undefined | Better HN

0 pointssdellis9h ago0 comments

In the U.S., animal "rights" are superseded by property rights. There are many places in the U.S. where you can legally shoot a dog if it is chasing your chickens, cat, dog, or other domestic animals as long as you don't shoot it on its owner's property. Many people consider Kristi Noem to be cruel for shooting her puppy (on her own property) for killing someone else's chickens, but it's not illegal. What is tragic is that her dog was being trained to hunt fowl, and it was then killed for doing what it was taught.

The same priority on property rights applies to trees. I can't cut down a tree on your property, but I can cut down a tree on my property. The town in the article made a assertion that is no weirder than corporations being considered "persons" with "rights", yet that is widely accepted in our society.

In fact, corporate "personhood" is even weirder: This town did not make a law to enforce trees rights. However, applying "personhood" status to corporations is written into law all over the place even though corporations are a human construct, not sentient beings. So, again, the only way the current laws are logical is to see that they are all about enforcing property rights, not out of concern for trees, animals, and -- at one time -- humans.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

tsimionescu8h ago· 1 in thread

It's not just property rights. The framework for protecting animals is more complex than "animal rights < property rights". You can't for example go and shoot or poison a stray dog out in the city - but you can a rat or a cockroach. For fishing, there are typically limits on how many fish you can catch and of what kinds, even though they aren't anyone's property. You can't harm your own animals in certain ways, at least in certain states - you may be allowed to shoot them, but you're not allowed to torture them almost anywhere.

The general point is that animal protection are almost entirely subsumed to human rights - animals are protected in so far as their protection helps humans in some way (either specifically, such as your chicken being useful to you so that no one else can kill them; or environmentally, such as elk being important for the health of certain forests). Given the human need to consume or displace other living beings, this is the only tenable moral position that can be held anyway.

sdellisOP5h ago

You're right it's not _just_ property rights, but it's mostly property rights and their relationship to capitalism.

Outside of some endangered species laws those limits on fishing are to support commerce around fishing.

My kids grew up with rats as pets, and in many ways rats are proven to be more intelligent than dogs. But rats and cockroaches are notorious for upsetting commerce. Would you go back to a restaurant you saw had cockroaches? Consequentially, they are less protected because they are seen as a nuisance.

And if you have ever seen an industrial scale pig or chicken farm, those animals are most definitely tortured -- all legally. Why? To support commerce and big industry.

It's complex because government contorts ethics to accommodate capital and industry. Morality also changes over time. These days many people who eat pork would not want to kill a pig unless it was absolutely necessary to their survival.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse