Liberty and Animal Rights

it justifies extreme violence on behalf of the state against an otherwise non-violent citizen? that person can be shot and killed if he does not cooperate with the police taking him to prison by force, basically.

seriously?

the threat of death is what is behind every law you enact, because that's what ultimately can happen if a person continues to resist. have you ever thought your words through with your brain? threaten someone with death over an animal?

that's why i say some genes in women just aren't fine tuned for liberty..

trees, clouds, and weeds should have rights, too. Why discriminate just because they aren't able to make themselves understood? What about rocks? Shouldn't they have rights? Why not? Who are humans to deny that rocks have the right to have rights?

Revenue extraction has reached a new frontier.

First, New Jersey announced they will be extracting revenue from citizens who dare to walk and text at the same time by issuing them $85 tickets.

Now, people who do not “buckle up” their cats and dogs in special harnesses will be issued tickets by police for up to $1,000.

http://www.infowars.com/nj-residents-face-1000-tickets-if-pe...

Federal animal protection laws are usually just "feel good" laws with no real bite anyway.

I had a similar discussion/fight with a former moron neighbor of mine who thinks he can legally shoot my cat while it is sitting in my window.
His "logic" is that he has the right to bear arms, and my cat is behind a screen, not totally enclosed in my house because the screen has holes in it.
He also thought he could shoot squirrels in my yard, because "squirrels have no rights and it was in his yard earlier."

which I believe was first popularized by radical libertarian Mary Ruwart in her book "Healing Our World".

While animal rights on par with human beings could not be established through statutory law because animals and humans are not in the same moral community, a form of animal rights could be established through fully informed juries and jury nullification. If an abuse of an animal was to the degree that a significant minority of people in society felt it was out of bounds in a civilized society, people who rescued such animals from their abusers could be denied conviction in a court of law based upon at least one out of 12 jurors believing that the law protecting the property rights of the abuser was unjustly applied in this case.

This is fully consistent with libertarianism. My take on libertarianism is that, at its essence, libertarianism is just self-restraint with regard to the use of violence. The libertarian credo states that violence is justified AT MOST for self defense. It is perfectly consistent with this credo that in some cases violence is not even justified in self defense. Thus, the legal violence of the state or law enforcement agency may not be justified in certain cases to prevent the violation of an animal abuser's property rights.