How can libertarians justify eating meat?MOD WARNING

Philosophically I am an anarchist which means I also adhere to the non-aggression principle. I am also a vegan. But my guess is most people interpret the non-aggression principle as non-aggression against humans. Which is fine. To each their own.

And while I am a vegan, I am also a speciesist. I value human life over chimpanzee life. I value chimpanzee life over canine life. I value canine life over fish life. I just don’t use animals for food or entertainment.

And yes, eating meat is natural. So is rape. Natural doesn’t necessarily mean better. There isn't a whole lot "natural" about what humans do nowadays.

 

The non-aggression principle is designed to allow people to live together peacefully. It applies to people, not non-people.

You scare me when you say things like that. Seriously. If you don't see any ethical difference between killing a chicken and kill a person, then you've got serious issues.

You also scare me when you say racist (*)(*)(*)(*) like that.

 

At conception the great white shark has multiple siblings, but only one great white is ever born, the other siblings become lunch. Just an interesting fact.

 

Like someone who doesn't see the difference between a having taxpayer-funded military and robbing someone at gunpoint or enslaving them, yeah That's my point

 

The “non-aggression” principle is flawed from the git-go. Land is a natural resource, everyone has a natural right to use what nature provided, and appropriation of that resource is an act of aggression. Aggressive appropriation is how you (and I) became a landowner.

Don't even try to bring the “first user” argument into play, because you know that you cannot trace your title to the first user. The land that you “own” and the land that I “own”, both of our titles came from forceful appropriation.

 

Probably the same way conservatives can claim to hate liberalism, and then support economic liberalism bordering on anarchy.

 

There is no objective truth. The non-aggression principle is merely a personal value, an ambition if you will.

I'm not saying that you can't use my stuff, I'm more so saying that I won't use your stuff if you have ownership of it. I have control over my actions, not yours.

 

The last word in your OP should answer your question. Libertarianism is a "social" philosophy Social sciences, or social studies has nothing to do with interspecies relationships at least from my memory. The definition of social has no mention of interspecies relationships.

This is about as rational as saying supporting gay marriage or any marriage means you are a hypocrite if humans are not allowed to marry animals. Since marriage is just a "social" construct. Do not be angry at libertarians just because the republicans abandoned their aggressive foreign policy and adopted libertarian non-aggression. Because Obama also had the same policy but not aggressive enough.

Also non-aggression is not the same as being a pacifist. I plant a very large garden that was destroyed by mainly deer and a few other species. It was very hard work and by doing so they acted aggressively towards me. When hunting season starts in the next few weeks. Well what goes around comes around. Yet to be honest just enjoying the way they taste is reason enough. I do not kill animals just to kill them even snakes, bugs, or spiders unless they are of a dangerous variety that might harm my family, my property, or myself. That is personal choice not a requirement of being a libertarian.

 

The OP is quite a silly premise . Why wash your hands if its going to kill bacteria ? That's aggression right ?

 

Edit the definition does mention companionable pet. So I will agree you should not eat your dog. Unless it bites you and your very very hungry.

 

In either case, one person is taking money by force from another person. Same thing, really. You just have an inconsistent belief system that excuses the former and condemns the latter.

 

The non aggression principal is that it is wrong to initiate aggression against other people or things owned by other people. There's no flaw there. You simply disagree as to who owns land. You regard land as owned in common by the community. In either case, the non aggression principal applies and a person can't initiation aggression against the owners of that land.

If that land is already owned by someone else, then I agree. If that land had been unused until that point, then I disagree.

Likewise, the land that the community owns came from forceful appropriation. So what do you want to do about it?

 

I have no idea if you are serious or not with this response.

 

lol...true!

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly! Animals know their lot in life.

 

Wow, I can smell the desperation oozing from your thread. You're tryin to put animals on the same terms as humans to pathetically find contradiction in our belief of non-aggression so you can justify your own belief in state sponsored aggression. Ya, you're not transparent at all.

All libertarians don't eat animals so you don't contradict you're belief of not using force against your fellow MAN. Pure brilliance on your part.

 

I am a vegan, and I think that it is an indignation for someone libertarian to eat meat!!

 

I'm a libertarian, and my diet is none of your concern.

 

It is very much my concern..
Your diet contributes to animal killing (they arent your property) and greenhouse effects.

 

I'm a classic liberal -ie a moderate libertarian and I'm vegan. I agree with the above.

 

They're not human, and as I'm not a plant I must kill to survive.

That's how.

 

I have a dog and Tippy is my property. I would think that an ALGORICAL global warming fanatic like you should welcome the killing of/ COWS. After-all Cows pass loads of Gas-Fart-which releases methane deadly gasses into the air you breath. Lions kill other Lions-Fat Al Gore eats allot of gassy foods equaling more menthane gasses into the AIR.

 

It must keep you up at night knowing there's absolutely nothing you can do about what I eat. Sucks for you.

 

Stupid argument. Its pointless killing the cows just to raise more of them

 

No it sucks for you, because your cancer/diabetes/heart disease is coming.

 

Ya, you can be a weird vegan and get all three of those as well. Try harder next time.