Help with Veganarchy

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 8 2005 20:27
Help with Veganarchy

Any links or books I can get hold of concerning animal rights etc from a libertarian perspective?

I already have beast of burden, and devastate to liberate, can anyone help with others?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 8 2005 20:38

For, dont ask silly questions....

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
May 9 2005 00:24

it's about time somebody wrote a pamphlet or summat against animal rights from a libertarian pov

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 9 2005 00:35
october_lost wrote:
For, dont ask silly questions....

to be fair you are asking for an anarchist form of animal rights, i mean assuming that most vegans aren't headcases who advocate some sort of military takeover which forces everyone to be vegan how would a 'libertarian' perspective differ from any other perspective on animal rights?

Plus i think a new title for this thread clearly needs to be found now.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 9 2005 10:58

Have you read this -- Devastate to Liberate or Devastatingly Liberal?

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/analysis/animal-liberation.htm

"But for all of the militant pretence there has always existed within the animal rights movement the belief that the current social structure can adapt itself to existence without animal abuse. All sorts of pressure groups campaigns are set up, so as to persuade parliament to bring in legislation which will miraculously end humans persecution of other species."

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
May 9 2005 11:15
cantdocartwheels wrote:

assuming that most vegans aren't headcases who advocate some sort of military takeover which forces everyone to be vegan

When you assume, John...

kalabine wrote:
it's about time somebody wrote a pamphlet or summat against animal rights from a libertarian pov

I'd be willing to do that.

phoebe
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
May 9 2005 16:50
kalabine wrote:
it's about time somebody wrote a pamphlet or summat against animal rights from a libertarian pov

There're a couple of good "Animal Rights: For and Against" books which have really thorough arguments both ways which probably work. I don't think veganism/AR has anything to do with libertarianism specifically so much as ethics in a more general sense anyway, so the idea of an anarcho AR thing seems a bit weird (speaking as a vegan who isn't a head-banging-primmie).

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 9 2005 21:52

Hi

Years and years ago, 1988 I think, I read a wicked anarchist pamphlet...

"Animal liberation, a case of moral indignation?"

Or something. It was written by a genius, whose name I forget, working out of Brighton. It examined the liberal-side-issue as a phenominon based upon the psychological projection of a victim mentally on entities that can be considered to innocent, eg. Animals or "Mother Earth".

I'd be everso grateful if anyone could point me to a copy of that, I really miss it. The one at http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/analysis/animal-liberation.htm seems similar, is it an adaptation? Knowing my memory, it may be the original.

Lots of Love etc

Chris Cawsey

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
May 11 2005 19:26

All you need to know is contained in the below sentence:

"Revolution or no revoultion anyone who tries to deprive me of bacon sandwiches via tedious quasi-moralising is in for a kicking"

which is a quote from, err, me.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 12 2005 12:30
Ghost_of_the_revolution wrote:
All you need to know is contained in the below sentence:

"Revolution or no revoultion anyone who tries to deprive me of bacon sandwiches via tedious quasi-moralising is in for a kicking"

which is a quote from, err, me.

So your 'revolution' involves animal suffering, ecological malpractice, global warming, insuffiecent land use (potentially supporting global hunger) and consuming unhealthy foods?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 12 2005 12:34

no, just the first one

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
May 12 2005 18:16
october_lost wrote:
Ghost_of_the_revolution wrote:
All you need to know is contained in the below sentence:

"Revolution or no revoultion anyone who tries to deprive me of bacon sandwiches via tedious quasi-moralising is in for a kicking"

which is a quote from, err, me.

So your 'revolution' involves animal suffering, ecological malpractice, global warming, insuffiecent land use (potentially supporting global hunger) and consuming unhealthy foods?

There it is, that tedious quasi-moralising spoken of earlier.

But lets run through it anyway

Animal suffering- nope. A pig is not aware that it exists. To deprive it of its life is to deprive it of nothing at all. Provided it is killed humanely.

Ecological malpractice- nope. Pigs are not ecologically unsound, they are a perfectly normal part of the ecosystem. Another perfectly normal (and downright essential) part of the ecosystem is animals eating other animals.

Global warming- yes, but by eating the pig rather than letting it live to a ripe old age am i not reducing that particular effect?

Insufficient land use- what are you saying here? Pigs don't use enough land? I'll be sure to pass your thoughts on to some pigs. Had you said inefficient land use, then you might have a reasonable argument, but you didn't, so lets continue.

Unhealthy food- nope. Human beings evolved to eat meat as well as vegetables, if its all the same to you I'd sooner trust evolution to tell me what to eat than you.

Next time, leave out the sarcasm and unsupported assertions and say something sensible.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
May 12 2005 18:21

Ghost_of_the_revolution and October_lost, I always get you two confused, but I knew one of you had good politics and the other bad. Now that I've got the evidence for which is which in front of me I'm going to try and come up with a little mnemonic.

Hmm.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
May 12 2005 18:23

Ok, here we go:

Revolution's ghost, like him the most

October lost, off a cliff should be tossed

Now I need to come up with one for Beanis and nastyned, who I also get confused. I think nastyned is the ok one but I'm not certain.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 12 2005 18:42
Quote:
There it is, that tedious quasi-moralising spoken of earlier

No they are all pretty serious, practical concerns.

Quote:
Animal suffering- nope. A pig is not aware that it exists. To deprive it of its life is to deprive it of nothing at all. Provided it is killed humanely.

*cough* dickhead *cough* Pigs are conscious, one of the most intelligent animals alive and more than capable of suffering. Infact they are particularly "social" and have, in terms of behaviour, very complex emotional responses. "Humane" is a euphemism for dickheads that means nothing.

Quote:
Ecological malpractice- nope. Pigs are not ecologically unsound, they are a perfectly normal part of the ecosystem.

Having as many animals as we do, breeding them like we do, keeping like we do and so on is completely unnatural and damaging to the animals themselves and the ecosystem. The countless number of cows in fact is a major cause of...

Quote:
Global warming
Quote:
Insufficient land use- what are you saying here?

We're using too much land and resources for domesticated animals and for the production of meat. If, say, the country was to go vegan the amount of farmland needed would be dramatically decreased (I think its less than a half).

Quote:
Unhealthy food- nope. Human beings evolved to eat meat as well as vegetables

All our biological cousins eat little or no meat. The amount of meat people are eating today is having a major detrimental effect in their health. Veg*ans have been shown again and again to be healthier and live longer. Hmmm...work it out.

Quote:
Next time, leave out the sarcasm and unsupported assertions and say something sensible.

oh, the irony. roll eyes

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 12 2005 18:49
Quote:
Having as many animals as we do, breeding them like we do, keeping like we do and so on is completely unnatural and damaging to the animals themselves and the ecosystem.

so if we had less animals, bred them differently and so on, would you mind if we ate them occasionally?

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
May 12 2005 18:57
Volin wrote:
Quote:
Animal suffering- nope. A pig is not aware that it exists. To deprive it of its life is to deprive it of nothing at all. Provided it is killed humanely.

*cough* dickhead *cough* Pigs are conscious, one of the most intelligent animals alive and more than capable of suffering. Infact they are particularly "social" and have, in terms of behaviour, very complex emotional responses. "Humane" is a euphemism for dickheads that means nothing.

Why don't you read things before you quote them? Ghost says it's ok to kill a pig cos it has no concept of it's own mortality - if it is kept in good conditions and is killed painlessly (which was his/her qualifier), where's the suffering?

Quote:
Having as many animals as we do, breeding them like we do, keeping like we do and so on is completely unnatural and damaging to the animals themselves and the ecosystem. The countless number of cows in fact is a major cause of...
Quote:
Global warming

We're using too much land and resources for domesticated animals and for the production of meat. If, say, the country was to go vegan the amount of farmland needed would be dramatically decreased (I think its less than a half).

That's all a byproduct of current meat production processes, not inherent to meat production itself.

Quote:
All our biological cousins eat little or no meat.

So? Our biological cousins are also covered in hair from head to foot and make unintelligable whooping noises.

Quote:
The amount of meat people are eating today is having a major detrimental effect in their health. Veg*ans have been shown again and again to be healthier and live longer. Hmmm...work it out.

Or could it just be that most vegans are middle class, and middle class people live longer? Are all vegans inherently healthier? My cousin is vegan and she is unnaturally pale, unhealthily thin and looks like a horse.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 12 2005 19:12

...hmmm

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 12 2005 19:14
Quote:
Why don't you read things before you quote them?

>>>

Quote:
"Humane" is a euphemism for dickheads that means nothing.

Quote:
That's all a byproduct of current meat production processes, not inherent to meat production itself.

Current meat production is dependent upon the current system and demand for meat and animal products.

Quote:
So? Our biological cousins are also covered in hair from head to foot and make unintelligable whooping noises.

The point was concerning the foods we have "evolved" to eat -which, in terms of our anatomy etc. is not significantly different from chimpanzees which are about 90% vegetarian.

Quote:
Or could it just be that most vegans are middle class, and middle class people live longer? Are all vegans inherently healthier?

The longest living people in the world are not middle-class and consume little or no animal products. On average Vegans are far healthier than omnivores and significantly less likely to suffer from heart disease, colon cancer bla bla...the former is one of the biggest killers.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 12 2005 19:18
Quote:
so if we had less animals, bred them differently and so on, would you mind if we ate them occasionally?

No but it might be less damaging for the environment. On the whole, feeding billions of people meat (especially as a major part of their diet) requires factory farming and large-scale, eco-catastrophic meat production.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
May 12 2005 19:29
Volin wrote:
"Humane" is a euphemism for dickheads that means nothing.

The word humane does have a meaning which applies to Ghost's point. You just don't like it cos it's derived from "human" and you are a misnathrope.

Quote:
Current meat production is dependent upon the current system and demand for meat and animal products.

Wrong! If you think it's not within the scope of humanity to reform meat production processes rather than reform our appetites, then presumably you also think it's also not possible to, say, switch to cleaner power rather than stop using electricity. In which case you can join Lazlo Woodbine in primmo fantasy land.

Quote:
The point was concerning the foods we have "evolved" to eat -which, in terms of our anatomy etc. is not significantly different from chimpanzees which are about 90% vegetarian.

Nice proving of your point there. 90% vegetarian - in other words they can stomach meat as a significant proportion of their diet. As can gorillas and most apes. But even if that wasn't the case, we aren't chimps. Gorillas can eat their own faeces with no ill effects - you try that and see how you feel afterwards. Clearly what goes for our nearest biological cousins doesn't necessarily go for us.

Quote:
Or could it just be that most vegans are middle class, and middle class people live longer? Are all vegans inherently healthier?

The longest living people in the world are not middle-class and consume little or no animal products. On average Vegans are far healthier than omnivores and significantly less likely to suffer from heart disease, colon cancer bla bla...the former is one of the biggest killers.

Yes, but my point is are vegans necessarily healthy when they generally have that deprived, hungry look?

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 12 2005 22:00
Quote:
The word humane does have a meaning which applies to Ghost's point. You just don't like it cos it's derived from "human" and you are a misnathrope.

No, if anything I'd consider the human part of it rather ironic. "Humanely" killing millions of animals everyday only makes sense to someone who wants to defend that killing. Animals are going to suffer in their lifetimes and at the point of death, the very process is "inhumane" whether the animal is meant to be killed quickly or not.

Quote:
Wrong! If you think it's not within the scope of humanity to reform meat production processes rather than reform our appetites, then presumably you also think it's also not possible to, say, switch to cleaner power rather than stop using electricity. In which case you can join Lazlo Woodbine in primmo fantasy land.

confused I have honestly no idea what you're talking about. I am not a primitivist...I might be a green anarchist but I have no problem with technology or "civilisation", only that it must be changed to suit the needs of the many rather than the few. As I also said, "On the whole, feeding billions of people meat (especially as a major part of their diet) requires factory farming and large-scale, eco-catastrophic meat production." You cant reform this meat industry to make it any more "humane" or acceptable. The only way animal suffering would be reduced is by massively cutting back on the consumption (and thus production) of meat and the (ab)using of animals. It's quite possible to use electricity without causing a great amount of suffering to anyone, but that doesn't carry to the meat industry.

Quote:
Nice proving of your point there. 90% vegetarian - in other words they can stomach meat as a significant proportion of their diet. As can gorillas and most apes.

I wouldn't call 10% a significant proportion of their diet; and that includes grubs, insects and the odd scavanged or caught small animal. Hardly a wonderful comparison. Chimps sometimes only eat plant matter, whereas gorillas are almost complete vegetarians.

Quote:
Clearly what goes for our nearest biological cousins doesn't necessarily go for us.

Anatomically, and yet surprisingly!, we are more similar to our mainly vegetarian relations rather than the strict omnivores of the world. But this is all getting beside the point. We can quite happily live without meat, infact we are generally healthier when we do so.

There is no justification for our current production of animal food and animal products as a whole. There are countless alternatives to these, and yet still people want to continue uncontested with these practices. An anarchist society would necessarily, inevitably seek to change our unjust relationship with animals. We might differ as to how we go about that, but it is essential that anarchists take animals into consideration.

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
May 12 2005 23:45

After all that, we finally manage to distill some sense out of the whole messy affair. Two simple sentences:

Quote:
An anarchist society would necessarily, inevitably seek to change our unjust relationship with animals. We might differ as to how we go about that, but it is essential that anarchists take animals into consideration.

Replace 'unjust' with 'unsustainable' and you're there. It may be that the militant vegans are gradually coming around to the idea of letting people make their own decisions- but the old sloppy arguments are still there:

Quote:
Animals are going to suffer in their lifetimes and at the point of death, the very process is "inhumane" whether the animal is meant to be killed quickly or not.

Unfortunately, animals being unable to achieve enlightenment and escape the mortal cycle, they will always suffer and they will always die no matter what we do to them.

However, violin is right that current levels of meat production require factory farming. If you believe that factory farming is wrong (I do), then you must concede that meat consumption needs to change.

Now lets all calm down and think about why using pragmatic reasoning to support moral assertions is just plain silly. As is the phrase *cough*dickhead*cough*.

si
Offline
Joined: 16-01-05
May 13 2005 00:02

what, aren't we animals? buying into a post-christian myth of human uniqueness? why is it inconceivable that some animals (other than us) have a consciousness of their end, or could achieve it? What's the philosophical basis for such a claim? Or is it scientific?

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
May 13 2005 10:52

Who's made that claim then?

This:

Quote:
Unfortunately, animals being unable to achieve enlightenment and escape the mortal cycle, they will always suffer and they will always die no matter what we do to them.

is true regardless of whether we include ourselves as animals.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
May 13 2005 11:54
Quote:
Replace 'unjust' with 'unsustainable' and you're there. It may be that the militant vegans are gradually coming around to the idea of letting people make their own decisions

No you're still not getting it...present meat production is unjust not only because of the damage it is doing ecologically, and interms of inefficient land use, but in terms of ethics (the two are linked). Torturing conscious and sentient beings for for something we dont need, is the same capitalist mind-sight that allows millions of human beings to sell themselves for their profit and priveledge. The only way you could transform the present meat industry into a sustainable method of producing food would be to cease consuming so much meat. It would mean changing the diets of millions (Americans especially) from one of large amounts of meat and animal products to one primarily of plants.

And no, militant ARAs do not accept the idea "of letting people make their own decisions" because that's the exact same idea that people's "freedom" can allow them to harm others for their own benefit.

Quote:
Unfortunately, animals being unable to achieve enlightenment and escape the mortal cycle, they will always suffer and they will always die no matter what we do to them.

Meat production per se involves causing large-scale confinement, suffering and injustice whether you accept it or not. This is unnecessary and cannot be compared to an animal dying naturally.

Quote:
As is the phrase *cough*dickhead*cough*.

Sorry only a dickhead would something like that, "A pig is not aware that it exists. To deprive it of its life is to deprive it of nothing at all."

red n black star circle A star green black

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 13 2005 14:22
si wrote:
what, aren't we animals? buying into a post-christian myth of human uniqueness? why is it inconceivable that some animals (other than us) have a consciousness of their end, or could achieve it? What's the philosophical basis for such a claim? Or is it scientific?

Show me pigs with:

  • A real language
  • A concept of their own existence
  • A culture
  • An understanding of what it means to have rights or be free

Then I might throw out the bacon. [/]

si
Offline
Joined: 16-01-05
May 13 2005 14:30

Those are all scientific questions, and interesting ones. But there is an underlying philosophical assumption that seems to have evaded examination: why are those things and those things only the criteria for animals to become something more? Why should animals be protected only insofar as they resemble us?

Not sure I want to take sides on that, tho. It's not something I care about particularly.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 13 2005 14:36
si wrote:
Those are all scientific questions, and interesting ones. But there is an underlying philosophical assumption that seems to have evaded examination: why are those things and those things only the criteria for animals to become something more? Why should animals be protected only insofar as they resemble us?

Because you can only suffer as much as you can understand suffering and you can only be oppressed as much as you can understand what freedom is. Without the capacity for abstract thought, a true understanding of life and liberty is impossible.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 13 2005 16:15
madashell wrote:
si wrote:
Those are all scientific questions, and interesting ones. But there is an underlying philosophical assumption that seems to have evaded examination: why are those things and those things only the criteria for animals to become something more? Why should animals be protected only insofar as they resemble us?

Because you can only suffer as much as you can understand suffering and you can only be oppressed as much as you can understand what freedom is. Without the capacity for abstract thought, a true understanding of life and liberty is impossible.

What about human infants and the mentally infirm? The logic of your arguement would make paedophillia acceptable?

What also of the mentally retarded?

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
May 13 2005 22:05
october_lost wrote:
madashell wrote:
si wrote:
Those are all scientific questions, and interesting ones. But there is an underlying philosophical assumption that seems to have evaded examination: why are those things and those things only the criteria for animals to become something more? Why should animals be protected only insofar as they resemble us?

Because you can only suffer as much as you can understand suffering and you can only be oppressed as much as you can understand what freedom is. Without the capacity for abstract thought, a true understanding of life and liberty is impossible.

What about human infants and the mentally infirm? The logic of your arguement would make paedophillia acceptable?

What also of the mentally retarded?

Much as you might hate to believe it a 'mentally retarded' person is still more aware of their existence than a fucking pig, and comparing the two as you just did is intolerable. Would you tell a mentally handicapped individual that they have, in your view, a simillar mental capacity to that of a pig? They had a political party for your sort in Germany back in the 1940's.

Interestingly, if you were to fall into a pen full of pigs, they would eat you alive. It follows from this that they are either unaware of what it is to be alive or they are malevolant bastards with no respect for the sanctity of life- and therefore do not deserve any such consideration from us.