Animal abuse in an anarchist society?

[kanuuker]

In an anarchistic society, how would animal abuse be handled? For example, let's say you live in the country and you have a neighbor who lives a couple of miles away, is generally a hermit, is mostly self-sustaining (DRO sanctions would have little effect on him), and he's abusing his animals. How could this situation be remedied?

[Jer]

Ostracism I guess. What would we do about that now? If it's some mountain man in the woods I doubt the cops are going to bother going after him.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

In an anarchistic society, how would animal abuse be handled? For example, let's say you live in the country and you have a neighbor who lives a couple of miles away, is generally a hermit, is mostly self-sustaining (DRO sanctions would have little effect on him), and he's abusing his animals. How could this situation be remedied?

Go and take his animals away.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Go and take his animals away.

 

Animals aren't moral agents. It was like smashing your computer. You cannot just steal someone's property, just because you think he don't treat it right. A more interesting question was, if zoophilia would be considered abuse. Given it doesn't harm the animal physically and rape requires selfownership. I am inclined to say, that zoophilia isn't abuse of animals.

[kanuuker]

I was trying to use animal abuse as a specific example to a general question which is "how does one handle situations where a DRO or social sanctions won't work?" Change out the animal abuse to spousal abuse and where the farmer and his wife aren't part of any DRO's or police/insurance protection or anything of the sort - they are completely off the grid. I understand that you could take matters into your own hands, but if you didn't want to personally get involved, how would this situation be dealt with?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

I was trying to use animal abuse as a specific example to a general question which is "how does one handle situations where a DRO or social sanctions won't work?" Change out the animal abuse to spousal abuse and where the farmer and his wife aren't part of any DRO's or police/insurance protection or anything of the sort - they are completely off the grid. I understand that you could take matters into your own hands, but if you didn't want to personally get involved, how would this situation be dealt with?

Can you understand how this could be perceived as a significant moving of the goal-posts? 

Could you first tell us if you have any answers to this question and what they are? 

[kanuuker]

I don't think I'm really moving the goalposts - they are fundamentally the same question; how do we handle a situation where someone is doing something immoral or inhumane while falling outside of the purvey of society and its possible sanctions. This is not a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, I am merely trying to further my understanding of the finer details of this system.

 

And no, I don't have the answer to my question. If that situation arose around me personally, I'd probably get a few buddies and our guns and handle it ourselves but I'd still like to know if there are any other solutions to consider.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I don't think I'm really moving the goalposts - they are fundamentally the same question; how do we handle a situation where someone is doing something immoral or inhumane while falling outside of the purvey of society and its possible sanctions. This is not a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, I am merely trying to further my understanding of the finer details of this system.

 

And no, I don't have the answer to my question. If that situation arose around me personally, I'd probably get a few buddies and our guns and handle it ourselves but I'd still like to know if there are any other solutions to consider.

Well if they really are outside the purvey of society and all possible sanctions then by definition there'd be nothing you could do about it because you'd never know about it. However it does raise the point that the person abusing the animals would HAVE to try to avoid society in order to continue torturing. This already happens to some degree in today's statist societies; imagine how much more risk the person would be taking an anarchist society were their lives depended on reputation. For the animal abuser an anarchist society may become a nightmare. You also have to consider that the right to initiate force would no longer be a generally accepted principle and, as animals share certain properties with humans, the abuse of animals could not be morally justified. What is the most common characteristic of animal abusers? That they themselves were abused as kids. As anarchy is founded on the NAP and child abuse is a violation of the NAP we would surely see a massive reduction in child abuse. It follows from that that we'd see a massive reduction in animal abuse. Someday I hope it becomes as unthinkable as slavery. 

[kanuuker]

Lets say I can see their house from mine and I can see him beating his wife. They are total recluses and I don't want to go over and whoop his ass personally. How would that work? I'm not trying to be pendantic, I just feel that exercises such as this only help refine a philosophy.

[Wesley]

Lets say I can see their house from mine and I can see him beating his wife. They are total recluses and I don't want to go over and whoop his ass personally. How would that work? I'm not trying to be pendantic, I just feel that exercises such as this only help refine a philosophy.

The easiest way would be to make that information public. I would not do anything with anyone who beat his wife. I am sure if he gets a certain amount of negative reputation, then he would have a lot of trouble buying food or enjoying himself unless he can find a way to make restitution in some way.

 

Besides this, I am sure he will have insurance against crimes happening to him, and in general his insurance would probably be revoked if he did risky behaviors (like commit assault himself). Thus, even if it is not entirely made public and all of society doesn't ostracize him, at minimum it would lead to a pretty substantial cost increase and risk increase as other people would be less likely to do business with him (or charge higher prices to reflect the increased risk) as he would be uninsured or have to switch to crappy insurance that allows wife beating or something.

 

These are just a few of my thoughts that are pretty easy and lead to pretty substantial negative consequences solely by sharing information.

 

Of course, to prevent fraud of reputation, your reputation would suffer similarly if you were known to make false claims.

[Omegahero09]

Say I saw the same guy beating his wife from my window too, and I had heard that this guy was a rabblerouser and was an abuser to his wife. In our anarchist society what consequences would I have for filming him in his own house from my house- abusing his wife? Would that be considered a breach in privacy or would the evidence be worth more in the situation than the breach?

[Wesley]

Say I saw the same guy beating his wife from my window too, and I had heard that this guy was a rabblerouser and was an abuser to his wife.  In our anarchist society what consequences would I have for filming him in his own house from my house- abusing his wife? Would that be considered a breach in privacy or would the evidence be worth more in the situation than the breach?

It you catch a criminal or abuser, I would consider you a hero and give you a discount for anything I was offering.

 

If you release or capture videos of non-crimes or randomly, then that would be considered negative.

 

 

I would also like to point out that this is just how I would see it. It is impossible to know for sure what standards of proof or consequences there would be in a hypothetical future. This is just an option.

[Omegahero09]

I think I agree with you. Communities would actually exist in the anarchist world, and if Abuser Bob really was like that, I don't think the community would really mind if evidence was found for his abuse. Think of the DRO letters, and agent visits to their house to speak with the wife, offering divorce settlements, and service plans to get her out of her situation, that is if Abuser Bob really doesn't have a DRO as we have established. 

[Jer]

What would we do about that now? If it's some mountain man in the woods I doubt the cops are going to bother going after him.

?

 

I was trying to use animal abuse as a specific example to a general question which is "how does one handle situations where a DRO or social sanctions won't work?" Change out the animal abuse to spousal abuse and where the farmer and his wife aren't part of any DRO's or police/insurance protection or anything of the sort - they are completely off the grid. I understand that you could take matters into your own hands, but if you didn't want to personally get involved, how would this situation be dealt with?

Have you listened to Stefan's stateless prisons podcast? Road owners refusing passage would be a HUGE deterrent. If the guy has a house and lives near people he's definitely going to have an easier life if he can buy water, fuel, food, etc.

 

Where does he get the animals? Basically nobody will sell them to a known abuser.

 

What about the root of the problem? Why is this guy abusing animals? As I understand it, this is a symptom of childhood trauma and I believe a society based on the NAP would greatly reduce this.

 

"Don't teach people to speak the language of violence" works just as well with regard to animals IMO.

[Marcus Clarke]

Lets say I can see their house from mine and I can see him beating his wife. They are total recluses and I don't want to go over and whoop his ass personally. How would that work? I'm not trying to be pendantic, I just feel that exercises such as this only help refine a philosophy.

 

Your DRO would offer to handle crime that not only happens directly to you, but happens in your local area.  I would not want my children living anywhere near an abuser, and if I found out about it, my DRO would need to handle the situation, or they would not be my DRO anymore.  I would have no more assumption of safety for my kids if they want to go outside to play, and this guy would be in the proximity to hurt them.  Why wouldn't I have a DRO that would handle that situation?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Lets say I can see their house from mine and I can see him beating his wife. They are total recluses and I don't want to go over and whoop his ass personally. How would that work? I'm not trying to be pendantic, I just feel that exercises such as this only help refine a philosophy.

Did I answer your question sufficiently or not? 

[kanuuker]

I appreciate everyone's response, but all of you (except Marcus Clarke) are still basing your answers on the premise that social sanctions would deter the criminal behavior. What I'm trying to figure out is how does one handle immoral activity when social sanctions won't work. Marcus's answer of using ones own DRO to handle the situation because having an immoral and violent neighbor is a danger to ones family is going in the right direction. Thanks!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I appreciate everyone's response, but all of you (except Marcus Clarke) are still basing your answers on the premise that social sanctions would deter the criminal behavior. What I'm trying to figure out is how does one handle immoral activity when social sanctions won't work. Marcus's answer of using ones own DRO to handle the situation because having an immoral and violent neighbor is a danger to ones family is going in the right direction. Thanks!

I'm not basing all my answers on that. My first answer didn't involve social sanctions but instead direct action. But you altered the scope of the question. If social sanctions don't work then you can take direct action. That's the answer.

[kanuuker]

Not to get into a bickering match, but I didn't change the scope of the question, I changed the superficial details to help clarify what I was getting at. That being said, I now get what you meant by 'take his animals' in that you were meaning that the answer is to take direct action. Similar to invoking my own DRO, I agree with you and that taking direct action is a viable solution. Thanks!

[fridolutin]

What about

 

Who uses the sword will perish by the sword

 

No use of doing anything his action is the penalty.

 

I think the best action is self directed, dont give any credit to what he does by refusing to eat or benefit from abused animals. Then the fire of hate and non respect will extinguish. 

This is said by seeing the failure of law enforcement that seems to be an endless journey in a wrong direction.

[Jer]

Is taking his animals a violation of the NAP? While I love animals and find abuse reprehensible I don't think they have the same self defense protections such that I'd be justified breaking into his house to save them.

[Omegahero09]

Is taking his animals a violation of the NAP? While I love animals and find abuse reprehensible I don't think they have the same self defense protections such that I'd be justified breaking into his house to save them.

This is I think where it gets interesting... Animals might be registered as property through veterinary services and DRO's, but wild ones... seems like a gray area to me.I agree with the above- I wouldn't trade or interact with Abuser Bob.  

[Philosphorous]

There is a very simple answer here: leave animals alone. Kill only enough to warrant your survival.

 

Keeping animals prisoner (pets) in homes really shows how pitiful humans are. They need to imprison a creature for life to introduce joy?

 

Animals are not property. They are not ours to use any more than children or other humans are property.

 

If anyone believes they have a right to own animals because they are superior, please watch this in its entirety:

[Corbin]

How are the other people in Bob's world aware of the abuse? In a free society, hermit people who don't interface with the rest of society may do unsavory things things in their basements, but these situations are likely to be rare exceptions. I imagine that compared with how often people are getting away with just these sorts of things presently, it would be a very nice world indeed.I know that if free people became aware of the hermit-dude abusing people on his property, self-defense issues come into play. 

[LovePrevails]

this is a question that concerns me as an animal lover and vegetarian

 

for one thing there wouldn't be massive subsidies for meat and dairy so meat would likely be 7 times as expensive so people would buy eat and kill less of it

 

plus the decrease in child abuse would lead to more empathic individuals who would be less inclined to mistreat and maybe even eat animals

[Corbin]

this is a question that concerns me as an animal lover and vegetarian

 

for one thing there wouldn't be massive subsidies for meat and dairy so meat would likely be 7 times as expensive so people would buy eat and kill less of it

 

plus the decrease in child abuse would lead to more empathic individuals who would be less inclined to mistreat and maybe even eat animals

 

I have a similar concern as an animal lover and non-vegetarian.

 

I definitely want meat to cost the correct price, and the meat I consume is more realistically priced than average. I also want animals to be treated with as much love and kindness as possible. 

 

Decreasing aggression and abuse seems to be the lynchpin to a free world. I think the people of "Phil's Gulch-topia" in 2035 are unlikely to have a lot of struggles with animal abuse because initiated aggression will be seen as the filthy abomination which it is.