Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: “Righting” a Wrong
A Daily Reckoning Special Position Paper
by Jim Amrhein, Whiskey & Gunpowder (Sign up FREE today!)
As you may have gathered by now, my “beat” for Whiskey & Gunpowder loosely revolves around domestic political hot-button issues — privacy, personal freedoms, and the like. However, I see this arena as much broader than mere issues. After all, issues are furthered by people giving a voice to their opinions. And as everyone except today’s public school “students” should know, this process is the primary driver of democracy — and the very reason we have the right to free speech…
But the people furthering many issues today (on both sides of the political spectrum, of course) are those within whom passion clearly outweighs reason.
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: A Lazy Passion
Often, their agendas are completely built upon misguided premises and outright misconceptions. And although this is nothing new historically, someone’s got to poke a hot stick in the eyes of these extremists — because when they get their way (which is more often than not in this political climate), we ALL lose some of our freedom.
For example, a few issues ago, I took aim at some basic flaws in the stance of the modern extreme environmental lobby — a group of passionate (albeit lazy and uninformed) people who would, if given their way, cause FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD to the very cause they champion. And along the way, we’d likely lose some of our most basic freedoms: to consume whatever we can afford to, to choose what we drive, to prosper in the global free market, etc…
That’s when their agenda became part of my privacy-and-freedoms “beat” — when their fallacious premises started to compromise my ability to live my life the way I want by spurring needlessly punitive, freedom-robbing legislation and policies. And it’s the same way with a whole passel of other issues in the modern political arena, too — including today’s topic: Animal rights.
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: The Season for Reason
Lent. What more fitting time to talk about the “rights” of animals than during a time when fewer of them are being eaten than any other time of year? There’s also another reason why now’s the time to make my point — this is also the season that’s furthest on the calendar from the time of year that animal rights debates typically rear their heads: The fall hunting season.
Above the objections of at least one of my co-editors, distancing this topic from the hunting debate (believe it or not, a separate issue) is a conscious decision on my part. Why? Because I’m hoping that by taking the idea of actual killing off the table, cooler, more reasoned heads will prevail when I hit you with this:
Animals HAVE NO RIGHTS. Not naturally, anyway.
Now, before you dismiss me as a heartless barbarian, know this: I have always believed that relationships between people and animals — whether based on companionship, work, or simple nutrition — are some of life’s most rewarding and character-building interactions. I also believe that pet ownership is a wonderful institution for both man and beast…
But for anyone to believe that animals have inherent rights is to show an alarming degree of ignorance as to what that term really means.
Here’s the crux of the issue: No rights of ANY TYPE exist naturally, by virtue of birth alone. In the natural world, all that any creature — man included — has a “right” to are those things it can take by force or forcibly defend from being taken (for more on this, read Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan). That includes life itself. Brutal, but true.
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: Rights of the Human Animal
Being accustomed to the concept of “unalienable rights” so artfully articulated in our own Declaration of Independence, a lot of Americans are programmed to believe that simply because we’re of the genus and species Homo sapiens, we’re issued rights as original equipment. Sadly, this is not true. Despots and tyrants through the ages have crushed the notion of “human rights” under chariot wheel, mace, and tank tread time and again. One need only to look at Rwanda, China, and other places for vivid modern-day proof.
Clearly, though, some human beings have rights. Americans and the citizens of other democracies enjoy them in abundance. How did we get these rights, if they aren’t naturally ours? Via a simple contract — one we never signed, yet are automatically both bound to and protected by as part of our citizenship (read Rousseau’s Social Contract). This contract is the root of all laws protecting you from harm and protecting others from harm at your hands. In other words, rights.
The price of these rights under this “contract” is certain types of freedom. Basically, we forfeit our natural freedom to kill or pillage our weaker neighbors in exchange for a guarantee against similar brutality at the hands of our stronger ones. To whom do we forfeit our most basic freedoms to and bask in the protection of? A sovereign state — in our case, the U.S. of A. I say again: It is our citizenship, not simply our humanity, that guarantees rights. That’s why most of them stay at the border when we enter other countries.
What’s this have to do with animals? Bear with me (no pun intended)…
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: Contractual Obfuscation
Regardless of what PETA and the rest of the animal rights crowd says (more on this in a minute), no critter from aardvark to zebra is capable of understanding and honoring such contracts as the ones that guarantee citizens of democratic republics their rights. Even the intricate societies of some apes, as advanced and social as they can be, are fundamentally based on the only natural law there is: The law of force and dominance.
The only true “rights” enjoyed by any animals are those extended to them by people. Pets, work beasts, zoo creatures, and the like are granted protections by humans from the perils of the state of nature (the elements, predation, starvation, disease) in exchange for their ability and willingness to be trained to serve our needs. This is a rudimentary contract. Such is the case even for livestock, which are bred, fed, medicated, and cared for until such time as we, the grantors of their rights, decide the contract has expired.
Simple, right?
But animal rights activists (an almost exclusively liberal province, by the way) perceive that simply by virtue of birth, every organism, everywhere, is endowed with the same rights as citizens of the most progressive democracy. They naively rewrite the rules of nature, glossing over the fact that animals grant no rights at all to each other. Among animals, might makes right — there are no such things as privacy, equality, due process, equal protection under the law, property boundaries, or anything resembling the complex structures we reasoning humans have put into place to safeguard our rights. This fact alone proves that animals are incapable of honoring the basic contract necessary for the existence of rights.
How’s that for irony: Those that champion animal rights in the name of humanity are themselves quite animal-like — in that they can’t comprehend the nature of what makes rights possible!
Regardless, their viewpoint has continued to gain traction over the last 20 years in the mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic. Whether it’s the “Guiltless Grill” section of a major chain restaurant’s menu, the “cruelty-free” label on cosmetics, the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” nude supermodel poster campaign (not entirely without its merits, I must say), or the recent British ban on traditional fox hunting, the “plight” of our four-legged friends is everywhere these days…
How does all this affect you and YOUR rights and freedoms?
Well, if the most extreme agenda of the militant animal rights fringe got its way — and I don’t mean the local cat club here…I’m talking about PETA, The Fund for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States (not the same folks that run your local animal shelter, by the way), and others — the following things would be illegal:
— Eating meat of any kind
— Keeping pets of any species
— Hunting, fishing, and falconry
— Animal testing and experimentation
— Removal or extermination of pest animals
— Zoos, wildlife theme parks, and animal shows
— Killing or relocation of dangerous/nuisance animals
— Horseback riding, racing, rodeos, polo, and other equine sports
– Using animals for work or service — including Seeing Eye dogs.
Quite an impact on our lives, huh? This isn’t even considering the negative ramifications a meatless lifestyle would have on our health, life span, and economy. And you thought the animal rights crowd was only worried about spaying and neutering pets (true animal-rightists would forbid it, in fact)…
But that’s not the case at all. Despite the mainstream’s (starting with leftist Hollywood) consistently sympathetic portrayal of them, hard-core animal rights advocates would not hesitate to strip you of your REAL rights to convey them to beasts that cannot possibly comprehend them.
Look, there’s much more to say about this topic, of course, and you can count on me to revisit the issue again later this year. And just like I did with the environmentalists a few weeks ago, I’ll be showing you why the efforts of these lunatics would be positively DISASTROUS to the welfare and quality of life of the very animals they’re trying to protect. I’ll also expose you to the unbelievable truth about how the purported desires of animal rights activists are, in fact, best served by their political archenemies: hunters.
But until then, hoist a hunk or two of healthy meat.
Jim Amrhein
for Whiskey & Gunpowder
P.S.: We encourage you to sign up for a FREE subscription to Whiskey & Gunpowder, written by some of the most unconventionally brilliant minds out there. Whiskey & Gunpowder helps prepare its readers by alerting them to current events on a wide variety of topics. Our writers explore how current discussions on civil liberties, world history, economic trends, and other issues affect your investment opportunities… especially in the face of unstable markets and insane circumstances. You won’t find a better source of passionate, thought-provoking debates anywhere else on the Internet.
Other Articles by Jim Amrhein:
Gimme Back My Bullets
“My goal is twofold. First, to offer some proof of the worth — rather, the vital, lifesaving importance — of an armed citizenry. Second, to truly advance the somewhat stalemated Second Amendment argument with an interpretation of the amendment’s wording I’ve never heard anyone else talk about.”
Gun Control: Showdown at the PC Corral
“It was a recording of a 911 call that an incredibly brave city resident named Dwight Love placed in response to drug-dealing activity in his neighborhood. I call this man courageous because he placed the call from his cell phone in plain sight and within earshot of the criminals who’d taken over his neighborhood.”
Legends of the Fall
“There wouldn’t be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist.”
Other Useful Links about Human Righs and Animal Rights Concerns:
Animal “Rights” versus Human Rights An essay written by Edwin A. Locke, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights The Animal Welfare Council separates the differences between these two areas of animal treatment.
Dear Jim,
You write “Animal rights activists (…) perceive that (…) every organism, everywhere, is endowed with the same rights as citizens of the most progressive democracy.”
I never heard any such claim being made from an animal rights apologist.
As you rightly pointed out, humans don’t have intrinsic rights. Some countries give their citizens some rights, other countries other rights.
People that defend rights for animals are asking that animals simply be protected from exploitation and easily avoidable human induced suffering.
And one of the most effective ways to grant them that protection, seems to be through law.
No one is asking for civil rights for animals.
Jim you also state that “no critter from aardvark to zebra is capable of understanding and honoring such contracts” but you could say that about some mentally ill, babies or even children.
Is that really a reason for us not to grant them rights?
If we can easily spare others from causing them pain and distress, why wouldn’t we? I think we should do it, just because we can, not having to come up with any philosophical explanation to do it.
Is not that I think that laws are the first or ideal ways to solve problems, but for some reason we had to have them for humans.
Just wanted to clarify these points and maybe challenge all to give it a thought.
how much did the meat industry pay you for this pitiful article?
The irony of this whole thing is PETA kill animal themselves, http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
They operate shelter that kill animal that can’t be adopted, and to think that they were champion of animals.
You do realize that the physiology of, say, a rat, and that of a human are so different as to render basically all experimentation useless? Even a chimpanzee’s DNA is different enough to make results unusable. We have reached a point in technology where computer simulations can give much more accurate results. In the words of Casey Stengal, “You could look it up.”
I do, however support the second ammendment.
Interesting diatribe. The broad gray line between animal rights and animal welfare has not (as I see it) narrowed in many millenia. As a self determined humane educator I would be interested in your viewpoint on the multi billion dollar industry of companion animal disposal. How does this enrich human rights? Is the link between animal abuse and domestic violence an unusual coincidence? How do you propose a rational choice on animal stewardship without inflaiming the extreamists of either end?
Wow, I have never heard a better argument on how unlogical animal rights truly are. It is good to know that there are other people out there who are intelligent enough to realize that without the things that animals provide for us, we would be in a state of utter chaos. HSUS, PeTA, etc. do not or will not take into account the effects that “animal rights” would have on the economy, health or anything else for that matter. I can now go on with my day knowing that someone shares the same opinion that I do.
Thank you
In general, your article is right on target.
And in response to Andre, while PETA and other extremist groups may not verbally claim that all animals (and plants!) be given the same rights as privileged humans, they certainly live that philosophy out. Actions always speak louder than words.
What is sad–and frankly despicable–is that the majority of these animal activists care, protest, and fight for these soul-less creatures much more than for there fellow humans. Where is our compassion for people?
While I wouldn’t condone violence to animals, they are there to be food, pets, and workers. They don’t have a soul. They’re not human.
Let’s focus on providing for, taking care of, and fighting for the rights and well-being of PEOPLE. All of those lives that are being lost to disease in Africa, the Christians being persecuted in China, our neighbors who need help putting food on the table–that’s what’s crucially important.
Been thinking about this a lot lately. I am from Wisconsin, and recently one of our moronic judges declared that we the people have no inherent right to raise animals or to eat them or drink the milk they produce, if we do (http://www.naturalnews.com/033727_food_freedom_cows.html)
Been working on my own letter to the editor about this and hadn’t intended to share it. It isn’t “done”. But, I’ll paste it here. The problem is much, much broader and deeper than your article would indicate. And it’s going to be extremely difficult to turn this ship from Hell around. I am not convinced it can be done. I guess that remains to be seen. And BTW — the “animal cruelty” problem, the “pet overpopulation” problem, and the “nasty mean animal agriculture industry” problem, along with nearly every OTHER supposed problem the ARistas are battling were made up out of whole cloth by THEM, for the very purpose of getting the level of control they now have and wish to continue to build, until there is no longer a single animal kept in “slavery” by we wicked cancerous humans. If you haven’t already decided to (continue to) ignore the voices of sanity in this, dear readers, read on …
(Copyright Candace E Ware, Oct. 2, 2011, all rights reserved) “Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is about food safety. It’s about control. And it originates with the animal rights movement, which has been working the legal system for 40+ years to get to this point.
Many, many voices have been trying to raise the alarm for decades about the entirely natural and predictable results we are seeing, right now, of our country’s utter FAILURE to take the threat of the Animal Rights movement seriously and stop it in its evil, insane tracks.
Those who’ve been working since the late 1960s and early 1970s to expose the AR movement for the soul-less, misanthropic, nihilistic enterprise that it is, have been roundly ridiculed by the vast majority of the American public (well, those that even bothered to notice and respond) as paranoid, negative, even deranged. They’ve been accused of lacking compassion (or, more often, of being out-and-out cruel), of wanting nothing but to profit from animals, of being conspiracy-theorists and alarmists, and on and on and on. All for trying to point out exactly what was happening, and show YOU that you are being manipulated, used, and lied to.
The AKC, the “all-superior” uber-breeder types who think their way is the only RIGHT way (a way that comes, largely intact, right out of the AR handbook), and various veterinary, pet rescue and agriculture groups all took part in that bashing until very recently. Thankfully, many of these groups and organizations have finally begun to see the light and turn around.
Unfortunately, the rate of turn-around and productive action towards correction may very well be “too little, too late”. The Animal Rights-drafted “anti-cruelty” curriculums that have been in the public schools for generations now have virtually guaranteed that the young and powerful for the next century will lean toward the AR side. Veterinary schools in particular are cranking out rosy-cheeked AR-activist vets at a good clip. After all, if the general public continues to treat their pets like little people with fur, the veterinary bottom line gets quite the significant boost, doesn’t it? Temporarily, at least. Despite the fact that in the long run they are shooting themselves in the financial foot.
All those ears and minds, closed for decades while the threat advanced to their doorstep, are now shocked! THIS nonsense in the Dairy State? The recent abomination of tyrannical AR-driven “puppymill” legislation in Texas (signed into law by none other than Gov. Rick Perry, conservative in name only — and possibly within grasping distance of the White House)? Cage-free-ONLY eggs on the shelves in California? Pork producers basically driven out of Florida? A rural family bullied by the USDA and hit with almost $4 MILLION in fines because their kids raised and sold rabbits and guinea pigs? A wealth of instances, and more every day, in which perfectly ethical breeders are slapped with the puppy-mill label, their dogs seized and killed, and their reputations trashed before they get even ONE SECOND in court to defend themselves? It would take me all week to provide links to every example.
So here we are. Turns out that — of all the things the anti-AR folks have been charged with — we are in fact “guilty” of the only thing we were NOT accused of being — RIGHT.
There’s now more than 30 years worth of BAD AR-designed law in place, nationwide. An animal rights extremist and former employee of HSUS is in charge of enforcement at the USDA. An animal abolitionist is on the law faculty at Rutgers, and groups like PETA and HSUS run cinferences for attorneys showing them how to profit from a specialy in the practice of AR law. The sorts of actions and judgments I outlined above are just the beginning of the harvest, and will be looked back upon as the intial proof that the war was over and we had LOST.
All along, animal rights proponents (HSUS, ALF, PETA, FFA, etc.)have known that they didn’t have to accomplish the (seemingly so ridiculous as to be impossible) goal of outlawing animal ownership, use or display, hunting and fishing, or consumption of animal products as food or goods, in order to get their way. All they had to do was make it too restrictive, too expensive, and too Kafka-esque for it to be worth the bother.
And that is what they have all but managed to do — it is now for the most part so difficult, draconian, and expensive to breed, raise, own, and make a living with animals that fewer and fewer people have the wherewithal to deal with the hassle anymore.
Now, on top of all the OTHER fine qualities it took to be involved with animals — it takes a ton of COURAGE and a bottomless WALLET. Because if you are successful at it, you can count on the fact that they will come after you, sooner or later. And they’ll come after you HARD. And it will ruin you completely.
Who has the courage to willingly bring that upon themselves?? I know I don’t.
If we want our animals, our choice of diet, and our freedom in these areas back then we will have to both re-educate the public, and repeal a HUGE body of law — basically EVERYTHING that has been passed related to animals since about 1980. And we’d damn well better hurry. Domestic animals have a limited reproductive life span, and we are losing — at an alarming rate — generations and generations of animal husbandry knowledge and necessary genetic material.
Most people don’t realize any of this, or care. YET. Maybe sometime in the next few years, when “free-range” turkey becomes law, and is so expensive that most have to settle for tofurkey at Thanksgiving. Maybe THEN. We can always hope.
@ Clark lee – I can offer you some ideas on that.
The animal rights activists take money from the public that the public believes is going to fund animal shelters. Since it does not, the shelters are chronically underfunded. Further, many if not most of the shelters *buy* their policy and kill manuals from HSUS. Those manuals are designed to kill as many animals as possible, for trivial reasons such as age, physical condition, chronic conditions which are easily managed and so on.
Then they dump all their ‘rescues’ into these already overcrowded shelters which already have high kill rates. This pushes the kill rates even higher.
Then they tell the easily led public not to buy from breeders, but to adopt. Since very few hobby breeders dogs end in shelters, because their stock is sold with contracts stipulating that their dogs *must* be returned to them if the buyer cannot keep them for any reason, most shelter dogs originate with the high volume commercial breeders most people would like to see an end to, with a sprinkling of accidental breedings. This results in shelter dogs presenting a multitude of problems of temperment and health, partly because many of them are ‘revolving door’ dogs, who are returned more than once to the shelters, insuring that they never have a stable home or sensible training. Juvenile s/n takes its toll too, but that’s another piece of the picture.
Shelters therefore have become a sort of pet-shop-cum-abbatoir for dogs, and that is mostly due to the widespread belief in AR dogma.
If you find this rather dubious, consider that no AR organization supports no-kill sheltering. In fact, they actively OPPOSE no-kill sheltering.
This is only a small part of the story; AR dogma has permeated the culture so deeply that *all* aspects of animal ownership have now been corrupted by it, but the reality is that the more animals that are dead the sooner, the better the AR activists like it, because the closer they come to meeting their goals.
Re: animal abuse and domestic violence – no doubt there is a correlation there, but the way to resolve it is NOT by ending animal ownership, nor restricting it. That has to be approached from the other end, so to speak, via early, functional socialization. I think that’s beyond the scope of this article.
Don’t listen to the animal rights people they are wacko’s!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to know where I stand as compared to animals, we have dogs in our community that are allowed to bite people, and cause a bear mauling. And where does it say you have the say so in every community? Every community has their own by-laws, The reason I ask this, there was a lab crossed with a fighting dog, now you have fighter, and a hunter that is a bad combination. I died, and was revived by a doctor, and spent all of last july, and most of august in the hospital. When I returned home I was told they would put the dog down humanly. And when I asked when it would happen, I was told the dogs are more important. So what are my rights? Can I sue this community for lying? The council is responsible for the health, and safety of his commuinty.
as i go thru life i pick up precious kitties. so many precious kitties. i also take time to hug trees.
so many trees, so many precious kitties. so little time.
This is a good article. I was unaware of the crimes that Animal rights Activists commit every day until recently. After looking across the internet, I can verify that EVERYTHING this man has said is true and to the point. I have found QUOTES that lead me to believe that animal rights activists want an end to pet ownership altogether. The puzzle falls into place, PETA kills 85+% of their animals, promote the elimination of puppy “mills” and support the spaying and neutering of ALL pets. you know what happens when there are few, if any animals that can reproduce? they go extinct. On top of this, through a pincher movement of propaganda and demostrations, Animal Rights activists are slowly, but surely, gaining ground.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we will be in the fight of our lives in the next decade or so. Never before have I seen a divide between the country, and the city. the minority, and the majority. between reason and insanity. Don’t woprry though, Anyone who opposes PETA and other organizations has enopugh political ammuniton to extinguish the animal rights movement, we just need to use what we have.