Subject:
|
Re: McViegh is no Libertarian
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:51:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
268 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > - people ought to be fre to eat meat if they so choose. They should not be
> > prevented from choosing to buy products that contain animal products if
> > suppliers are willing to provide them, with the proviso that the suppliers
> > ought to be required to produce the products without cruelty or unnecessary
> > suffering to the animals
>
> Just curious on this last bit. One thing I've struggled with some is
> where it is appropriate for the law to step in. How much should the law
> step in to prevent animal cruelty, and how do we chose that line. This
> type of dilema strikes me as one area the Libertarian ideal of free
> market ought to be capable of finding the line (i.e. don't trample
> disclosure, and let folks decide how much cruelty they're willing to
> stand in the products they use).
I honestly don't know the answer to this one. Animals don't have rights the
way we do but I still don't think that being cruel to animals is OK. I have
heard claims the market can take care of most of it if a little publicity is
used... But "most of it" isn't good enough I don't think. I don't want to
tolerate a little cruelty any more than I want to tolerate a little thievery.
Someone more libertarian than me is going to have to explain how a totally
market based solution (that is, without a law that explicitly says "thou
shall not be cruel to animals" at the same "common law" level as "thou shalt
not kill") would work.
Anyone have any ideas?
> As you mention in a later post, you're inclined to not regulate labeling
> by other than free market means, and I tend to agree there. I think we
> could easily develop certifying agencies which would be quite capable of
> guaranteeing our products (as has been mentioned in the past, there is
> already at least one such well known agency, UL [actually there are many
> examples, film ratings are another example]). Trademark law provides
> adequate protection for their stamps of approval. Fraud can of course
> also be prosecuted as necessary.
Oh my, yes.
This is standard doctrine, well accepted by just about anyone even
moderately libertarian. Independent, competing, certifying agencies are
likely to give us better documentation and thus better products, than our
current, minimum standards based, approach.
As usual, I want some accountability. Right now the USDA meat inspector that
takes a little grease to let a lot of grease slide by isn't liable to
anyone, except maybe if he gets caught with greasy hands he gets a little
time for bribery... but the person who died has no claim against the USDA.
I'd hold the UL analogue that inspected the plant liable, as well as the
people who screwed up.
(this currently baffles me the most about Matt, why he thinks that a)
government officials are currently accountable... (he needs to dig into his
citepile a bit more to see that Janet's name doesn't long stay on lawsuits)
and at the same time b) that they shouldn't be accountable... but that's
another thread.)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: McViegh is no Libertarian
|
| (...) Just curious on this last bit. One thing I've struggled with some is where it is appropriate for the law to step in. How much should the law step in to prevent animal cruelty, and how do we chose that line. This type of dilema strikes me as (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
