Is hunting a right or a privilege?

[answerguy]

Yes, whoever controls the land, controls the hunting.

I don't see New Hampshire being a sportsman's paradise after the
'great experiment' starts.

Libertarian philosophy seems fine for many things like say; pollution. I can generate as much pollution on my property as I want but if it goes onto your property you would have the right to sue me. That makes sense. You drill for oil and suck it out from under my land, you owe me. That makes sense.

But wildlife are movable resoures and only renewable to an extent.

Let's say you and I and 98 other property owners live in a country called Liberty. I and the 98 like to see eagles flying around. You like to eat them. And you'll shoot everyone that perches in one of your trees.
Since Liberty is a small country and the eagles will eventually fly over everyones land, including yours. How do we protect the eagles from extinction?

 

[Cal4D4]

None of you have ANY rights. Your very existence is a priviledge GRANTED by whatever is above you on the food chain. The rules of fang and claw are only moderated by the rules of etiquette. See what happens to your Diety granted rights when the currently controlling group chooses to revise the contract. Chaos or submission. Usually both.

Now back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Keith]

Now back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

How fat are those Angels?

Keith

 

[Balog]

Cal4D4:

That is one of the most evil, Machiavellian, "might makes right" statements I've ever heard. I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic.

 

[answerguy]

That is one of the most evil, Machiavellian, "might makes right" statements I've ever heard. I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic.

I agree with Cal4D4. Whether you say a certain right is inalienable or not makes little difference if the government you live under doesn't let you exercise that right.
You can scream as loud as you want that your short barreled shotgun is protected by the constitution, no one will hear you while you're in jail.

That's why it's up to all of us to elect people that support the rights that we hold dear.

 

[ojibweindian]

Cal4D4 has an interesting point.

 

[Brian Dale]

History and philosophy

Centuries ago in England, game (and other wild animals, IIRC) were specifically defined by law to be the property of the king. Hunting without the king's permission was punishable as an offense (or should that be "offence?") against the king's authority. Poaching was held to be minor treason as well as theft from the king, and people were executed for it.

This country threw off the notion that governments ruled by divine right. We have carried on some of the practices of our forebears, for purposes of our own and in accordance with our own views. adobewalls gave a clear description of the situation in Texas. North Carolina might or might not define game animals as state property; I know that they're legally defined as "not my property." I think of them as essentially having an easement to walk across my property unless they do damage. I have heard a NC game officer say, precisely, that "hunting is a privilege" here. For purposes of practical game management, we the people have granted state and federal governments the authority to regulate the activity of hunting. Hunting laws are constantly subject to review and revision, subject to the authority of the people and through the efforts of our employees in state government. The same NC deer cop (above) encouraged all of us who were listening to shoot our limit of deer every year. And the Greenies need to learn that habitat preservation by hunters, and with our money, is what really keeps species of all kinds from being wiped out. We need more hunters; I haven't noticed any shortage of shopping malls.

goalie, I'm pleased to read that Minnesota has defined hunting as a legal right. That seems very cool. Navy joe, great description. I think that the "shall issue" aspect of it is the key to hunting laws being non-infringing of rights.

Tell you what, let's phrase it this way: Is eating blackberries a right or a privilege?

Tamara, eating blackberries is a religious experience.

 

[rock jock]

You have the right to do anything at all which does not injure any other person, or their property. Some types of hunting fall into this category.

Once again, a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.

BTW, you don't.

 

[Balog]

I agree with Cal4D4.

Really? You believe you have no rights? Please send me your address, I'll be right along to kill you and steal all your valuables. I'll probably rape any attractive women who might be around, then kill them as well. Of course I'll be torching the place afterward to cover up my crimes. I won't have violated anyone's rights. Because no one has any. I might get caught. I might be punished. But I'll be happy in the knowledge that I've done nothing immoral. Of course, the government might convict someone else of my crimes. They might even put them to death for it. But that wouldn't violate their rights. Because they have none. I don't know what those wacky colonials were smoking when they came up with that whole "Constitution/Bill of Rights" thing. Everyone is slave to whoever has more power than them.

What's that you say? You have rights even if they're violated? Even if they're not recognized?

 

[rock jock]

So if I find the blackberries in my back yard, it's safe to assume that I may eat them, even if I didn't plant them there? They're not the State's blackberries? I don't need to go to the DNR for a blackberry tag?

I am assuming you don't understand the concept of hunting or hunting laws because if you did that would indeed be a very ignorant statement. *Sigh*

Plants don't travel from place to place. Therefore, if you eat all the blackberries on your own property, you are not infringing on other landowners from doing the same. Deer, ducks, moose, etc. tend not to limit their living area to your property so when you shoot all the deer on your own land, you are in fact reducing a natural resource available to everyone.

 

[answerguy]

Golgo-13

Kind of like the gummint did with interstate commerce.

You unlocked an age old mystery for me. I always wondered what <insert best Walter Brennan impersonation> "Dab Gummint!" said by the grizzled old prospectors in old western movies meant. Obviously they were referring to the Damn Government. Now if I can figure out what 'Carn Sarn it' means.

 

[Joe Demko]

Notice how there isn’t too many break-ins in Texas.

There aren't? Do you now or have you ever lived in Texas?

 

[Cal4D4]

Hi Balog..

We can stomp our feet about our rights and such all we want, but they only exist in the context of social control. Big brown bears don't care squat about your right to life. Neither do sociopaths. Rights are a form of etiquette so we don't have to start each day slaughtering those around us. Rights have to be recognized to exist. Do the pillaged victims have a right to Life, Lib and pursuit of happiness if the conquering hordes don't care?

Elect only those who recognize and agree with what your rights are, or be victimized.

 

[publius]

I'm very much in favor of property rights, I simply don't believe that certain things can be individually owned.

U R correct, sir. answerguy mentioned that common property resources are a place where libertarianism fails, and that's also true. The tragedy of the commons will ensue where there can be no ownership. That's true of air. It's generally true of water (but don't try to tell me I don't own my particular pond... ). It's also true of non-stationary creatures.

Libertarian philosophy seems fine for many things like say; pollution. I can generate as much pollution on my property as I want but if it goes onto your property you would have the right to sue me.

Not fine. Let me give an example. In South Dade county, where I used to live, many households are on groundwater wells. Nearby, along US1, certain dry cleaning and fuel establishments leaked stuff into the ground. It went on for years. Business owners came and went. Homeowners came and went. People moved, people died, life went on.

About 15 years ago, it was discovered that many of the wells in a certain area were contaminated. Let's say it was one of mine (it wasn't). Who am I supposed to sue, again? The people who did the polluting are mostly gone, and even if they're still there, proving in court that the particular contaminates I'm sucking up are thiers is going to be difficult, not to mention expensive. (edit to mention that what they did was mostly legal at the time they did it.) The best answer I've seen is to establish which things can be disposed of where, and in what amounts, preemptively. In other words, government regulation.

Now that I've twisted some libertarian panties, I'd just like to point out that I've been a member of the LP since I voted for Ron Paul for President in 1988. OK, now flame away. Or better still, leave me alone and go out and kill your limit of deer like that game warden said you should.

 

[Tamara]

rock jock,

Plants don't travel from place to place.

Right, they've been growing on that spot since time immemorial, and their seeds blew in from noplace else, and their pollen doesn't fertilize my neighbours blueberries.

Never met a Republican Collectivist before, rock jock; congrats on being the first!


Sing it with me and Woody, now! "These deer are your deer, these deer are myyy deer!..."

 

[Glock Glockler]

Said blonde is a human being, not a plant, tree, insect or animal. If Bambi has rights, then so do all of the other plant, insect and animal forms that invade my property on a daily basis. Just ask PETA and ELF

Monkeyleg,

You completely failed to grasp my point. I do not believe that the blonde should become my personal property, though it certainly would be fun, but rather that her touching my body without consent legally constitutes assault. If she trespasses on my property (touches my body) should I not be able to claim her as my own?

 

[Balog]

Hi Cal4D4. You said

We can stomp our feet about our rights and such all we want, but they only exist in the context of social control. Big brown bears don't care squat about your right to life. Neither do sociopaths. Rights are a form of etiquette so we don't have to start each day slaughtering those around us. Rights have to be recognized to exist. Do the pillaged victims have a right to Life, Lib and pursuit of happiness if the conquering hordes don't care?

This is so blatantly self-contradictory I almost don't know where to start. Are you even familiar with the definitions of the words you are using? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm honestly curious. "Rights" by definition are completely different than "etiquette" (or privileges).

You are confusing "inalienable" which means "1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another 2: not subject to forfeiture" with "inviolable" which means "1. Not violable; not susceptible of hurt, wound, or harm (used with respect to either physical or moral damage).

Let me put it to you this way. I possess certain rights merely by existing. My possession does not mean that they cannot be violated or suppressed.

I think our difference is one of worldview.

You have shown a subjective worldview. This translates into your opinion that crimes such as rape, murder, and theft are not violations of an absolute right; they are simply a breach of etiquette no different than tracking mud into a friends house, or not using a coaster.

I have an objective worldview. I believe in an absolute morality. Some things are inherently wrong. This does not mean they cannot happen. It simply means that when they do happen, they are wrong. Because of this inherent wrongness, they should be fought; and those who perpetrate them should be punished.

So to answer your question, yes. Victims do have rights. Even if they are violated. You'll forgive me if I withdraw from the debate at this time. It's becoming apparent that this is like arguing geography with someone who believes the Earth is flat. We disagree on such a fundamental level that I simply cannot communicate with you on a meaningfully, at least about this subject. I'd have to change your entire viewpoint of the nature of reality, and I don't think that I can do that. Even if I could, I hardly think philosophical debates on the nature of reality are appropriate for this forum. This isn't an insult to you, just a statement of fact as I see it. So I'll say "Good day to you, sir."

 

[Monkeyleg]

Glock Glockler, it's not a question of my not having grasped your point. Actually, I don't want to grasp any part of you, pointed or not.

Your hypothecal Blonde is a human being, and has rights bestowed upon her by God, or Wicka, or the Dalai Lama, or--if she's particularly curvaceous--the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Bambi, Rocky the Squirrel, Bugs Bunny, Charlie the Cabbage and other lesser forms of life have no rights. They are subservient to Man, and exist to sustain mankind.

Certainly we have to exercise stewardship over all of these four-legged creatures and sprouting vegetables. But the decision as to how to exercise that stewardship doesn't grow from PETA's claims of equal rights for man and potatoes.

We exercise that stewardship by determining where these animals and vegetables are more or less populous, then issue the directive: ready, aim, fire (or pluck, in the case of Charlie the Cabbage).

For the next two days I'm going to be trying to convince hunters that they have a God-given right to shoot two-legged threatening human vegetables, and to do so with weapons concealed under their coats.

I look forward to your reply, certainly much more so than I do the grunts I'm going to receive from the "hunters and sportsmen" at this gun show.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Brian Dale]

Go get 'em this weekend, 'Leg!

 

[Balog]

What Bob said. Give 'em hell, my Leggy friend.

 

[Cal4D4]

Balog,

I don't really disagree with your feelings as much as with the limited scope you put on your worldview. No condescending semantics or moralizing necessary, please. Do note that some individuals are exempt from our concepts of morality. Quick example is the insanity defense. Often the sociopath is not punished, only healed. All animals are pretty much exempt from morality. There is no morality involved in a cat torturing a mouse. For mankind, I still feel all rights end up a negotiated contract. Ancient kings often had first night rights. Seemed ok at the time, maybe even for all involved. Very subjective. My inalienable right to keep and bear arms turns into a felony if I drive to the range with my unloaded '70s era S&W not locked away from my practice ammo in the cab of my truck. Inalienable? Very subjective. You can call a right violated or call it repudiated. Word games. PETA would define human rights to include animals also. If they were more powerful, it would be so. My old Webster's Unabridged defines etiquette as "the formalities or conventions required by polite society and established by usage". Sometimes a bit of a stretch, but I see most of what you would like to claim as a right actually being defined and established as more of a convention. Sorry I am not up to your standards of discourse, I will try again on another subject sometime.

 

[Joe Demko]

Ancient kings often had first night rights. Seemed ok at the time, maybe even for all involved. Very subjective.

Also untrue. Find a better example.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Once again, a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.

BTW, you don't.

And I know that you're going to explain why I don't, right, rj? A logical statement, based on ethical principles?

- Chris

 

[Cal4D4]

Golgo-13?

Better example of what? By current standards this would be rape under color of authority.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Like so many things in formal and highly structured society, hunting is something that is allowed within given circumstances...just like starting and running a business. There are limitations.

Contrary to the opening post, the right to keep and bear arms,specifically guns, is NOT God-given but Constitutional. You can call it God-given all you want, but that won't make it so. Guns can be removed from consideration WITHOUT infringing on the 'God-given' right to bear arms if you are referencing Biblical passages to justify having arms. As described in some detail in the Bible, there are a variety of arms and NONE of them are guns. By your 'God-given' rights, you are still armed without guns.

The concept/notion of stating that it is one's 'God-given' right to possess firearms is a reasoning flaw that is called an emotional appeal to disembodied authority. You cite God as there is no higher authority only nobody can directly query said authority on the issue. How convenient. The emotional aspect pertains to the invocation of God and that people would not want to make God cross/upset by questioning said authority or doubting it. This is also a passive form of indirect threat. What makes the reasoning so flawed is that it cannot be independently verified. I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence that God is either pro-gun or not. As with other arms, nobody has shown if God is pro chemical, nuclear, or biological arms or not either. Such statements that guns are a God-given right are simply convenient interpretations of Biblical passages, not statements of fact.