Maybe this will spark some discussion -
arguments against the Vick prosecution -
---
Libertarians for Cruelty to Quarterbacks
S.M. Oliva
Radley Balko writes, apropos of the Michael Vick indictment, "I don't think there's anything unlibertarian about laws against animal cruelty." Balko thinks Vick should go to prison if he's convicted on federal charges related to a dog-fighting enterprise allegedly run out of the NFL quarterback's property in Virginia.
Whether you agree with Balko that government laws against animal cruelty are consistent with libertarianism--and if the war in Iraq can be libertarian, what can't be?--he's misstating the question. The federal government did not charge Vick with animal cruelty. As is often the case in today's prosecutor-based judicial system, Vick and his co-defendants are charged with a vague derivative offense of dubious constitutionality. If Balko wants an honest debate, he should ask, "Are laws against 'Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture' unlibertarian?"
The indictment identifies three key components of an alleged conspiracy to commit "offenses against the United States":
* First, "traveling in interstate commerce . . . with intent to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity . . . to wit: a business enterprise involving gambling in violation of [Virginia law]";
* Second, "knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture has moved in interstate commerce";
and
* Finally, "knowingly buying, transporting, delivering, and receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate commerce, any dog for the purposes of having the dog participate in an animal fighting venture".
Taking Balko's endorsement of the Vick prosecution at face value marks a radical departure from traditional libertarian views on the limits of federal power. First, you must accept that the state may charge "conspiracy" without proving an underlying offense. Second, you must accept that Virginia may ban the voluntary act of wagering--regardless of the event--and that the federal government may intervene to enforce said law when the state declines. Third, you must accept the New Deal Court-era proclamation that Congress may invoke the Commerce Clause to regulate any person or object that touches (or may touch) interstate commerce at any point. Finally, you have to find that animals are not property, but hold quasi-legal status akin to humans. That's a lot to swallow.
blog.mises.org
--
meganmcardle.theatlantic.com
In defense of Michael Vick
distributedrepublic.net
No rights for animals
distributedrepublic.net
---
I'm sure I could find more if I looked.
I think the argument made at the first link is the strongest, which is why I quoted it. Vick wasn't charged with animal cruelty. Even if federal laws against animal cruelty are just, constitutional, and properly respecting of individual freedom (which the the people at the other links would deny), the actual laws that Vick was charged with may not be. Certainly they aren't libertarian, (which is closer to the question under discussion in that blog post).
As for the arguments made in the other links - Do animals have natural rights? (assuming the concept of national rights is one you agree with, I guess if you don't the answer is no). What are these rights? If they don't have rights than is the prosecution just or otherwise a good idea anyway, based on the emotional harm that cruelty to animals can cause to humans, or based on the fact that the action is immoral (asserting it as immoral isn't quite the same thing as asserting it is a rights violation), or because if we allow people to act cruelly to animals they might escalate to cruelty against humans, or for some other reason?
If animals don't have rights is it ok to abuse them? If its not ok to abuse animals, is it ok to prosecute someone for the abuse?
If animals do have rights, how extensive are they, and how seriously should they be considered compared to other factors that we might consider important? |
