? for ACists: Drawbacks of an AC society?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that most vegetarians also happen to be statists allows them to try to find peaceful solutions under government rather than violent ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hardly call governmental solutions 'peaceful'... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

...that said, suppose it were true that animals had legitimate claim to right of self-ownership. If that is the case, then even if we called government's current solutions 'peaceful', it wouldn't be any better than if government had resolved slavery by passing laws about how many hours masters could work their slaves, or what types of physical punishment were 'humane', etc.
I'm not exactly sure how this ties in with the issue of anarchy vs. statism wrt animal rights, but I guess I think calling government solutions 'peaceful' is kind of weak since either government is passing laws and regulations that are completely inappropriate (if animals don't have rights) or they are passing watered-down regulations that are treating animals like second-class citizens (which they can't be, if they have rights).

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that most vegetarians also happen to be statists allows them to try to find peaceful solutions under government rather than violent ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hardly call governmental solutions 'peaceful'... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well true enough. Perhaps I should have said that at least with government people have a good idea of which behavior is going result in someone else being violent towards them and which isn't.

By "peaceful" I didn't mean nonviolent so much as not warring.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
the zero-aggression principle is a logical corollary of the right of self-ownership, and the the right of self-ownership requires rationality/moral agency, which *most* animals (maybe monkeys and dolphins?) don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's your opinion. I certainly do not agree with it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
....and the the right of self-ownership requires rationality/moral agency,....

[/ QUOTE ]

Please for the love of Pete stop stating your opinions regarding rights as some indisputable "fact". And stop speaking for all libertarians on this matter when clearly Alex and I do not fall in your camp.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....and the the right of self-ownership requires rationality/moral agency,....

[/ QUOTE ]

Please for the love of Pete stop stating your opinions regarding rights as some indisputable "fact".

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....and the the right of self-ownership requires rationality/moral agency,....

[/ QUOTE ]

Please for the love of Pete stop stating your opinions regarding rights as some indisputable "fact".

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Because I've never claimed my personal definition of "rights" to mean anything more than my personal definition.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion. I certainly do not agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Please for the love of Pete stop stating your opinions regarding rights as some indisputable "fact".

[/ QUOTE ]

I was stating it as a 'fact', but surely not an indisputable one. I am always open to debate on my views, and I really really wish people would argue with me about my views and tell me I'm wrong (with supporting reasons) rather than just stating that my views are my 'opinion' and then dismissing them. Of course my views are my opinion--if I didn't have the 'opinion' that they were right, I wouldn't have posted about them in the first place. So why is this an issue at all? The fact that the statements I make reflect the beliefs I hold seems pretty non-controversial to me.
But my 'opinions' are also statements (e.g., the statement that right of self-ownership requires moral agency), and statements are either true or false. So it seems most reasonable to argue aboiut whether my statement is true or false. If you think that no statements of this type are true and false (and hence not really statements at all), then we could argue about that instead.

Honestly, all this aside, I'm not trying to be a dick by stating what I beleive to be true, and I'm certainly not trying to paint all libertarians with the same brush. If you think I'm way off mark, just tell me why and I'll either revise my position or argue some more.

[ QUOTE ]
And stop speaking for all libertarians on this matter when clearly Alex and I do not fall in your camp.

[/ QUOTE ]
When did I speak for all libertarians on this matter? Look, I understand that not everyone agrees with me about my conception of natural rights, or about various issues that divide libertarians, etc. So if I cam across as saying that all libertarians believe what I do, then my apologies.