T Nation

PETA and the 13th Amendment


Saw this and just waid WTF?



Well my dogs are the happiest slaves I know. Especially on a hunt where they are trained to work.


Where's the people for the ethical treatment of plants?


I'm here.

And yes, we can (and we shall) ethically treat plants. But treating plants ethically has next to nothing to do with giving them 'rights' similar to human rights.

we shall treat them as living beings. ie : neither as properties nor as sentient individuals.


Obviously this is nonsense. However, so are animal cruelty and endangered wildlife laws. The constitution and human laws are meant to protect the individual rights of humans. Animals are property, and denying a human the use of his property in any way that doesn't harm another human is a violation of their basic individual rights.

If a human harms their own pet, by all means ostracize them, refuse to employ them, refuse to do business with them, but the law has no business here. The same applies to endangered species. No human has the right to deny another the fruits of their labor, including the animals they hunt/farm/consume. Ecological central planning is just as idiotic as in any other area. Making it illegal to hunt an animal only makes it profitable to poach it.

Prohibition doesn't work. Further, humans are at the top of the food chain because they have the tools to cultivate and consume any other animal. There is no "correct" ecological state as humans can become the predator of any animal in the biosphere regardless of the structure and the total biological mass available to humans doesn't change because any specific species dies out. Individuals that make their business on certain species adapt to the changing capital/business environment or they fail and the resources are freed up for others just like any other industry not centrally planned by the state.


The fact that the US legal system can be distorted in such a way to "expand animal rights" (or "adult babies rights" for that matters) should make you think about how fragile and porous the whole 'right paradigm' is.


No, animal laws have a place. You have no right to go out and kill all the bald eagles you want. You also have no right to put puppies in microwaves. These things are not protected by the constitution.

Some animal and hunting laws are dumb though.


There are eco-whackos, and then there are conservationists. Sorry, but society has an interest in wildlife preservation. While homo-economicus might not see a alligator as anything more than a potential pair of boots for which he may or may not be able to fetch some bucks for, others would conserve them so their children and grand-children will be able to marvel at the natural wonder of an alligator sunning itself on the banks of a lazy canal.




As living beings their appropriate use for humans is food. Notice, living beings kill and consume other living beings or they die. Humans consume animal fats for nourishment because they can't ferment plant fiber into fats like herbivores. Humans who refuse to do so are voluntarily malnourished themselves. Humans who would deny others the right to consume the animals which are the products of their labor by force are denying them their individual right to life, liberty, and property.


Bullshit. You don't have the right to deny another person food or clothing because you think something is pretty. I think your steak is pretty. Sorry asshole you can't eat it now.


It's one of their appropriate use. Not the only one.
and their use and their value are two different things.

yes. I never said anything otherwise.


The fuck I don't. The Constitution doesn't give me any rights. It prohibits the Government from denying them. One of which is the right to my property, which is protected by the Constitution unless I'm convicted of a crime against a person through due process.


If you'd like to start an alligator farm for meat, go to it. If you want to blast them on the shores, or in the waters, leaving them to rot, just because you can ('it's my damn right!')...no.


With the alligator, funny enough, this is exactly what was happening (for future generations) until conservation laws protected them. And of course, outside of food and clothing there is natural wonder and beauty. These things future generations would potentially deprived of by earlier generations. It's a matter of convenience to be able to say "If I want to enjoy bald eagles (in your case) by shooting them wherever I find, I should be able to." Especially when future generations then wouldn't have the eagles.


How is it your property? So any animal someone else doesn't lay claim to becomes yours. They are collectively OURS as citizens. You seem to think there can be no laws unless it is spelled out in the constitution. It is specifically because of wacknuts like you that such laws are required.


Nonsense, If I own something I have as much a right to destroy it as you do to marvel at it. If the alligator is unclaimed and on my property, its my alligator.
Further, conservation laws only ration animals for consumption. They are nothing but price controls that allow a monopolization of industry by squeezing out competitors with the regulatory costs. So your comment about starting a alligator farm is nonsense also. I wouldn't be able to afford the regulations even for starting that business, much less competing with the existing companies that would immediately lobby their federal/state/local government to squeeze me out.


Ours? If it's on land that I own and hasn't been previously claimed(see cattle branding). Then of course it's mine. The problem is that the "conservationist" progressives like Teddy Roosevelt usurped their authority by stealing private land and turning them into "public" conveniences in the form of reserves for their own vanity(ooh look a pretty alligator).


Notice that's exactly how I worded what I wrote. The constitution doesn't protect those things.

I'm going to put up a giant movie screen right outside your house and play gay porn with the sound system cranked up all the way.

You Cannot do whatever you want with your property.

You said that food is the proper function of animals. You have your own brand of what is proper. I have mine. Animals can be a lot of things ones like dogs evolved as a symbiotic relationship aiding humans. Not as food. You aren't against the branding of purpose on animals just against people who don't agree with your band.

You also seem confused about property rights. Wild animals are not personal property any more than public land is. You don't own a wild turkey, even if it wonders on your land. I can't go and hunt all the wolves in the national parks to extinction any more than I have the right to burn down all the forests to keep warm. Trees in the forest aren't your personal property.

You are also confused about fruits of labor. Not allowing you the fruits of labor in hunting would be allowing you do hunt and kill, but not eat or otherwise enjoy the animal. They are preventing you from doing the work, not enjoying the fruits.


You absolutely have the right to put up that movie screen outside my house on your own property(you're my neighbor I guess). I have no right to deny you that on your own property. However, I absolutely have the right to ostracize you as does the rest of the neighborhood.

Both of our property and liberty is protected by the Constitution's due process clause.

Again, if you're the owner it's your choice as to what is proper excepting doing harm to another person.
Public land is effectively the theft of property for the purposes of price controls. Eminent domain is one thing that is wrong with the constitution and contradictory to the right to property of the person who's land is being seized which is otherwise protected in the Bill of Rights. National Parks, public forests, etc... shouldn't exist, in which case all land is someone's property. See above post.