Welcome to Gaia! ::

I, personally, define "Human" as any species that shows a level of intellect at, near, or above our own - scientists will likely eventually create a species capable of advanced thought, and it would be completely inexcusable to subjugate them.

However, in the world of facts and the present, I have to say that animals are deserving of a level of respect - Don't kill what you won't eat it (We have video games for that), never torture (If that's your thing, go here -> http://bondage.com/ ), etc...

Basicly, people should avoid being male high school students.



So your sister is your mother, your cousin is your girl, and your father likes to be called "Great-Grandpappy"?

This is a subject I could talk for hours about! I am a vegetarian. No, I am not a vegan. I draw a VERY distinct line between myself and them. I do not believe in killing animals because I do believe that they have souls. If the animal has enough of a brain capacity to feel pain, it should not have to feel it. (That's a strange almost oxymoron. Cool!) I believe in the right of all living things to live, which is why I am not a vegan. I think they're nuts! I don't have a problem eating eggs because the unfertilized egg has no soul. It can't even be classified as dead because it was never in a state that I would ever classify as alive. You must be alive to be dead (another oxymoron). And, though I don't like how they're treated, cows being milked does not kill the cow so I have no problem with it. I have a problem with them being pumped full of chemicals, but there's nothing I can do about that. MMMMmmmmm... I love a good paradox right before bed.

well when it comes to farm animals, most vegans choose not to eat the products from them as well, because an enviromental aspect comes into play, pastures have a larger land:food ratio than fields, so it leads to increased slash n burn in south america.

its very mutually inclusive to be both vegan, enviromentalist and pro-reform, so it often becomes stereotypical of hippies *cough* i mean liberals. =) I have respect for Nader to see the similarities and try to get endorsements from all the major non-Democrat liberal parties.

I quite like that point of view.

I don't think anyone on here believes that torturing animals is right, (I, for one, love animals and have several pets, and I would never dream of torturing an animal,) but the question I have is this:

Let's say Al is out for a walk. Al sees Bob torturing his dog. (Note: Bob rightfully owns the dog, having purchased it from a local pet store.) Does Al have the right to initiate force against Bob in order to stop Bob from torturing the dog? (Note: replace "Al" with "the government" and repeat the question.)

That's what it really comes down to. It's a difficult question, but ultimately, are the rights of the dog more important than the rights of the human?

My answer is NO. And no matter how much I hate people who torture animals, I believe it is morally wrong to initiate force against humans.

Does that mean that dog-torturers will go unpunished in a libertarian society? Hell no! Just because you can't initiate force against someone doesn't mean you can't punish them. You can refuse to trade with them, refuse to deal with them, and completely shun them, and of course, encourage others to do the same.

There are always alternatives to the initiation of force. Always.

Here's a link to a recent Mises article on Animal Rights: The "Rights" of Animals