Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Weijun]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have.  Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War.  My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back. 

Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions.  However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights.  "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard.  That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.

[Weijun]

Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?

No one's sock puppet.  Pleased to meet you too. 

[The Brain]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have.  Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War.  My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back. 

Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions.  However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights.  "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard.  That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.

Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. 

But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?

[Razgovory]

You still didn't answer my question.  I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment.  Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?

If you do it for the purpose of harming the fish then I think it is unacceptable.

So it's only cruel if I do it for the purpose of harming it?  What about because I like to catch fish?  Also, fish caught be amateur anglers are often cleaned while still alive.  I believe this is often the case in commercial fish processing.  I don't think they employ a method to minimize pain, though presumably such a method is possible.

[Weijun]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have.  Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War.  My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back. 

Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions.  However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights.  "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard.  That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.

Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. 

But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?

Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa).  Either way, the two are inextricably linked.  That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption.  One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.

[Razgovory]

Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?

[The Brain]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have.  Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War.  My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back. 

Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions.  However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights.  "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard.  That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.

Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. 

But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?

Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa).  Either way, the two are inextricably linked.  That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption.  One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.

I'm going to take this as a "yes", even though you avoided the question. I'm not trying to be a dick btw, I'm just trying to find out what you think since I don't yet know you as well as I know the other posters.

[Razgovory]

I read that as a "no".

[The Brain]

I read that as a "no".

Yes but you're insane.

[Neil]

Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?

Not a faggot, so his opinions are more worthy of respect than yours already.

[Neil]

Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa).  Either way, the two are inextricably linked.  That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption.  One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.

You should throw all republican institutions out the window.  A republic is incorrect.

[Weijun]

Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I find your hostility to libertarianism as puzzling as most Europeans find American hostility to socialism.

[Weijun]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have.  Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War.  My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back. 

Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions.  However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights.  "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard.  That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.

Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. 

But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?

Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa).  Either way, the two are inextricably linked.  That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption.  One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.

I'm going to take this as a "yes", even though you avoided the question. I'm not trying to be a dick btw, I'm just trying to find out what you think since I don't yet know you as well as I know the other posters.

I do want to give you a straight answer - honestly.  However, the issue is too complex to give an unqualified yes.
  Property rights as a fundamental right is rational, given certain assumptions about liberty.  These assumptions about liberty are ideological and/or require a certain amount of faith.  Unlike religious beliefs, however, these assumptions must be shared by a healthy majority of the citizenry for a republic to function properly.

[Weijun]

Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa).  Either way, the two are inextricably linked.  That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption.  One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.

You should throw all republican institutions out the window.  A republic is incorrect.

Depending on the starting assumptions, this view could be valid.  The divine right of kings does not allow for liberty, just duty.  A proletarian dictatorship certainly has no place for individual liberty.

[Neil]

Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I find your hostility to libertarianism as puzzling as most Europeans find American hostility to socialism.

Most Americans aren't really all that hostile to socialism though.  They just don't want it called that.  If you suggest a minimum wage, welfare, employment insurance and government-funded health care to an American without using the word 'socialism', you'll get a fair bit of agreement.

Libertarian ideals are a harder sell, simply because in these days of comfort and a relatively sensitive morality, it's hard to justify the law of the jungle and the gold standard.