Animal Rights

Insights5 Comments on Animal Rights

Animal Rights

There are no such things as inter-species rights. Much of the confusion on this issue is due to the fact that very few people understand what “rights” are in the first place.

Rights are defined in MtH as the entitlement to one’s property. All animals have different levels of natural property. Some are individualists, like squirrels. Some are communists, like bees or ants. The fact that animals are different, genetically, practically insures that they will not have the same natural property propensity as any other. Therefore, they will never be able to agree on the exact definition of what rights are and what they aren’t, even if they have a thorough understanding of the concept of property. Bees, who have no recognition of property, are incompatible on the basis of rights with squirrels, who have a strong proclivity for property. Because animals (including humans) can never know what the “level of property proclivity” is for any other species, there can never be an inter-species standard of rights.

The key is that rights are the entitlement to one’s property, which is any material asset acquired without the initiation of force, including one’s own body. All humans, being human, have the same rights, because we all have the same natural relationship to property. That can’t be said of one species compared to others.

Conceptual logician, libertarian philosopher, musician, economist, almost-ran businessman and other stuff.

5 thoughts on “Animal Rights

  1. Child abuse is also an unacceptable form of social behavior.

    Would you say the proper way to deal with offenders is to alert the public and have them ostracized? For example, to have sex offenders register after the crime has been committed? Or provide an online website like Both are examples of ostracizing and demonizing which claims to give knowledge to the public but also creates panic and fear. However, The usual ploy of a parent or guardian (offender) when being called out on something is to pick up and move and move again. I've seen it too many times to count. It's a continuous cycle. Ostracizing and demonizing may be useful, but it is ambiguous and only a lateral shift.

  2. ostracism, as you say, would be useful, but the difference is that child abuse is a violation of the person and property of others, namely the child. in that case, it would be the same as any other crime against any person, the fact that the victim is a child is more or less irrelevant.

    in any case where a person's rights are violated, there is claim against the property of the offender. in other words, there is a justification for the use of force against the offender, because he has initiated force against his victim.

    this post argues that there are no inter-species rights, but that argument is made in support of rights between humans, which, of course, includes children.

  3. Yeeeaaah, I'm struggling with this one. I'm all about disclaimers. But, was the turtle your property to move out of the road? You interfered with nature when you moved the turle out of the road. Did you not initiate force? Interception. You, being a turtle's natural enemy, intercepted in an attempt to hinder or prevent it from carrying out it's mission.

  4. the turtle could have been made my property, if i wanted it. the whole point is that there are no rights between species. there's no ethical problem with one species initiating force against another species.

    rights are purely intraspecies. humans cannot initiate force against other humans. i'm not sure that rights of property work the same way or at all with non-human animals, but humans need not worry about that.

    rights, as we know them, are a purely human phenomenon and can only be ascribed to humans.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top