Source: Facebook

ANIMAL RIGHTS

If you cannot be trusted with the care of an animal – pet or property. Then we cannot trust you with care of the rest of us.

Simple people use empathy toward animals moral and legal claims, and anthropomorphize all sorts of things instead of using reason.

But what they intuit in their arationalism is at least functionally correct if not causally correct.

The seek to protect the victim because it is less aggressive and confrontational than punishing the actor. It is an effective technique but a dishonest one.

And as such, these people – sensitives – perform a function even though their arguments are arational justifications of their intuitions.

Unfortunately their arationality creates consequences that are morally, politically and legally damaging to civilization.

Those of us who because of our lack of fear in confrontation or punishment, have the luxury of honesty, certainly feel compassion for our pets, animals and wildlife. But we correctly understand that not only are the animals a commons that they should respect no matter who cares for them, but that someone sick enough to harm creatures for emotional reasons of any kind, is a danger to all of us. And science has thankfully finally proven why – genetic and birth defect exacerbated by living in families with the same defects.

Tolerance is not a good thing without accompaniment by training. Without correction it is not tolerance but convenience.

Animals cannot have rights since they cannot enter into contract. A few pets to some degree can closely imitate that contract (dogs) at the level if a child when dependency forms.

Humans have contractual obligations with each other not to be cruel to animals. As such it is your contractual duty to the rest of us – your price for our promise not to use violence against you, and to cooperate peaceably with you – that you treat animals as if they are human whenever possible as a ritualistic test of your adherence to contract.

This contract is a necessary natural law that does not need codification. Natural laws are the minimum rules for peaceful cooperation. They are reducible to statements of property rights. And they are necessary. Human rights are not necessary, they are aspirations once natural rights have been achieved.

And should you break that contract if natural law, the foolish and weak may shame you and claim animals have rights because they lack the intelligence, wisdom, means and capacity to punish you for violating natural law and demonstrating you are unfit for the contract by which we agree to cooperate, and rescind our use of violence.

But those of us wise and strong enough will be honest with you.

And since you have broken the contract of natural law with us, we are no longer forbidden to use violence.

And we will logically, rationally, wisely, and legally under natural law, punish you sufficiently that you either will not, or cannot, do so again.

That punishment too, is part of the contract that the strong agree to.

Curt

(Propertarianism in application)

( also another example of solipsism on one end and autism on the other. )