Mike,
I'm sure some leftists see banning foie gras as a chance to sock it to wealthy restaurant diners, but I don't think we should let that distract us from the deeper philosophical issues concerning whether it is OK to inflict unnecessary death, pain, and suffering on non-human animals.
Simply comparing this issue to prohibitions against drug use, or prostitution, refuses to acknowledge the moral questions at the heart of the debate over laws concerning treatment of animals -- where do rights come from, and what makes a being worthy of legal protection? Like the abortion debate, which revolves around the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being worthy of protection, I think it is a topic on which libertarians can reasonably disagree.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
What next, outlawing the castration of animals? This has nothing to do with cruelty to animals any more than Chris Daly's restaurant cleanliness grading is about our city's health. This is an attack on the restaurant and fancy food class and nothing more.
If Starchild can imagine that it would be acceptable to have meat eating banned altogether, then it is reasonable that people might expect erotic massage artists and drug users to be banned and thrown in jail. What's the difference? In all cases it's about the use of government force to influence another person's sense of what is right for themselves regarding something that is voluntary and isn't harming another person's person or property. That is un-libertarian and wrong.
Thanks for bring this up Rob...
Mike
<image.tiff>
From: Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wed 2/11/2004 2:19 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: John Burton seeks to prevent cruelty to ducks
Rob,
It's true I've always lived in the urban or suburban Bay Area except
for traveling and a few very short stints elsewhere. I think it's often
easier for outsiders to see ethically troubling practices with a
critical eye than it is for those who grew up accustomed to seeing them
as normal. I think you're right -- most people who did not grow up
around farming *would* be extremely grossed out by what occurs on a
modern American farm. I think these people are seeing the picture more
clearly than those who have become inured to the suffering by dint of
long exposure.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you refer to my "personal
morality." Many people believe in seeking to end cruelty to animals.
It's not a belief I came up with on my own, any more than I invented
libertarianism. Suggesting that my belief in legal consideration for
animals as conscious beings is a "personal morality" that I should put
aside, along with my emotional reaction to animal suffering, is like
someone telling me my libertarianism is a "personal morality" that I
should put aside along with my emotional reaction to seeing people
needlessly suffer and die because of government aggression.
I think I've said before on this list that if it were feasible, I
would like to see meat-eating outlawed altogether. Of course this will
not be feasible any time soon. But I think that with someone like
Burton backing it, a ban on foie gras might just be within the realm of
the politically possible. To you it's evidently one more senseless
government regulation that impedes freedom and economic productivity,
but to me, a law against foie gras would be in the same category as
laws against murder and torture, that most libertarians agree with.
As implied by my previous message, I consider ending the legal torture
of ducks important enough that I would be willing to compromise by
giving up the present attempt to ban any killing done for the purpose
of creating foie gras if this would help achieve the narrower end of
removing legal sanction for force-feeding practices.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
P.S. - Someone recently referred me to an excellent parody of "The
Matrix" film on a site called "The Meatrix"
(http://www.TheMeatrix.com). While this flash animation unfortunately
blames factory farming practices on "corporate agriculture" and ignores
the role of government in allowing and even subsidizing such
atrocities, it is quite darkly amusing if you have seen "The Matrix,"
and offers a concise indictment of meat and dairy industry practices.
It's also very well produced, and might provide some good ideas for any
libertarian wishing to design pro-liberty flash cartoons.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Boys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've both spent
> your entire lives in cities or suburbs.
>
> As someone who spent his first ten years on his grandma's farm, let
> me just say that, if you think using a machine to feed birds in a way
> that mimics the way baby birds are fed by their own mothers is cruel,
> you really wouldn't like farm life very much. I'm guessing it would
> be like Paris Hilton on that reality show... "Ew! Gross!" (pig
> squealing in the background)
>
> Seriously. Think about it. Do you _really_ consider passing a law
> to ban a farming practice, much less an entire food product
> regardless of farming practice, to be good libertarian government?
> Put your emotions aside, your personal morality aside, and even your
> own taste in food aside, and just put on your Libertarian hat. Do
> you honestly support Burton's law? For real?
>
> Not a rhetorical question. I'm frankly concerned that I got this
> response and need to hear an answer.
>
> Rob
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dekorte [mailto:steve@dekorte.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:21 AM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: John Burton seeks to prevent cruelty
> to
> ducks
>
>> Torture should not be condoned simply because humans are not the
>> victims! What about a compromise whereby only force-feeding would
>> be banned, while allowing foie gras not produced via such inhumane
>> methods to continue to be sold?
>
> I agree. I suspect that anyone that doesn't believe "managed" feeding
> to be cruel would change their mind after trying it on themselves.
>
> - -- Steve
>
> - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> - ---------------------~-->
> Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only
> $29.99!
> Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and
> prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/69cplB/TM
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
> - ->
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBQCnwzHAHrGzARaBAEQLGmQCgn37FJjceFt8IfPpQhYgV7RKCa3AAn28l
> gZjNgVCgEKhY2sHL6OsB0w+A
> =G/WG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only
> $29.99!
> Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and
> prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/69cplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99!
Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<image.tiff>