Vegan Anarchy: Do animals have the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, are the innate rights of every human being.
Whether rich, poor, black or white, Cosmic Intelligence, the great architect of the universe and all its inhabitants, has organised nature so as to grant men and women with sovereignty over their bodies, for each man and woman is the monarch of their own thoughts, emotions, and actions.
Anarchists, of course, affirm this truth in their rejection of political authority and governmental control, understanding that no president, prime minister, king or queen has any legitimate claim of ownership of any man's flesh or labour; for we are Kings and Queens created in the image of God, and we are all destined to realise our own innate Royalty.
(Gnostic digital art by Bruce Rolff)
Having seen through the illusion of political authority and living their lives in accordance with the cosmic moral laws of the universe, anarchists, those rebels who refuse to cooperate with tyranny, abide by the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership, and do not infringe upon the natural rights of any other human being.
Many anarchists, however, are oblivious to the natural rights of those beings we have ruled, dominated, and mass-murdered for time immemorial - the animals.
While anarchists acknowledge the hidden divinity embedded in each man and woman, they discard cows, pigs, chickens, goats and many other creatures as if they were soulless automatons, forgetting that they were created by the same intelligence which granted man his natural rights.
Animals, too, were designed with the same desire for life, liberty, and their own unique pursuit of happiness: send a cow to the slaughterhouse, and he will fight for his life. Lock a pig in a cage, and he will squeal for his freedom. Separate a dog from his companion, and he will slump into a depression. These truths should be self-evident, but man has become so separated and disconnected from nature that he would deny his own spiritual bond with the animal kingdom and butcher his fellow earthlings in the most cruel fashion.
Pigs dispatched to the slaughterhouse are denied their right to life; cows subject to perpetual rape and artificial insemination on a dairy farm are denied their liberty; and any creature separated from his family at birth is denied happiness.
How can we, as supposed beings of moral conscience and intelligence, campaign for liberty and justice for humans whilst being complicit in the most horrendous acts of injustice and cruelty towards our non-human companions?
Is this not the definition of insanity?
Our duty to Earth and its inhabitants isn't to enslave, rule, and murder, it is to guide, heal, and collectively evolve as a unified consciousness. To rephrase the wise words of Thomas Jefferson: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are sovereign, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Thanks for reading, 'In Lakech
me for more content to come!
A video is worth a million words:
This is amazing! Thanks for sharing.
One of my favorites!
<3<3<3
For any anarchist (or any rational, self-disciplined human being) who owns pets and doesn't choose to eat said pet because it provides a source of mutually beneficial companionship, then the natural extension of the argument seems perfectly rational assuming that same person doesn't believe that their household pet has feelings/sentience above or beyond animals slaughtered for food. Said a different way, if you don't eat your pets, why would you eat another animal unless you believe the other animal has less of a right to life? If there is an argument as to why one animal deserves preferential treatment to life then I'd love to hear the ethical argument supporting it.
when i look at a cow in the eyes, its like how some ppl look into a dogs eyes and they have an emotional attachment. I don't know how ppl can switch off because they think that one kind of animal provides some sensual experience. No experience is worth another beings pain suffering and death.
Salient points, as always @danielshortell
#shamingpeoplethateatmeatforowningpets
Thank you so much for this post. I couldn't have said it better. Just to help clear some misconceptions some people have, vegan aren't against any farmers.
Farming is the most primordial job there is and most vegans recognize this. Vegans work for a world minimizing unnecessary suffering.
I've re-steemed!
I'm glad you enjoyed it @teamsteem Thanks a million for the upvote and re-steem brother.
I found this Post through his re-steem because I follow him. Now I am following you too. What you write is very close to my heart.
The fact that animals are treated differently highlights humans own arrogance as a species, as a culture we believe ourselves to be superior, one day nature will teach us that we are a part of all of it, until that day we are heading towards self destruction, of not the earth, but of humanity.
The meat industry is subsidised like crazy, totally against the free market.
Yep - the price of meat would skyrocket without government subsidies. Thanks for reading and commenting @jeffreyphillips
2 year vegan here and I actually never knew about this. I've always wondered how meat is so affordable. This totally answers that question. We learn something new everyday. Thanks!
Animals don't have reason, which is crucial for understanding rights, and in consequence to be a moral being. Wolf doesn't act wrong when it kills sheep. It cannot do right or wrong because it cannot act in accordance with any moral principle, it doesn't know any concepts (self-ownership, privite property and so on), only feelings, sensations, instincts. If you don't understand Rothbard explaining natural law, read Kant instead, he was true moral philosopher and true libertarian.
Animals not having reason is not a justification to torture and murder them. We do not kill and eat retards for that very reason. There are many human beings who are actually lower in intelligence than animals, but we do not eat them because a lack of reason and intellect is not a justification for murder.
We are supposed to protect the most vulnerable members of society, not abuse them.
So how do you propose dealing with all of these "rights" violations being committed by other creatures on the planet, most of which are killing and eating one another? Must humans intervene to stop this? From an animal's perspective, it's irrational to think they would only object to being killed and eaten by a human and not some other animal.
Comparing a wolf killing a sheep and what is outlined in this Post is ridiculous to say the least.
The sheep had the free will to be there and there was a chance of it escaping. But for the slaughtered animals they have no choice. Everything in their life is predetermined by us. If they live or die, if they get to walk or stand in one place for the whole duration of their life, if they get to keep their offspring next to them, any and all aspects of their existence is in our hands.
We must not also forget here that a century ago there were a group of people just like you and me called "slaves" who also did not have RIGHTS. Looking back we can see the evolution of that scenario.
Sheep don't have anything like free will, because free will needs abstract thinking, thinking about the future, possibilities. Animal is always now and here, and reacts to the envirement according to instincts and previously learned reflexes. Animals in slaughterhouse can escape as well, we are just better predators then wolfs so it happens rarely. It's not a point anyway. And slaves were people and possessed reason, therefore slavery always was and will be violation of natural rights of the people. Nothing comparable to animal breeding.
Well we can go on and on about this can't we?
Anyway whatever you say will not alter my Respect for animals and my disgust for how they are treated.
My point about the slaves was that there were people who thought about slaves just like you are thinking about animals. But we all know that they were proven wrong.
Also simply without much elaboration on anything about animals having "rights" or not or if they are "conscious" or not or even if they have "free will" or not, how about if we all just start by SIMPLY RESPECTING ALL LIVING BEINGS. Adjusting our thoughts slightly towards respect will change a huge lot and go a long way.
I can respect my animals very much, but do not confuse it with animal having rights, because it's nonsense. I can respect my chickens, treat them well and then eat them, nothing wrong with that.
They aren't "rights" violations because it's part of nature for some animals to use other animals as food.
Animals have a level of reasoning or intelligence. Some more than others. I absolutely know for a fact my dog Jack (deceased) who knew over 50 words and most definitely could reason had an advanced, for a dog, personality. Same can be said for whales, corvids (crows etc.) certain other birds, elephants, etc. Elephants for instance have strong powers of memory and display a sense of morality and even an advanced, for animals, sense of community and duty. Consciousness is not a singular point but is rather a sliding scale. Humans for instance can be downright animals with little or no moral compass or compassion but they can also reach states of higher consciousness. Anyway, off subject a bit there. It seems to me as one moves up the scale in consciousness one feels more compassion, courage, love, wholeness, etc., and one frequently views life in all its forms as sacred. In the lower frequencies of pure survival, without moral boundaries inhibiting behavior, survival is the Law and the way of nature. The question in my mind is this: as we humans rise up beyond base survival instincts, which would include killing and eating whatever one can, do we find a valid, moral, imperative to NOT kill? Science has now proven that plants "communicate" and indeed show some functions of consciousness. We instinctively show very little remorse in killing and eating a plant because we don't recognize any consciousness in them. I suspect too many humans feel ok eating a dumb chicken but would not consider eating a dog (exempting many asians who partake). In Holland you may see horses out to pasture. They are being raised for human consumption. Amazing. So perhaps as we rise in awareness and consciousness so too will our compassion and sense of sacredness for all things.
Intelligence has nothing to do with reason. Animal can know the meaning of some symbols because it has good memory, but cannot grasp any logical relations between the symbols, therefore it cannot learn any language. It can't understand the meaning of sentences, and ethical principles or laws always are sentences, imperatives. Some people, children for example, can't do that as well but they still have rights (shouldn't be killed) because of their potential of reason, just as every person when it is asleep or drunk. And animals can be killed by it's human owner and it is nothing morally worse then sheep killed by a wolf.
Makes me smile to see what you're doing here and I have no doubt you're going to blow up on steemit. Kudos and keep up the great posts. You have a talent for writing.
Thanks, man.
Have you thought about posting your videos to DTube? I look forward to your podcast with Vin Armani; it's about time you got some recognition from the big boys.
Thank you for your voice. It is absolutely beautiful. I sign under every word! Resteemed.
I believe this issue is a great cognitive dissonance for so-called anarchists and freedom lovers. How can one be for individual rights, but not include the non-human animals? Interesting some of the original anarchist minded people didn't consume flesh and even tried to create vegan communities.
If it's a violation of an animal's "rights" for a human to kill it and eat it, then it would therefore be an equal violation if that animal were killed by another animal. So how to rectify this injustice? Must humans begin intervening to protect all creatures on the planet from killing and eating one another? This is absurdity.
If an advanced alien race landed on planet earth and decided to enslave and rear humans for food, for the same reasons we enslave and rear animals for food, would it be morally justifiable?
Given that human beings possess moral agency and higher thought, it should be incumbent on us to allow these creatures to live their lives in freedom.
Freedom is the key. Whilst animals do kill each other in the wild, they are still free from any higher authority. Lions and tigers do not enslave their prey, and they eat only as a means of survival.
To believe we have NOT been visited by Higher Beings is almost as ridiculous as humans eating Animals. Higher Beings do NOT eat us because there in NO nutritional value to eating us. Just like animals, there is NO nutritional value to eating any type of animal. One can get way More Nutrition from Plants and CLEAN Water.
No, because humans are not biologically designed to eat animals even though they still do, it comes with sickening effects; we are essentially frugivores. A lion and other carnivores eat animals for food in their raw form without having to enslave them in any type of agricultural process.
Well said.
yes animals have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness...i am agree with you ...everybody should love the animals..i love to read this great post...you are really kind heart person...i always upvote and resteeme you...so love animals