Busy Minds


  How does the article about PETA's request for the town of
Slaughterville, Oklahoma to change its name to Veggieville "clearly"
illustrate that the group is an "enemy of liberty" as you claim below?
PETA isn't demanding that the town be forced to change its name; their
letter was simply a clever attempt at getting some publicity. Obviously
it worked.

  My bottom line remains as I said: I don't want to let disagreements
over matters like this interfere with us getting along or working
together for liberty in the many, many areas where we agree. Yet I am
troubled that you don't seem willing to acknowledge, as I did in
regards to your position, that from our perspective, it is *you* who is
advocating the initiation of force at the expense of individual liberty
-- in this case the individual liberty of billions of non-human animals.

  In your latest email on the topic, you demand that we "stand up and
speak out against (animal rights groups) when they propose to (seek
laws protecting animals)," and compare PETA's agenda to efforts by
groups like the Human Rights Campaign to promote laws limiting freedom
of association or criminalizing certain types of speech which we can
all (I hope!) agree are unlibertarian.

  The implication of your comments is that PETA's goals are as obviously
unlibertarian as HRC's proposed hate crime laws, and that there is no
legitimate philosophical debate over what makes a creature deserving of
legal protection. It make me think that you still don't get my point
that animal rights is an issue like abortion, where libertarians can
apply the philosophy of non-aggression in good faith and yet reach
radically different conclusions.

  This also makes me curious -- how *do* you feel about abortion? Do you
agree that libertarians can hold good faith beliefs on both sides of
that issue? Or do you believe that there is only one clear libertarian
position on abortion, and that those on the other side are wrongly
trying to "legislate morality?"

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

While I do respect Leilani, Starchild, and Steve as Libertarians, and
apologize for hurting anyone's feelings, I absolutely do not respect
organizations like PETA that are clearly an enemy to liberty, as the
article so vividly illustrates:


I myself have, in the past, been a member of several non-libertarian
organizations (Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc.), because I agree
with a
majority of their mission and vision and only disagree with a smaller
percentage. But I do make a point to argue with those organizations'
when they propose laws that try to legislate morality at the expense of
individual liberty. I think gay bashing is wrong and immoral, but
when HRC
tried to get all of those "hate crimes" laws passed, I clearly voiced
opposition. I think private clubs that ban people on the basis of
race or
creed are wrong and immoral, but when the ACLU tries to use the force
government to open up those clubs to certain minorities, I made sure
to let
them know that what they're doing is wrong.

So, that's why I expect Libertarian PETA/ALF members who believe that
meat is wrong and immoral to stand up and speak out against the
when they propose to legislate morality. That's all. Nothing more
than I
require of myself, really.

Yes, we're all still "friends in liberty", as long as, by definition,
refrain from trying to restrict each other's freedom. Just understand
while you give money to PETA to lobby for veganism at gunpoint, I'm
going to
be giving money to the other side to protect my freedom to have the
diet that my species has consumed for tens, maybe hundreds, of
thousands of
years. May the best lobbyist win. In the meantime, yes, let's all
kiss and
make up.


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: