Monday, December 04, 2006

Bestiality, oopss

Hat tip Not PC on the Aussie woman caught naked with a horse presumably fondling its genitals in some manner. She faces criminal charges, so the question is really, should she?
^
As a libertarian the answer is - "not enough information". would need to know:
1. Whose horse is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner, then there isn't an issue regarding the horse.
2. Whose paddock is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner to be there, with the horse, doing what she was doing, then there isn't an issue regarding the paddock.
^
Oh the sexual act? Well, there is no victim. So setting aside the property rights issues, the horse does not have a right to not to be touched by its owner. It isn't cruelty, after all it is fine to milk animals for their semen for breeding purposes, how different is it to...? After all, you probably think it is ok to kill animals for their meat and hides, so is it worse to fondle a horse's dick?
^
Yes it probably disgusts you, but the law doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. Plenty of people do things that disgust you, but don't interfere with anyone's rights - and do not inflict pain or cruelty. (WARNING NSFW link) Coprophagia is legal, for example - if you don't know what it is, then really don't go looking for it. It is legal to eat rotten food, it is legal to slaughter your own animal and eat it for your own consumption, it is legal to eat flies. Get the picture? The law does not and cannot exist to protect people from doing things that others find repulsive. Remember, homosexuality is repulsive to a lot of people, quite a few find masturbation repulsive too.
^
So yes, a libertarian should argue for the legalisation of bestiality. According to wiki. ..it is legal in Hungary, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Finland, Belgium, Cambodia and Mexico. The fundamental point is that the animal does not have rights. Since it is legal to kill the animal, farm and hold the animal as property, having sex with it is no different. The Dutch prohibit cruelty to animals, in that deliberate sadistic conduct or cruel neglect of an animal you own is illegal - but do not prohibit bestiality, but acts of bestiality that are cruel are prohibited because they are cruel, not because of the sexual dimension.
^
Having said that the law should have no place here, except in terms of private property rights, and (I would argue) laws prohibiting sadistic treatment of animals, this does not mean I am positively endorsing bestiality as a choice.
^
Yes, go on, fondle your horse if you like - but really, it is sad if you can find animals more arousing than people.

3 comments:

Kane Bunce said...

I agree with all of what you said, especially the following.

1. Whose horse is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner, then there isn't an issue regarding the horse.
2. Whose paddock is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner to be there, with the horse, doing what she was doing, then there isn't an issue regarding the paddock.


Indeed. And on top of that the horse would of stopped her if it hated it. They tend to react violently when they hate things.

The law does not and cannot exist to protect people from doing things that others find repulsive.

Indeed.

Yes, go on, fondle your horse if you like - but really, it is sad if you can find animals more arousing than people.

Indeed.

Richard said...

You say we should have laws prohibiting sadistic treatment of animals... I agree. But you say animals do not have rights. So what's your argument?

libertyscott said...

It is immoral to cruelly inflict pain on an animal, when the animal is not threatening your rights and it is simply for the sake of enjoying the suffering. It is simply not moral to enjoy the suffering of others.