Personally, I would buy a mongoose, which would accidentally escape
into the cobra owner's yard. I would prefer to deal with the
situation in a Darwinian way (may the best guy win), than give power
to the government to say "no" to the cobras today, and tomorrow "no"
to my chosen lifestyle.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
I'd like to take this debate to a more more extreme hypothetical
I would like to here the Libertarian response to the situation I
1. You own a house in San Francisco.
2. The house next door to you is for sale. I buy it and move in.
3. But instead of breed pit bulls, I breed King Cobras. You've
rumors and actually seen some evidence that I'm pretty sloppy with
control of the cobras and that from time to time one slips away. No
been hurt though I assure you.
4. You come and talk to me, explaining that you have young children
would I please not raise the cobras any more.
5. I tell you "Look buddy, I'm on my own property. No one has ever
by my snakes. I have a right to raise them here"
Question: What remedies should i have to deal with the situation?
only remedy be to move? I suppose the anarchists among us will have
different answer here than the limited-government types. One of the
situations I always felt is difficult to assess in terms of
rights is that of the "gathering threat". I have to believe the
not government involvement, but i am also uneasy that there is no
the neighbor that is not raising the king cobras.
I see this hypothetical problem is also very similar to that of
pollution, in that there is a negative externality created which
the value of the original property owner's rights, but he is not
> you always here about how friendly some particular individuals
> bull is, and then you talk to that individual a year or so later
> they are just recovering from plastic surgery to undo the random
> uncharacteristic attack they received from the same animal. i
> common sense would say that if a dog has been breed to kill it
> not make a good pet? granted that's just me and i do believe all
> should have the freedom to flirt with their own mortality in any
> they see fit.
> > [David]
> > >>I don't know enough about pit bulls (my fancy is cats not
> > say. But I have heard stories of some friendly pit bulls, so it
> > not impossible.<<
> > I believe our very own Terry Floyd(of the EBLP) has adog that
> > pit bull and isfriendly. We fold newletters every month at
> > home with the dog freely about us, getting petted and such, and
> > has been hurt yet.
> > Rich
> > From: DAVID GOGGIN
> > To: email@example.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:41 PM
> > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: URGENT ACTION ITEM:
> > Libertarian-sounding group needs help fighting anti-pit bull
> > legislation
> > This is a very interesting discussion and one that has helped me
> > conceptualize my views more clearly!
> > Thus far, I think Starchild is exactly on point.
> > >Do they believe that individual rights exist only for humans,
> > that when
> > >it comes to animals, it's OK to brand entire groups as
> > No.
> > I think the belief is that individual pit bulls have a right to
> > deemed
> > innocent until proven guilty and also enjoy the same duty of
> > expect for a baby human.
> > > I do agree that sentient beings have the right not to be
> > intentionally
> > >brought into the world with genetic defects, and I would
> > >predisposition toward violence to be such a defect.
> > I would too, though not as such, but perhaps because the being's
> > natural
> > desire to run around having fun attacking things is always
> > or its
> > tendency is used to its own harm (e.g. in intentionally staged
> > fights)
> > >Once such an animal is in the world, however, do we assume
that he or
> > she
> > >cannot exist without engaging in inappropriate violence?
> > I don't know enough about pit bulls (my fancy is cats not dogs)
> > say. But
> > I have heard stories of some friendly pit bulls, so it is not
> > impossible.
> > And your argument from statistics is compelling.
> > The question is whether the risk to public safety outweighs the
> > freedom to
> > have a presumably friendly or controllable pit bull as a pet.
> > >And the capacity to think rationally obviously does not stop
> > humans
> > >from committing violent, irrational acts, while many dogs do
> > in
> > >avoiding such acts despite lacking the capacity for rational
> > So it
> > >makes little sense to me to use that capacity as the standard
> > which a
> > >human or non-human animal is judged to be worthy of having
> > >rights and not prima facie declared unacceptably dangerous to