How can libertarians justify eating meat?MOD WARNING

I don't understand how the libertarians who base their system off of the 'non-aggression principle' can justify eating meat - as it involves the use of force against non-violent entity, as well as slavery (ex. raising animals just for food against their will).

Not to mention, humans are technically just another species of animal - what really is the difference between killing an animal for food, and Jeffery Dahmer killing a person and eating their corpse?

To me veganism is the only logical conclusion of a libertarian/non-aggression perspective. Anything else is hypocritical, and a form of totalitarianism/supremacism against non-human animals. Plus since some libertarians like to use the slippery slope - then I guess it's possible that allowing non-human animals to be used for food could eventually lead to humans being rounded up and made into meat, and sold and packaged in Wal-Mart - so the only safe option is to eliminate meat eating entirely from society.

LET'S STOP THE INSULTS HERE!!

 

So since you equate humans and animals are you suggesting that non-libertarians are in line with their beliefs when eating meat because they support slavery?

 

Humans are a species of animal technically.

They're more consistent in their beliefs than libertarians, yes - or at least those who pretend not to support 'slavery' but openly practice it by eating meat.

 

.The vegetarians are insane.

 

Why is not supporting aggression and slavery against non-violent entities against their will insane? What's the difference between Jeffery Dahmer and someone who eats meat anyway - other than that some totalitarians just decided that any animals other than humans have no 'natural rights'?

 

Don't understand how this is logical. Libertarians believe that the chief reason for government is to protect people from each other. Not sure how you can derive that it should really mean to protect all animals from each other, and if you do use that leap in logic, than the next inevitable leap in logic is that they can't eat plants either. I have never heard a libertarian argue that animals are anything more than property. And property can be consumed by it's owner.

- - - Updated - - -

Almost no animals eat members of their own species under normal conditions.

 

Humans, animals and vegetables are living things. Why do you eat vegetables?

 

Negros were once considered property too - so if a libertarian were to deny Negros human rights by labeling them as 'property' - that wouldn't be hypocritical?

That's not the point - killing animals for food is still an act of aggression against a living entity, which has awareness and can feel pain, so how does that jive with the non-aggression principle?

- - - Updated - - -

Vegetables don't a brain or the capacity to experience pain.

 

The criteria is the nature. the evolution builds our bodies for eat meat, so is right do it.

 

Evolution doesn't train people to have regard for 'natural rights' - from a pure survival of the fittest perspective, there's nothing wrong with harming or stealing from a person if it benefits one's own survival either.

 

Like a cow under painkiller. If the criteria is the pain.

 

The act of administering the painkiller is an act of aggression

By that standard then, if a person 'can't feel pain' why not kill them?

Bottom line is, vegans are more consistent with the non-aggression principle than run-off-the mill non-vegan libertarians. Because they apply it to all species, not just one species (humans).

 

Not really. There is no doubt that animals are not our species.

I've never heard of a libertarian non-aggression principle. The only thing I've heard libertarians claim is that the only reason for government is to protect our rights against others. Animals have no rights.

But they are living things nonetheless. What an arbitrary decision for you to make that brains make the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

There are arguments that say that altruism evolved, and is a human trait.

- - - Updated - - -

But even they arbitrarily choose animals over plants and fungi. Man, what kingdomists they are.

 

Why should we self limit our food sources when other animals do not? If a cow or other animal does not wish to be eaten they should stop us, if they cannot then they are just another resource such as wood or water. Being a living creature does not give it the right to survive.

 

You confer the natural rights using the ability to expericence pain, i use the belonging at the human race. Both of them are subjective criterias. Who are right?

 

Good question what confers something rights?

 

I was just pointing out that the non-aggression principle isn't as 100% consistent as it's made out to be, since it only applies to one of 10s of 1000s of species (humans).

- - - Updated - - -

So might makes right? If someone believes they're taxed unjustly, then let them stop it themselves, right?

 

You first, then I would be happy to answer your questions. It would not be much of a debate if we just kept answering questions with questions.

Why should we self limit our food sources when other animals do not? What gives them rights?

 

Other species pillage and loot from other animals against their will - a shark doesn't have any regards for others' 'property' or 'rights' when it eats other fish - but Libertarians claim this violates the non-aggression principle

 

Might does make right in nature which we are a part of. The law of the jungle if you will. Libertarian thought only applies to human society which animals are not a part of unless they are chattle..

 

Wild animals know their lot in life.
Eat or be eaten.
As for Libertarians claim this violates the non-aggression principle, where did you get that from?
The libertarian non-aggression principle applies to man not animals, fruits and vegetables.

 

Voluntarism and libertarianism generally focus on human rights, not animal rights.

Both groups vary widely as individuals when it comes to animal rights, just as they do concerning abortion.

 

Cows are not animals. They are food. Meat is natural for humans to eat. We have canines for a reason.

 

So did negros on plantation

They don't "claim" it does, they ignore the fact that it does - pay attention

Just as it once applied to man, not negros.

- - - Updated - - -

And negros aren't people, what's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

If there's wide variation then there's not nearly as much consistence as there's claimed to be, that's the point.

 

Wow dude. That is pretty racist. Not even people? Good god man.