Another great piece, Prof. Huemer. Block's arguments seem to represent a set of highly irrational beliefs shared by many libertarians. This really leads one to think: why do they even believe libertarianism in the first place?
Ethical veganism and libertarianism are clearly consistent. But I'm also wondering, how might an an-cap society deal with factory farming? For example, a main reason why individual security would likely be protected in such societies, cogently argued in your book, is that people's desires and interests for personal security align with private agencies and arbitrators. However, such mutually benefiting relationships don't seem to hold between most people and factory-farmed animals. So, there are virtually none prudential reasons for most people to abolish factory farming, even if they have impartial moral reasons. Given that people are generally indifferent to animal sufferings, it seems factory farming would still be present in an an-cap society.
That said, this might not be an objection to an-cap, and indeed this problem is also faced by other positions. Still, is this take on factory farming and an-cap too pessimistic? How do you think factory farming could be stopped in an-cap world(or couldn't)?
Lab grown meat and general moral cultural progress. A hypothetical ancap (or practically any other ideology) society hundreds of years ago would have had slavery of other races because they didn’t see others as human.
Block's arguments seem weak. Are there no better advocates for factory farms? What is the steelman argument for eating factory grown meat?
>It is wrong to cause a large amount of suffering for the sake of relatively minor benefits for oneself.
This presupposes that the suffering of animals in factory farms is equivalent to other forms of suffering. Isn’t this the point of disagreement with persons who are indifferent to factory farming? We, even you, care about some forms of suffering, and not about others (e.g. insects). Why should we care more than we do about the suffering of cattle, chickens, and pigs in factory farms?
>Factory farming causes a large amount of suffering for the sake of relatively minor benefits for us.
If the comparison is between the status quo and a situation without factory farms, perhaps the benefits seem minor on first glance. Does the argument really depend on this being minor? Would factory farming have been justified during the middle ages, when more efficient production of animal protein might have had a significant impact on the health of human populations?
Does the libertarian position justify taking action to defend factory farm animals, or is it limited to advocacy of boycotting factory farmed meat?
Like you, I'm both an ethical vegetarian and a libertarian. Although I think consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, has merit, I'm primarily a deontologist, specifically an advocate of natural rights and obligations. My libertarian credentials are as follows: First, I discovered libertarianism independently in early 1972 when I derived the political philosophy from a principle of justice similar to the NAP that I arrived at through a process of reasoning. I had no adequate name for my political philosophy, which I assumed was unique (because it implied various positions I'd never heard of, such as that taxation is unjust and that children should not be required by law to attend school), until out of curiosity, I took a 20-item “Find Your Political Position” test at the Libertarian Party booth at the 1976 Nevada Jaycee Fair in Las Vegas. I scored 100% libertarian to the astonishment of myself and the man who gave me the test. Subsequently, I scored 160/160 on Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity test. I was an ethical vegetarian long before I read your book on the topic of ethical vegetarianism. I derived ethical vegetarianism from the same principle that led to libertarianism. My principle is superior to the NAP because violating the NAP is a sufficient condition for committing an unjust act, but it's not a necessary condition. In contrast, my principle (which requires more explanation than I have room for here) states both the necessary and sufficient conditions for committing an unjust act. In the unlikely event you respond to this comment, I'll explain it to you in detail in a private email attachment. As a bonus, I'll tell you why your proposal concerning the liar paradox in “Paradox Lost” is erroneous, and I'll describe the correct adequate solutions to all versions of that paradox. Here's a hint: The Strengthened Liar, said to be the most problematic version, occurs in an unusual way due to a common, but very subtle, fallacy.
Another great piece, Prof. Huemer. Block's arguments seem to represent a set of highly irrational beliefs shared by many libertarians. This really leads one to think: why do they even believe libertarianism in the first place?
Ethical veganism and libertarianism are clearly consistent. But I'm also wondering, how might an an-cap society deal with factory farming? For example, a main reason why individual security would likely be protected in such societies, cogently argued in your book, is that people's desires and interests for personal security align with private agencies and arbitrators. However, such mutually benefiting relationships don't seem to hold between most people and factory-farmed animals. So, there are virtually none prudential reasons for most people to abolish factory farming, even if they have impartial moral reasons. Given that people are generally indifferent to animal sufferings, it seems factory farming would still be present in an an-cap society.
That said, this might not be an objection to an-cap, and indeed this problem is also faced by other positions. Still, is this take on factory farming and an-cap too pessimistic? How do you think factory farming could be stopped in an-cap world(or couldn't)?
Lab grown meat and general moral cultural progress. A hypothetical ancap (or practically any other ideology) society hundreds of years ago would have had slavery of other races because they didn’t see others as human.
Omnivores would be more appropriate than carnivores I think. I’ve never encountered someone in real life who ate no vegetable products at all.
There are “carnivore” diets yes but using the term here doesn’t make much sense.
Block's arguments seem weak. Are there no better advocates for factory farms? What is the steelman argument for eating factory grown meat?
>It is wrong to cause a large amount of suffering for the sake of relatively minor benefits for oneself.
This presupposes that the suffering of animals in factory farms is equivalent to other forms of suffering. Isn’t this the point of disagreement with persons who are indifferent to factory farming? We, even you, care about some forms of suffering, and not about others (e.g. insects). Why should we care more than we do about the suffering of cattle, chickens, and pigs in factory farms?
>Factory farming causes a large amount of suffering for the sake of relatively minor benefits for us.
If the comparison is between the status quo and a situation without factory farms, perhaps the benefits seem minor on first glance. Does the argument really depend on this being minor? Would factory farming have been justified during the middle ages, when more efficient production of animal protein might have had a significant impact on the health of human populations?
Does the libertarian position justify taking action to defend factory farm animals, or is it limited to advocacy of boycotting factory farmed meat?
Like you, I'm both an ethical vegetarian and a libertarian. Although I think consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, has merit, I'm primarily a deontologist, specifically an advocate of natural rights and obligations. My libertarian credentials are as follows: First, I discovered libertarianism independently in early 1972 when I derived the political philosophy from a principle of justice similar to the NAP that I arrived at through a process of reasoning. I had no adequate name for my political philosophy, which I assumed was unique (because it implied various positions I'd never heard of, such as that taxation is unjust and that children should not be required by law to attend school), until out of curiosity, I took a 20-item “Find Your Political Position” test at the Libertarian Party booth at the 1976 Nevada Jaycee Fair in Las Vegas. I scored 100% libertarian to the astonishment of myself and the man who gave me the test. Subsequently, I scored 160/160 on Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity test. I was an ethical vegetarian long before I read your book on the topic of ethical vegetarianism. I derived ethical vegetarianism from the same principle that led to libertarianism. My principle is superior to the NAP because violating the NAP is a sufficient condition for committing an unjust act, but it's not a necessary condition. In contrast, my principle (which requires more explanation than I have room for here) states both the necessary and sufficient conditions for committing an unjust act. In the unlikely event you respond to this comment, I'll explain it to you in detail in a private email attachment. As a bonus, I'll tell you why your proposal concerning the liar paradox in “Paradox Lost” is erroneous, and I'll describe the correct adequate solutions to all versions of that paradox. Here's a hint: The Strengthened Liar, said to be the most problematic version, occurs in an unusual way due to a common, but very subtle, fallacy.
Do you think Humans deserve to be punished for our behavior towards animals? Perhaps taxation is just retributive theft.
...and there we go. Nothing can be fixed until everything is fixed. So nothing can be fixed.
What do you mean?
I just mean if you look at the bad/immoral/whatever things people do and say taxation is punishment for it, you can justify nearly anything that way.
Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it violates rights. Meat eating plausibly violates animal rights not to be tortured.
Most people don’t do things most of the time.where it would be worth using coercive methods to punish them.