Yes, I know according to our pathetically over-reaching, unprincipled legal system, he very well could be considered a criminal.

My point is that he shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, one of many inescapable realities of freedom is that it inherently entitles individuals to do or say things that we disagree with, and in some cases things that repulse us. Cruelty to animals repulses me. If indeed Vick tortured and beat dogs to death - I’d love to see him accidentally fall into a cage of lions for some real one-on-one intimacy with aggressive animals.

However, as much as the thought of torturing or killing animals disgusts me, it should not be a legal issue (except for the extent that I mention below). Laws based on subjective whims are a tyrannical wildcard that must never be dealt in a free society.

Animals have no legal rights. A right is an ethical principle sanctioning an individuals action, and is only applied to rational, moral beings. Animals are neither.

I love most animals in general and dogs in particular. The thought of my sweet natured Chocolate Labrador being confiscated and used as psycho-bait for other more aggressive dogs is nauseating. If that horrible thought became a reality I do support very extreme legal penalties for such theft. Dogs & other animals that have owners are property of those owners - very special property, property that cannot be replaced.

Penalties for stealing another individuals pet should be harsh enough to effectively deter the practice. However, if the cruelty to animals doesn’t encroach on the rights of others (excruciating as it may be) a free country must allow it.

The self-induced damage to Vick’s marketability will probably render the end of his NFL career. It should not however, land him in the courtroom.

Why do so many people confuse rights, privileges, and conscription?

A right is a certain course of behavior that is sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with. There are rights that are inalienable, meaning they are inherent to life itself, fundamental and not granted or awarded by human means. There are also alienable rights, which are granted by men, and in the case of the United States (most of the time) protected by governing sanction.

There’s really only one truly inalienable right - the right to life - which means the freedom to take measures required to support the continuance of ones existence. There’s one key caveat - one doesn’t encroach on the same right of another individual (response to force is the exception).

The right to property is the only implementation of the primary right to life. Without the right to maintain ownership of the product of ones existence an individual can’t really sustain his life. That’s it. That’s the only inalienable ‘right’ we have.

There are also rights that which are not inalienable, however are key to a free society. The commonly cited rights to free speech, bear arms and to due process of law are among those in the Bill of Rights which are crucial to our country.

A privilege, conversely is an entitlement that requires the voluntary commission of others. Anything that requires the consensual sacrifice of value from another individual is a privilege.

Thirdly, Conscription is involuntary servitude demanded for one party for another by a tertiary authority. For example, using unconstitutional government authority to mandate individuals with medical expertise to render services without granting them the authority to determine compensation is conscription. Using unconstitutional government authority to force one individual to compensate another individual for services (either in part or in full ) supplied for a third party is also conscription… also know as ‘Socialized Medicine’, or the more slyly crafted phrase - ‘Universal Health-care’.

If someone claims that health care is a right, I would ask ‘based on what justification?’ It’s certainly not an inalienable one. For one to have a right to receive medical expertise, another individual would be required to apply such expertise. So, if it by definition isn’t inalienable, it must a right granted by man. Where do we get it from? Where does man grant me the right to have another individual maintain my life? I’ve never seen it granted in any legal document pertaining to the founding of our country.

What is their basis for that claim?

Health care (maintenance of life) is certainly by definition not a right. At best case, when it exists in a free-market, it’s a privilege. A privilege that involves another individuals expertise in anatomy, biology and medicine plus one other thing, their consent to provide their expertise in exchange for compensation that they see fit.

The latest version of ResoNation is live and the new layout should provide a more well-rounded offering to the reso community.

Check it out.

-b