The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-39 votes

Bestiality, is there a victim?

Ok, it's out there so we might as well reason it out. Bestiality. First, in a libertarian society should the government be authorized to restrict its practice? Is there a victim? If so, is it a legitimate argument for the government's restricting of homosexual marriage?

A friend of mine brings up a good point with regard to the logic of this argument. If we allow people to carry guns, should we allow gorillas to carry them too? Should Toonsis the cat really be denied the "privilege" of driving?

Sure, bestiality is disgusting, I'm not arguing that, I think homosexual sex is disgusting as well. But should the state prohibit these activities with violence?

Maybe the thing to do would be to flip the argument. If homosexual marriage was already not illegal, What if we promoted a law outlawing bestiality and inter-species marriage? Would the homosexual community argue against it because it was a slippery slope to outlawing gay relationships and marriage? Would anarchist and libertarians protest at the capital steps to protect the freedoms of animal lovers?

Rand Paul is at least attempting to validate the slippery slope argument apparently, although I think (hope) he was just placating the blue hairs...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture

reminds me of the joke

do you smoke after sex?
I don't know,i never checked

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

It can be victimless

I don't think legalizing bestiality will change how often it occurs. Therefore, I see it as a useless law. As a libertarian, it can be victimless, but not necessarily victimless.

If you can jerk off a domesticated farm mammals for breeding, and that is not considered a violation of the animal, why would anything else be considered a violation? If you can slaughter animals for a number of different reasons(not all food), why is bestiality worse?

You don't need a government to rule on such matters. All the state has done, is push these kinds of fetishes into the underground. And when you push activities in the underground, it becomes impossible to accurately track statistics(including how much tax money is spent on enforcement of such laws).

Necrophilia, the truly victimless crime.

Every Halloween, Bill Handel, a radio talk show host in LA, trots this out to discuss.

Well you asked

I've read animals can't give consent. I don't think this as much true as it is false. Animals can't talk, yet, but we can certainly see when they do not consent. They try to get away, or fight back.

This doesn't mean I think animals have human natural rights. I think animals have natural rights, and specifically according to their species.

Our rights are partly to be free of predation. A predator species wouldn't have those rights. Our rights are partly to be free from subjugation. But a herd or hive animal wouldn't have those rights. Herd and hive animals only survive by subjugation of the individual to the herd or hive.

Even if they were sentient, and could talk, their natural rights would not be the same as ours. Their nature is different. So their natural rights are different, and depending on the species may not have anything that resembles rights.

Mostly when we speak of natural law and natural rights we have to understand this only applies to us.

That said, if we wish to be moral beings, which is the whole point of natural law, we have to consider how our natural law must guide our behavior, even if the subject of the behavior doesn't have those same rights.

Just like we may give mercy to those that have wronged us, and shown us no mercy, we may treat animals in a similar fashion. Not that animals have any moral claim on us, but because we are attempting to be moral beings according to our nature.

In addition when it comes to similar species, like say monkeys, we can understand their nature, their natural social structure and their natural feeding modes can tell us that, even if they can't express it, their natural law is likely similar. Monkeys don't eat each other, they are omnivores, and they have a hybrid collectivist/individualist evolutionary breeding strategy and social structure.

So I think depending on the species similarity we can expect we share some things and this would include aspects of morality and natural law.

some animals like it

We have all seen the video of the woman blowing the horse. The horse obviously liked it, since he made happy noises and ejaculated. So I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

tasmlab's picture

Link please, I haven't seen it

Or do you just have it on VHS?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

I didn't make a blanket

I didn't make a blanket statement. I said often we can tell if an animal doesn't or does consent. I would guess the fact it didn't kick her head off to be reasonable consent in that context.

LOL! The donkey lady stage show in Mexico on Texas border

Hear the old timers talk about her...she was a big tourist attraction there in the 60's and 70's.

deacon's picture

I haven't

seen that video :)

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

Excellent response, thanks!

Excellent response, thanks! This is similar to the reasoning that Temple Grandin has provided on the subject (of animal rights, or at least the humane treatment of them), however I think you have communicated it very well in a liberty context!

Go Away


I'm not a troll, been here a

I'm not a troll, been here a while. And like I said. Rand is the one who brought the subject up.

This Is Ridiculous

If an individual human has sex with an animal, no human's liberty has been violated, therefore it's not of consequence to humans and their liberty. If a dog starts humping your leg, does this mean now that the dog has violated YOUR LIBERTY and that the dog should be arrested and charged? LOL - I honestly cannot believe I'm even typing this.

Individual liberty applies solely to humans. Secondly, an animal cannot give it's consent to marry because it's NOT HUMAN. The only time this equation changes is when you harm someone else's pet or livestock, now YOU'VE (a human) have violated the liberty of another human.

Liberty can be confusing enough without trying to apply it to animals. Good luck with that one!

You are


That's what Rand Paul seemed to miss saying he was worried DOMA being overturned, and not having any laws on marriage, might mean people could extend that to marrying non-humans.

A non-human can't give consent, so no contract with a non-human can be legally valid. Rand Paul needs some more tutoring from his father. Get government OUT of marriage altogether.

The really sad part is that I

The really sad part is that I know a lot about this topic FROM YEARS of "debating" people on the negative effects that gay marriage would have on society. Bestiality was brought up a lot, unfortunately. It's like the fundamentalists racist card, lol.

Are animals property, or are

Are animals property, or are they not property?

If animals are property, then no.

If animals aren't property, then the animal is the victim.

I personally view animals as property, however, I do tend to treat them humanely (up to the point to where they are slaughtered for my consumption).

The U.S. Congress Sanctions This Practice

Those Washington politicians practice "congress" with the beast of greed, corruption and vile turpitude at every opportunity. They treat the sheep of American humanity as untermensch to do with whatever they wish.

This comment may seem a distraction from the topic of sexual deviancy but any chance I get to slam the elitists I will find a creative way to do it. :)

Don't we

have more pressing things to talk about?!?

I got banned from all the perv blogs

That's why I come here.

Rand is the one who brought

Rand is the one who brought it up...sorry...

If you have to ask yourself

If you have to ask yourself if there's a victim, there is a victim.

I so want to welcome the religious folk to the liberty movement

but then I keep seeing post after post like this. I am not sure where the huge influx of them came from but the past few years there have been a ton. I guess they are just angry about the government and I want to be able to work with them. I just can't get past the whole thing with their morals being pushed as law. I think Ron Paul had it right when he said you can not legislate morality.

Stupid question

There is, just not a human victim.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

tasmlab's picture

What if you murdered the animal instead?

What if you murdered the animal instead? And then served it with roasted fingerlings, creamed spinach and a nice old vine zin?

Surely KILLING something is more violent than raping something. One violates the self, the other extinguishes it altogether.

We don't need to eat meat to survive, it's been proven. So it's purely a pleasure at the expense of the murder of an animal. Wouldn't the pleasure of sex at the expense of a rape of an animal be a lesser evil?

I would guess that incidents of bestiality would be pretty consistent with what we have now. The perverts would still hide their habit whether it was fear of the state or disgust of their neighbors.

If an animal brothel were to be launched, I could see that being kind of dicey in a free society. Libertarianism is not utopian for better or worse.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Feminists believe rape of a woman is worse than murder of man

"Surely KILLING something is more violent than raping something. One violates the self, the other extinguishes it altogether."

I agree completely, but you bring up an interesting point that feminists often argue because they feel rape of woman is far worse than the murder of a man. There are plenty of opinion pieces online from feminists supporting this absurd, entitlement mindset that places different values for gender and type of crime. I find it despicable and mind-boggling, and I have no idea how they can honestly justify it, but they don't need to justify it since the media, leftist politicians, and Hollywood do the dirty work for them.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

"I think using animals for

"I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life, and we've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect."
—Temple Grandin

I like her thoughts on this. She makes the argument that while animals are property, they are not "things", because they can experience pain and fear, unlike a screwdriver or some other piece of non-living property.

In the context of the marriage debate it provides a way to thwart the attempts to link allowance of homosexual marriage to the slippery slope of bestiality, because bestiality is illegal based on other arguments, the animals consent, human treatment of the animal etc.

Many people view animals strictly as property which would of course allow for bestiality, but when they are viewed instead as "property but not things" the basis for anti-bestiality laws can be established morally.

I just had to post this

I just had to post this here:

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

This is not a good argument, your friends or yours

The difference in all of these situations is consent and competence. In order to have sex with someone (or marry them or enter into any contract, written or otherwise) they must be consenting partner. Animals lack the ability to consent b/c of their lack of competence or comprehension. They would not understand human contracts and to the extent that someone may argue that they do, they would not be able to express it in a clear and unambiguous manner. Likewise, we have placed an arbitrary age limit on the "the age of consent" which is 18. We could argue about weather or not 18 is the correct age, but we cannot argue that there is SOME age at which people are too young to enter into agreements due to a lack of understanding. We also place those limits on elderly people who may be senile or mentally challenged people who doctors and/or jurors deem unable to comprehend what they are agreeing to.

The same argument is true for dogs and cats carrying weapons or driving which are both types of contracts. (all legal ownership of property is a contract, and just as an FYI: it is not illegal for an animal to drive...they will not be arrested if they are caught doing so. This is so, b/c they are unable to enter into social contracts). The distinction between that and two consenting adults (or one, in the case of driving or owning a gun) is clear. So no slippery slope argument is valid in this case. Slippery slopes can only be used when there is no principled distinction between doing A (desired action) versus B (undesired action).

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft

It's just gross, but I think

It's just gross, but I think it's one of those things that should not be punishable criminally. It should be one of those things that if you see, you have the right to kick their ass without being charged with a crime. Same applies to general animal cruelty. If we apply human morals to animals then there would be mandatory veganism.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.