, we would end up in a state of complete anarchy, therefore there must be some reasonable limitations in place. We also must recognize that while the NAP needs to have reasonable limitations, there also need to be reasonable limitations on how we treat animals, treat each other, and be able to interact in a civil society without it breaking down into anarchy. I come down on the side that we shouldn't be needlessly cruel to animals, as per the NAP, but I also believe that raising animals for food is essential to modern society, both from a sustenance and "pleasure" perspective. I personally choose to purchase my beef from a local butchers market, even though I have to drive 30 minutes to get there, but I know the animals they use pasture fed meat and not treated like this: I choose to purchase organic hormone free range chicken, cage free eggs, and milk. It's not that I believe the term "organic" as a savior for anything, but because I've found that those items taste better, and fit in with my beliefs in the NAP. It costs more money, but I believe it to be more humane, and more healthy for myself and for my family. That all being said, you can make an argument for complete veganism in a strict interpretation of the NAP. I don't begrudge libertarians or others that choose to walk that road; but I am not one of them. The difficult part of the question comes up when we consider government regulations as it relates to animal cruelty. I don't personally have a "right" answer, but I also don't think that any of us truly have the right answer, because "right" can be nebulous in this sort of situation. To your points, we likely will never be able to do it all perfectly, but being closer to that goal is better than being further away from it. Of course humankind lives at the expense of other organisms, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce that expense, and less suffering is better than more suffering. This idea, to some however, appears to be of lesser value than being able to call someone a hypocrite, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph90702 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Tyson chicken tastes gross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 3 hours ago, toonkee said: To your points, we likely will never be able to do it all perfectly, but being closer to that goal is better than being further away from it. Of course humankind lives at the expense of other organisms, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce that expense, and less suffering is better than more suffering. This idea, to some however, appears to be of lesser value than being able to call someone a hypocrite, though. The food you eat is the least damage you do to the environment and the least cruelty causing action. When they plow under habitat for a field or clear ground for your housing that is damaging and cruel and permanent. The Los Angeles area had bears and elk and all that goes along with that. It was one of the most diverse and plentiful location for wildlife on this continent. All permanently destroyed for just one example. These little food issues are ridiculous and petty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVGiant Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 5 hours ago, bluerules009 said: I believe you get what's coming to you. Look at yourself as an example. My life is pretty awesome. So thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, NVGiant said: My life is pretty awesome. So thanks! You prove everyday that ignorance is bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVGiant Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Just now, bluerules009 said: You prove everyday that ignorance is bliss You got anything more than cliches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, NVGiant said: You got anything more than cliches? It is what it is. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 8 hours ago, Joe from WY said: Not really. We're animals. Just as the lion is. We just give ourselves more of a facade of "ethics" we try to justify ourselves as being above the fray with. Seems like you are arguing against your profession. Also science, as ethics is an inherited concept. Societies with ethics are more successful than those without. As bsutop25 said, the market corrects itself Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWestCowboy Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 As a lifelong cattle and hog owner I obviously have no qualms with raising animals for human consumption. That said I know from first hand experience what goes on in American feedlots and I find it repulsive. In my opinion its inhumane and certainly not healthy for the animals or consumers. I am fortunate to have an acreage where my house sits and the knowhow to raise and butcher my own meat. I raise beef and pork for myself and 4 other families. I hate raising chickens and milking cows so I get my poultry meat, eggs and milk from one of the families I sell beef and pork to. Like me they raise their animals unconfined and on natural diets. We don't produce organically by any means as the animals we raise are given antibiotics if and when they are needed to treat real illnesses. The animals I raise are of course fenced in but not closely confined, not fed diets of feedstuffs not naturally consumed by the animals for the purpose of maximum weight gain or injected with antibiotics and steroids again to maximize weight gain. All this said since I know very few in our society have the resources, time or knowhow to do this its not my place to tell them what they should and shouldn't put into their mouths. One of the primary reasons America has been so successful is due to agricultural mechanization, the green revolution and yes mass feedlot, dairy, poultry and hog confinement operations. These have all allowed generation after generation of Americans to leave the farm/ranch in pursuit of other occupations without fear of having enough food on their plates. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smltwnrckr Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I think most libertarians would argue that you shouldn't kick dogs because it makes you a bad person, but that a Bureau or Keeping People From Kicking Dogs would make criminals out of a lot of people who are not criminals while doing very little to prevent the kicking of dogs. 3 Quote Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 20 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said: I think most libertarians would argue that you shouldn't kick dogs because it makes you a bad person, but that a Bureau or Keeping People From Kicking Dogs would make criminals out of a lot of people who are not criminals while doing very little to prevent the kicking of dogs. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 23 hours ago, NVGiant said: If you don't believe in hell, your hope doesn't mean dick, right? But dick is real, and you can hope for that, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said: You disagreed with me once so you must be GAY!!!!!!! Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, happycamper said: Shouldn't be surprised that a guy that's into fake news to make his point is also into fake posts to do the same. Yay!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
