Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy

[Philosphorous]

 

OKay. I agree that it is an injustice that the Feds are uprooting this guy.

 

However, I'm looking for some consistency.

 

It IS okay for the rancher to cage, manage, and butcher the cattle for profit. It IS okay for the rancher to chase other animals off of "his" land. It IS okay for the rancher to chop down trees, build over other habitats (trees are habitats), or eliminate "pests" (other animals) on "his" land. It IS okay for "might is right"; in other words, the rancher is stronger and more capable than the other animals, so it is fine for him to do what he's doing.

 

But...

 

It IS NOT okay for the government to treat Cliven Bundy like he treats the animals and land--with force? Why? Because he's human?

 

So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)?

 

Seems a little inconsistent. Please advise.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz5GXDpwWN8

[NumberSix]

The government backed down, at least for now.  I think this is the first time the US gov has ever backed down in a situation like this.  “Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM director Neil Kornze said.

[cynicist]

So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)?

 

Seems a little inconsistent. Please advise.

 

Last time I checked, wild animals couldn't negotiate or follow principles. Treating them like they could would be inconsistent. 

[fractional slacker]

The government backed down, at least for now.  I think this is the first time the US gov has ever backed down in a situation like this.  “Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM director Neil Kornze said.

Reality check:“Based on fear about not having superior fire power on the ground, and in consultation with our gun thugs, we have made a decision to cease stealing this guy's cattle because we are bullies and cowards” BLM director Neil Kornze said.

[Openeye]

It IS NOT okay for the government to treat Cliven Bundy like he treats the animals and land--with force? Why? Because he's human?

 

So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)?

 

 

To put it bluntly...yes it is okay.

 

I would like to say though that this whole situation has been conflicting for me. I do not recognize the governments claim to this land, but the enviormentalist side of me wants to say that if this man is not maintaining the land that is unowned he is immoral.

 

Now if he is maintaining the land at his own expense than I have no issues with the grazing on unowned land.

[Philosphorous]

Last time I checked, wild animals couldn't negotiate or follow principles. Treating them like they could would be inconsistent. 

 

Wow. That is pathetic. "Wild animals can't act human." That's all you said.

 

This is my whole problem with ancaps. If it's not human, fuck it. Humans know best!

[Malovane]

To put it bluntly...yes it is okay.

 

I would like to say though that this whole situation has been conflicting for me. I do not recognize the governments claim to this land, but the enviormentalist side of me wants to say that if this man is not maintaining the land that is unowned he is immoral.

 

Now if he is maintaining the land at his own expense than I have no issues with the grazing on unowned land.

 

If you are talking about the impact the cattle might have on the desert tortoise, you might be surprised to know that tortoises eat cattle dung. This actually comprises a significant portion of their diet:

 

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049

 

As ranching declines in the region, so does the numbers of tortoise.

 

Now, as for the "bureau of land management", they have been actively killing the same tortoises they state they are trying to protect due to "budgetary constraints".

 

If you are talking about possible threat to vegetation, there was one point in the 1930s where land became overgrazed in Nevada, during a drought. This was bad, and many cattle died. But normally, herds simply keep the deserts trimmed of brush - which can cause massive brush fires that threaten all life in the area.

 

The reality is that the simple act of grazing his cattle on this land is maintaining it, and generating life.

 

Now, contrast that with what the BLM are apparently trying to do in this area, which is to give the land to a company to build a solar plant. Sounds green, right? Unfortunately, no. The plants they are building now are not based on solar cells, but rather on arrays of mirrors that heats water. What is the effect? Lots of animal death, seeing as the air temperatures can hit 1000 degrees:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484

 

They also use vast amounts of water. Obviously a precious commodity in the desert.

[Malovane]

Wow. That is pathetic. "Wild animals can't act human." That's all you said.

 

This is my whole problem with ancaps. If it's not human, fuck it. Humans know best!

 

Can't act human? Domesticated cattle, like the majority of animals in the world, do not have the capacity to reason, or affect the world in any meaningul way other than eating and pooping. As such, there is no capacity for a deep and intimate relationship between cattle and humans. These animals have been bred as food for thousands of years, and likely wouldn't exist without humans having done so.

 

Sure, one can empathize with these animals, as they're social creatures. It's one reason that ranchers do not allow themselves to name their animals - it's much more difficult to slaughter them. If you want to go down the route of empathizing with food sources, put down that celery and lettuce. Science has shown that plants feel pain and stress as well, and even communicate with each other when being harvested. You won't have a lot of choices on what to eat. Fruit, milk, nuts, and honey are some options. But under such a diet, your health would suffer.

 

For myself, I'll continue with my practice of eating cows, lambs, pigs, chickens, rabbits, buffalo, and whatever else I feel my body needs, and be grateful for it. Until, that is, we are able to mass produce synthetic foods that satisfy nutritional requirements.

[Philosphorous]

Can't act human? Domesticated cattle, like the majority of animals in the world, do not have the capacity to reason, or affect the world in any meaningul way other than eating and pooping. As such, there is no capacity for a deep and intimate relationship between cattle and humans. These animals have been bred as food for thousands of years, and likely wouldn't exist without humans having done so.

 

Sure, one can empathize with these animals, as they're social creatures. It's one reason that ranchers do not allow themselves to name their animals - it's much more difficult to slaughter them. If you want to go down the route of empathizing with food sources, put down that celery and lettuce. Science has shown that plants feel pain and stress as well, and even communicate with each other when being harvested. You won't have a lot of choices on what to eat. Fruit, milk, nuts, and honey are some options. But under such a diet, your health would suffer.

 

For myself, I'll continue with my practice of eating cows, lambs, pigs, chickens, rabbits, buffalo, and whatever else I feel my body needs, and be grateful for it. Until, that is, we are able to mass produce synthetic foods that satisfy nutritional requirements.

 

Okay. Perhaps birds should judge you on how well you can fly. Or spiders on how well you can spin a web. Or perhaps the trees will find you pathetic because you cannot live on sun and water alone.

 

The entire argument is a specieist domination cul-de-sac. If you're human, you own the Earth and can do what you want to everything so long as you don't hurt other humans--even though by hurting animals and ecosystems, there's no way to know the extent of the damage and therefore no way to know for sure you aren't hurting other humans.

 

Watch my video above please. It outlines how absurd the non-aggression principle is.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Okay. Perhaps birds should judge you on how well you can fly. Or spiders on how well you can spin a web. Or perhaps the trees will find you pathetic because you cannot live on sun and water alone.

 

The entire argument is a specieist domination cul-de-sac. If you're human, you own the Earth and can do what you want to everything so long as you don't hurt other humans--even though by hurting animals and ecosystems, there's no way to know the extent of the damage and therefore no way to know for sure you aren't hurting other humans.

 

While not exactly being the most astute philosopher, Maddox manages to get the point across in his rudimentary sort of way:

 

[AustinJames]

Okay. Perhaps birds should judge you on how well you can fly. Or spiders on how well you can spin a web. Or perhaps the trees will find you pathetic because you cannot live on sun and water alone.

 

The entire argument is a specieist domination cul-de-sac. If you're human, you own the Earth and can do what you want to everything so long as you don't hurt other humans--even though by hurting animals and ecosystems, there's no way to know the extent of the damage and therefore no way to know for sure you aren't hurting other humans.

 

Watch my video above please. It outlines how absurd the non-aggression principle is.

 

Just because something does not violate the NAP does not mean it is automatically 'okay.'  There are other universal principles that can be applied to define the moral content of an action.  To say 'the non-aggression principle doesn't apply to [this], so it's a load of crap!' is akin to saying, 'Newtonian physics cannot help us learn more about black holes, so it's a load of crap!'

 

The NAP is useful for finding the moral content of some human interactions.  Nobody is claiming that adherence to the NAP will solve all the world's problems; just lots of them.  Universally preferable behavior still applies to animals and the environment, and most of the examples from your video would be considered a violation of UPB, though not a violation of the non-aggression principle.

 

A sadist is someone who feels pleasure when they observe a pain response in another creature.  To act sadistically is to cause another living thing to feel pain, for the sole purpose of observing the pain response that is enjoyed by the sadist.  So the non-sadistic principle asserts that it is immoral to cause pain in another living thing for the sole purpose of enjoying the pain response that is observed.