Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Find the Aggression - Part 1
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Find the Aggression - Part 1 (Read 429 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Find the Aggression - Part 1
Sep 9th, 2018 at 12:39am
Print Post  
Challenge: Find who the aggressor is in this scenario.



So this couple lives in an area where owning a domestic fox is legal. They never let it out of the house.

After the couple gets threats, which threaten to report the fox as a dangerous animal, the police get an anonymous bite report, which is suspect because the fox never left the house.

The police remove the fox from the house and hand it over to animal control, who reports that the fox is friendly and wags its tail whenever they feed it.

Animal control assures the couple they are not going to kill the fox. They say he's being held temporarily to screen for diseases.

The police show up at the couple's house and tell them the fox has been killed. He was euthanised without warning and without proper screening.

Who is the aggressor here?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #1 - Sep 9th, 2018 at 8:45am
Print Post  
If the fox actually never left the house, whoever reported a bite that didn't occur started the chain of events that led to the fox being killed.

In general, it's not a good idea to keep wild animals as pets, even if they are tame by reason of being raised as pets from birth.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #2 - Sep 9th, 2018 at 8:38pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 9th, 2018 at 8:45am:
If the fox actually never left the house, whoever reported a bite that didn't occur started the chain of events that led to the fox being killed.

In general, it's not a good idea to keep wild animals as pets, even if they are tame by reason of being raised as pets from birth.


It's a very simple question and the NAP is a very simple principle, isn't it?

Who is the aggressor? The couple keeping a wild animal (because that risks others), the lying nosy neighbour, or the cops?

If the answer is two or more, or all three, just say so.

I mean, it's not like the NAP falls the Hell apart and becomes incapable of giving a decent answer any two libertarians can agree on, once someone actually aggresses. Libertarianism is a good, and very clear, philosophy. It should be easy to point to the aggressor.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #3 - Sep 10th, 2018 at 8:20am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 9th, 2018 at 8:38pm:
Who is the aggressor? The couple keeping a wild animal (because that risks others), the lying nosy neighbour, or the cops?

It's not that hard to keep a fox confined in your house. If it bites someone who is in your house, they can sue you. If it get's loose and bites someone, they can sue you.

If someone lies about your fox biting them, and your fox ends up being destroyed because of the lie, the liar committed the wrong.

I thought that was pretty clear from my first answer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3534
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #4 - Sep 10th, 2018 at 11:11am
Print Post  
The law sees a pet as a piece of property.  If police damage it wrongfully, they are only liable for the monetary value of the pet, just as if they had towed your misparked car and accidentally totaled it. 

But nearly every pet owner I know sees their pet as a "member of the family."  People will spend thousands of dollars in vet bills to save an old mutt that the kids grew up with even if the mutt has literally zero monetary value.

Why is it for the government to say they are wrong about that?
  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #5 - Sep 10th, 2018 at 1:11pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 11:11am:
Why is it for the government to say they are wrong about that?


Because the people are wrong about it. It's an objective truth. If you're not happy with the dollar value of lives the free market assigns to them, then capitalism is not the ideology for you.

It's the same with a wrongful human death. You're liable for whatever the person was worth - lost wages, for instance. If the person was worthless then there's nothing to sue for.

I've had a major emotional problem accepting that my cat was worthless. But the free market has spoken.

https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/think-you-can-avoid-pet-foods-made-in-chin...
Quote:
The million dollar question is, if pet food manufacturers can’t prove the origin of their premixes, why don’t they test every batch of food?

The answer might shock you: it is so cost prohibitive that it’s actually cheaper for them to pay the lawsuits from our dead pets than it is to test their product.


Jeff wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 8:20am:
If someone lies about your fox biting them, and your fox ends up being destroyed because of the lie, the liar committed the wrong.


So provided this story has not been falsified, your final answer for the aggressor is the lying nosy neighbour, correct?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3534
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #6 - Sep 10th, 2018 at 2:30pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 1:11pm:
Because the people are wrong about it. It's an objective truth. If you're not happy with the dollar value of lives the free market assigns to them, then capitalism is not the ideology for you.

It's the same with a wrongful human death. You're liable for whatever the person was worth - lost wages, for instance. If the person was worthless then there's nothing to sue for.



Sure, that's a good point.  If the government were funded voluntarily by people who choose to use its services, it would spot on. 

But if one accepts that representative democracy gives government the power to turn my money into "the community's money," then that representative government should be acting only in accordance with the wishes of its constituents. 

Take a vote if you like, but I don't think you really need one to know that if government takes a citizens pet and executes it summarily, that citizen has lost more than the zero dollars his or pet is likely worth on the free market.

  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #7 - Sep 10th, 2018 at 4:01pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 2:30pm:
Sure, that's a good point.  If the government were funded voluntarily by people who choose to use its services, it would spot on. 

But if one accepts that representative democracy gives government the power to turn my money into "the community's money," then that representative government should be acting only in accordance with the wishes of its constituents. 

Take a vote if you like, but I don't think you really need one to know that if government takes a citizens pet and executes it summarily, that citizen has lost more than the zero dollars his or pet is likely worth on the free market.

The law doesn't treat animal lives as being equivalent to human lives, but it does give them value.

That's what suits at common law are for, settling torts. There are hundreds of years of precedent that say that your dog or cat is not monetarily worth more than it's replacement value, plus maybe something to compensate you for the fact that a trained working dog is more valuable than a replacement dog that needs to be trained.

If you think your pet is worth millions, buy an insurance policy to cover it's value if it is lost.

Police who shoot pets without cause should be treated just like someone who shoots their neighbors dog because they want to get back at their neighbor for some perceived wrong. It's a crime.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #8 - Sep 11th, 2018 at 12:44am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 2:30pm:
Sure, that's a good point.  If the government were funded voluntarily by people who choose to use its services, it would spot on. 

But if one accepts that representative democracy gives government the power to turn my money into "the community's money," then that representative government should be acting only in accordance with the wishes of its constituents. 

Take a vote if you like, but I don't think you really need one to know that if government takes a citizens pet and executes it summarily, that citizen has lost more than the zero dollars his or pet is likely worth on the free market.


So your final answer for this challenge is the police who seized the animal, correct?

Anyway, it was Morton who was talking about objective value. The objective value of a pet is negative. You pour money into it and unless it's a working animal like a horse or mule, or you were planning on eating it, you get nothing quantifiable in return.

GEMorton wrote on Sep 4th, 2018 at 2:59pm:
No. While what counts as a benefit, like the value of a thing, is subjective and relative to valuers, whether or not X is of value, or confers a benefit upon, Alfie is an objective matter.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Find the Aggression - Part 1
Reply #9 - Sep 11th, 2018 at 7:38am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 10th, 2018 at 1:11pm:
So provided this story has not been falsified, your final answer for the aggressor is the lying nosy neighbour, correct?
The neighbor was wrong to lie, and the police were wrong to take the fox without first learning the truth, which shouldn't have been that hard to establish. Animal control officers/personal were also wrong to kill the fox without any evidence that it was actually dangerous.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Find the Aggression - Part 1
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy