Why Michael Vick Should Not Be Prosecuted
So the drama with Falcons QB Michael Vick continues. I'd guess that about 97% of the American public that's aware of this story is itching to see the government really stick it to Vick and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.
The remaining 3% are those of us with the highest possible degree of respect for liberty and voluntary social interactions.
Let's get a few things out of the way. I do not condone animal cruelty. I think people that do the kinds of things Vick is accused of are sick and are probably more likely than others to harm actual human beings. I also believe animals are not equivalent to humans. They are not moral agents. They do not have rights. They are resources and can be owned. I grew up with wonderful dogs and cats. They brought me plenty of joy and certainly enhanced my life. Nevertheless, they were still property--not people, not moral agents with natural rights.
Now of course Vick should not be prosecuted on the gambling charge. That's flat out a victimless crime, and most of us realize there's nothing inherently wrong with it (it does of course pose ethical issues in some cases and can legitimately be banned by private organizations as in the case of the NFL, but that's not a legitimate matter for law enforcement).
The real question is whether it's right for Vick to be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Of course I realize current law allows such prosecution, but that's not the point. My argument is that that is a failure on our society's part to properly understand liberty and natural rights.
A free society is measured by how well it relies on voluntary actions of free individuals rather than the coercion of the state. Government is coercion. Law is coercion. A free society strives to minimize and eliminate those vestiges of primitive aggression. If a monopoly government with law enforcement powers exists, those powers should only be used with regard to invasions of person or property. You should be able to do whatever you want to yourself or your property. The law should not interfere. You may not invade (engage in aggression against) other people or their property.
So animal abusers just get to run loose with no punishment? Not at all. The majority of people in society are decent, caring human beings. They would not look kindly on someone engaging in cruelty to animals. Indeed, we see that Michael Vick is already being subjected to intense personal and professional ostracism. He is looked at with disgust by virtually the entire country. His football career may well be over. Unless miraculously vindicated, he'll carry this with him like a "scarlet letter" for the rest of his life. And all this without a single conviction through the coercive instruments of the state. That is how things are handled by free people.
Share your thoughts on this--don't hold back!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
August 18th, 2007 - 16:17
This is where there is a line of distinction between classical liberals and anarcho-libertarians. John Stuart Mill, at his intellectual peak, was a leading voice for limited government, and also a champion of anti-animal cruelty laws.
No, I do not believe that animals are the “equivalent” of human beings. Yes, I believe they can be owned, farmed, hunted, etc. And yes, any limits on the ownership of the animals — if they indeed can be owned — poses a muddled eptistemology.
As a classical liberal, I believe that only individuals — not groups — have rights; that government exists to protect these rights; and that individuals who have the ability to consent are not in need of a paternalistic state to “protect” them from anything other than the initiation of force. However, individuals who cannot consent — i.e. the incompetent, children, and to a lesser extent, animals, deserve some state protection. There is no good philosophical basis for what constitutes abuse and what constitutes legitimate uses of animals; this I admit. And I am against federal animal-protection laws. But if state or local governments make their own ordinances against animal cruelty, then I think they are certainly approrpiate.
Animals can be owned, but surely they are not property the same way a chair is. The conflation of a pitbull and a sofa shows the cracks in anarcho-theory, just as surely as “animal rights” shows epistemological cracks in classical liberalism. The truth is that animals exist somewhere in between human beings and inanimate objects, and shades of grey do not work well with rigid philosophies.
August 18th, 2007 - 23:49
G.E.,
Thanks for your thoughts. While I do have trouble with the problem of how to handle animal abusers (and abusers of humans who do not have the ability to consent), I don’t take these apparent gray areas to be cracks in anarchist theory. Instead, I believe they’re an indication that there is further theoretical work to be done that will lead to a deeper unified theory of a stateless society. Very much like the way relativity appears to contradict quantum mechanics–we’ve verified that the rules of both theories apply to reality, so theorists are intently working on developing the underlying theory that must (logically) unify the two. I believe the theoretical and empirical evidence in favor of eliminating the state is simply too overwhelming to discard the philosophy when difficult moral issues seem to arise.
August 24th, 2007 - 17:30
To many big words.
August 27th, 2007 - 09:37
Hey guys,
Lots of verbosity here and agree some very big words but issue should not be “rights” but “responsibilities”. We’re not talking theory but the deliberate willful abuse of animals unnecessarily.
At one time in our history the term “rights” were not reserved for such people as ” blacks, eyetalians, potato farmers” etc. you get the picture. All those people were victimized not by lacking rights but simply by those who claimed them as property abusing their responsiblities.
Don’t complicate this as Vick’s behavior is reprehensible and he should pay for his transgressions both civilly through tort actions, and criminal sanctions. He had a responsibility to act in a civil, humane manner but he failed to do so. The best use of government sanctions is to prosecute him to show the other 3% there is a price to pay for not being a responsible citizen.
I love the Libertarian bent and agree with it philosophically however problem with the theory is having to deal with actualitiy and then it starts falling apart to prolonged debate and no action.
August 28th, 2007 - 11:43
Bob, I’m not sure I understand all of your comment, but the gist of it seems to be that you think there actually is a justification for the use government force to punish and deter actions that don’t involve invasion of person or property. It looks like you’re saying that’s good in theory but not in practice? (Let me know if I’m misinterpreting what you said.) I would submit that if something is good in theory but not in practice, the theory needs more work and thus is not actually a good theory. I believe that the principle of self-ownership and its corollary, the principle of noninitiation of force (the foundation of libertarianism and market anarchism), are good in theory and in practice. Any deviation from that theory inevitably leads, when followed to logical conclusions, to a system in which there’s nothing to prevent the emergence of a totalitarian state that can do whatever it wants to the individual. That’s why people (even conservatives and a few libertarians) who argue that we need ‘at least a minimal safety net’ (provided by using government violence to take from others) are actually arguing against the very rights to life and liberty that they probably think they support.
August 28th, 2007 - 11:48
As a Virginia Tech alumni and father-in-law of a veteranarian, I have been watching this issue with more than casual interest. Vick made a morally bad decision to engage in a reprehensable and cruelly juvenille activity. He may have lost his livlihood over that decision. He will be ostracised by many people for a very long time. He also violated the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and will be subject to appropriate legal action. I am not an anarchist in that I do not believe, in the modern age, a “stateless” society serves to protect with any certainty the natural rights of the individuals of which it is composed. But I am a libertarian and, as such, I believe that the American experiment as outlined in the constitution is the closest thing every devised to a government based on the libertarian principle of protecting individuals from the coercive power of a centralized government. So the problem with the Vick case is the problem with most federal law in the last century …. where in the constitution is the authority to regulate what an individual property owner does with the contents of his or her property (including livestock)? The citizens of Virginia have decided that dogfighting (and animal cruelty) is not an allowed use of private property. Violation of state law and the contempt of civil people nationwide is sufficient punishment here. But I’ll bet there will be some HRs and SBs appearing before congress pretty soon invoking the interstate commerce clause to make dogfighting a federal offense. Vick is, federally speaking, guilty of RICO violations which are expressly designed to provide federal prosecutorial ability for anyone who violates a state law (i.e. drug use … not a favorite prohibition of most of us, I’d bet) and uses an “interstate” tool (banks, telecommunications, the post office). Perhaps it will someday be a federal offense to be a boorish lout, too.
August 28th, 2007 - 15:08
Thanks for your comment, Mike. As you point out, you don’t go as far as I do, but we do agree that there is no role for the federal government in this situation
August 30th, 2007 - 17:49
Wow, you guys are taxing my brain, you may have to dumb down the conversation here for me to particpate as my vocabularly is literally fading away with my years, but here is where I disagree with you Darren: Let’s assume for the sake of arguemnt that you are correct in your statement that animals are property and not “moral” beings (although I’ve owned dogs who I think were more moral than some people I know, but that’s another story) still, they are “feeling” beings. Do they not deserve some kind of protection from painful abuse from their owners? You say that Michale Vick will suffer enough natural consequences that no other action by goverment is required, and that may be true… but what about the guy who ties a dog up to the back of his trailer without shade or water to suffer and die in the hot sun on a 100 degree day (literally boiling his brain). It is unlikely that same ostracizing is going to occur in this guys trailer park that Michael Vick will likely experience (at least from some people while other parts of society will think he is “cool” or “bad” ), so do we just say, “well it’s his dog, his business”. Should we as “moral beings” not have any compassion for those who cannot protect themselves because they are not as valuable as us? Must be a problem with the theory, because I don’t believe society is advanced enough to police itself. Perhaps you would say that I am projecting my values on someone else, but in my humble opinion living beings of any kind should not be tortured. Not the same as humane animal experiementation, hunting by responsible hunters, or raising animals in a humane way for human consumption.
September 2nd, 2007 - 15:48
Well, Elizabeth, I understand the (almost automatic) emotional reaction that leads people to appeal to authority (the government) to “do something” about animal abusers. But once we give the government power (as we have done) to use force against us for the way we treat our own animals, we’ve started down a path toward the abolition of property rights, which are the foundation of our freedom. When it comes down to a choice between a redneck getting away with abusing his dog and me ending up as a slave to an all-powerful state, I’ll take the former every time.