Another thrilling round of "Anarchism and Animal Rights

Maybe he means something aimed at AR people to make them anarchists, rather than the other way round?

I don't see how putting forward an Anarchist view of veganism/AR (which I can't see as particularly varying much from the general non-primmie* vegan/AR view) would persuade vegans to have a look at anarchism. I'd just personally assume it was a cynical attempt to tie your political faction to an ethical debate in a really spurious way.

* The distinction here being cause primmies can understandably be vegan out of being against farming technology or whatever and not give a fuck about animal rights whatsoever, rather than considering it an ethical issue, and as such it's pretty reasonable to come to veganism from a primmie basis (however reasonable it ever is to start off from a primmie basis being ignored here) and thus a discussion of primmie veganism would make a lot more sense than anarcho-commie veganism cause the proletariat can still abuse animals and communism would probably survive that, and the AR thing would certainly not be something that anarchos especially have in a theoretical sense more than any other sorta communist thought floating around.

I cant believe this shite's being spouted on a libertarian forum. Well, no actually I can, because whilst you get quite few anarchists making that oh-so difficult "logical leap" (accepting that human oppression should be fought along with that same oppression against animals and the environment), there's always quite a few apologists for existing cruelty. Kinda similar to early anarchists speaking most passionately and eloquently of the rights of man to freedom and equality and at the same time completely ignoring those same rights to women, Jews or anyone different from themselves.

There are differences between animals and humans. A fear and hatred of abuse is not one of them. Where possible, and today it is all to easy, we should try to live our lives without causing needless suffering.

cantdocartwheels, you should probably go back to reading "Anarchism for Dummies", your eh, "analysis" leaves something to be desired. Libertarianism is not about letting people do whatever they want, I'd forceably stop anyone that tried to harm someone else and I'd be quite happy to fight against anyone that allowed the present factory farming, animal testing etc. to continue.

Eco-Anarchism

"Animals, forests, oceans, anything that exists is taken not as instrinsically worthy, but merely useful to man--worth is defined in exclusively economic terms.

Anarchists reject this authoritarian attitude and seek not control and destruction of nature, but harmony with it. We recognize that humans are not the masters of the Earth, but are, rather, tenants. And we unequivocably oppose the source of this destruction: propertarianism (aka, capitalism).

Animal Rights: Linked with environmentalism is a recognition of animal rights. We cannot recognize ourselves as one species and at the same time fail to accept our relationship to the animals around us.

It is for this reason that many anarchists are vegetarians (the Spanish Anarchists very often were deeply committed vegetarians for this reason). In our rejection of authority, hierarchy, and coercion, we similarly reject any "right" of man to torture animals for fun and profit.

In a fully realized anarchist world, animals would be accorded equivalent respect humans would accord each other. Anarchists recognize that we (all the animals on the Earth) came from a common ancestor, long ago, and in this common origin, we recognize our mutual kinship with animals."

Libertarianism and Animal Rights

"I find it strange that so many of my fellow libertarians and anarchists oppose and ridicule animal rights with such passion. "

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr4_env_veg.html

practicalanarchy.org/fnb_crass.html

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SA/en/display/237

There was an essay on Animal Liberation and Social Revolution but I cant seem to find it.

Good posts, voline: saying what I'm too knackered to say 8) Plus you've got a cool authentic-Russian name

Eco-Eichbaum

so called animal cruelty is not a social injustice or a form of oppresion, it is impossible to oppress animals for one thing, also society is run or should be run for human benefit not the benefit of animals, or vegetables, or minerals for that matter

maybe the debate should be split to allow people who want to continue to offer help with Veganarchy?

I'm assuming October's talking about themanchester-based site of the same name?

Yeah, and plants too. Should we stop eating them as well? (And fungi, and bacteria, and indeed all life except maybe some viruses.)

you loon

i would not want a society that tried to prevent the eating of animals or using them to provide leather/fur etc if people want

i am an anarchist and i don't give a fuck that humans come from a common ancestor with animals

here's a handy diagram

humans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

animals

simple

I don't know, (s)he seems to have an argument whereas you have this:

What Lazlo said..

That's a great faith-based system you guys have got going there. If you keep asserting it enough maybe we'll start believing too. And you say primmies are irrational, come on, try to be worth of that huge brain you've got that the other animals don't.

Aha! But this is a public board with far more readers than posters -- so in the eyes of the LibCom masses me and Voline are the clever ones and you and Kalabine are Nineteenth Century andti-rational headbangers

Primitivists: 1

Industrialists: 0

Keep it coming, Jack, you're our biggest asset. 8)

This is like this Jehovah's Witnesses leaflet my gf got through the door - it's got a big nature pic of children, wolves, sheep and a lion all playing together.

Lazlo and nos - kalabine's argument is perfectly valid. If you think humans are more important than animals, as most people do, the whole argument collapses.

Also, the humans > animals argument is internally consistent, whereas the "we're all equal" bollocks is a maze of contradictions:

Volin would you forcibly stop indigenous people hunting? If not then like a lot of AR types you're basically a racist hypocrit, if you think those stupid natives can't possibly know any better unlike us enlightened westerners. And if you would then you're a muppet

And also as Garner asked, where do you draw the line between animal and non-animal?

What about foetuses?

Of course I think humans are more important than other animals, just look at who I chose to be friends with. And I think my friends are more important than people I've never met, and so on. But that doesn't stop me having respect for other peoples right to exist.

Even if you think animals are waaaay below humans, that's still no argument for forcibly taking their lives and domesticating them. In order to allow that your argument has to be, not that aminals are less important, but that the are *worthless* in terms of ability to enjoy life.

I'm happy with the idea that the ability to feel pain -- pain that is similar to the pain I feel -- means that I should respect that so as not to cause pain.

Early foetuses, plants and insects don't feel pain in that way. Any argument I have about insects or plants being used or killed is an ecological one.

Likewise, the argument in favour of limited use of animals is also an ecological one. I'm far more happy with a few peasants keeping the odd goat or the odd minke whale being speared than I am with the huge industrial trawlers killing everyhing in an area the size of several football pitches, or the vast South American plantations for animal feed.

And I'm also therefore not happy with the idea that we should all eat soya, usually imported, or have plastic shoes, usually made from petroleum products.

It was 15%, actually, in the Earth First Action Update No, a friend wrote it. No idea where the figure came from. A recent investigation showed that there is some pus in milk:

"The vegan myth that cows' milk is allowed to contain up to 20% worth of pus was exploded when Corporate Watch contacted a helpful official at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Shaun Whelan, the senior press officer, was pretty sure that there was no pus allowed in milk, but checked anyway. When he came back he sounded rather sick. "As you thought" he confirmed in a subsequent email "there are limits for somatic cells in milk. Essentially, the level is set at less than or equal to 400,000 somatic cells per ml.". Somatic cells are pus cells, caused by teat infections from overmilking and poor conditions. So every millilitre of milk you drink can contain up to 400,000 pus cells. It's the right stuff!"

Animal welfare I have no problem with - treating animals with respect doesn't mean not eating them, and if you're going to eat(/wear/make them into glue) making sure they've got decent living conditions / are killed in a humane way etc. all fine with me.

What I object to is the idea that animals (who after all kill each other, not always for food, plus other non-pacifist behaviour) should have equal rights to humans. It's our ability to even have that discussion which sets us apart from the rest of nature. I don't see cats having moral arguments about whether they should throw mice in the air for two hours before killing them and putting them uneaten on doorsteps. We can behave responsibly and ecologically, but that doesn't mean extending anthropomorphic moral rights to other species.

Who's making that argument? Me? Voline? Nosos?

If a bunch of rats are taking ove rmy house and giving me diseases I don't say 'they've got a right to life like me', I say 'kill the bastards'.

It might be like casseroles, the puss sits stewing for a enhancing those lovely flavours.

You see -- pro-cruelty industrialists are proud to eat pus. You coudn't make it up!

Primitivists: 2

industrialists: 0

So humans who can't feel pain, say people with much of their body paralysed or severe brain damange, they're outside this moral compass by that reckoning. Obviously my personal sensibility would avoid unnecessary suffering in both cases, but I'm hesitant about "ability to feel pain", or "sentience" or "consciousness" being used to apply universal rights, which by their nature are imposed and enforced if they're to mean anything. What about animals that can't feel pain - say crustaceans or certain species of fish - ok to eat them? If so, why not leave dietary decisions to personal moral choice (which is what they are since they don't fit into any kind of universal morality by any means), whilst trying to limit dependence on industrial food production in general and improve conditions. It seems like this is pretty much what you're arguing (as opposed to volin's violent intervention on behalf of other species), and as such it isn't an argument for animal rights, just sensible husbandry etc.

Volin:

If vegans are a minority in a libertarian society, will they violently enforce the "animal rights" of species who by nature are unable to express their opinions, vote, or understand the concept? In practice placing the rights of animals above those of humans. In that case, should a libertarian society intervene against predatory or parasitic species on the behalf of their "innocent defenceless victims". If you're prepared to ascribe moral rights across species, then surely that applies to relationships between those species as well.

Yeah but you guys eat roadkill

2:1

And your first one didn't count

1:1

And you wear glasses but want to take away the right of everyone to wear them cos they use fascist technology

1:2

We clinch it in injury time 8)

Volin. But your argument so far appears to be for animal welfare, not rights per se, which is a rational and consistent argument I have no problem with.

Me too. I've killed loads of rats and mice in my time, although I've never been quick enough/awake enough to do it with my bare hands, little fuckers

mis-post.

Well if someone's a complete vegetable then why keep them alive -- unless you think they have the potential to recover, much like a foetus has the potential to develop. Are you against euthanasia and abortion?

I've already said I don't care about insects or other non-sentient creatures' feelings. I'd still oppose over fishing of underwater spiders or whatever for ecological reasons.

Anarchist vegans aren't going to enforce anything, are they? Like other anarchists, we'll try to win people over through convincing and through example. This is a no-brainer if you accept that vegan anarchists are actually anarchists.

In the context of the unbalanced industrialised world we've created, I'd be in favour of restricting the growth of certain animals, such as goats, rats, pigs, dogs and cats, that destroy other animals and their habitats. This would be for ecological reasons -- to preserve biodiversity -- rather than for the sake of the animals' feelings however, it might be neccessary to kill quite a lot of rats and cats, for example.

Any argument based on 'rights' is cobblers, IMO. What we need is respect, sympathy and solidarity. I think some of those can be extended to animals -- and vice versa, look at all the people who've been saved by dolphins

Oh dear, Team Leviathan is appealing to the ref, but it looks like they don't even know the rules! I've used Jack to score umpteen goals, all they have is badly remembered ideas about non-anarchists who you one heard about in a copy of Organise.

They slink home muttering half-baked hteories about the offside rule but know they've been soundly thrashed by Team Flinty.