[admin] |
The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights.-- H.L. Mencken July 01, 2003Fox Hunting and the Politics of CompromiseThe House of Commons has just voted for a total ban on fox hunting in England. One might be tempted to dismiss this as another sign of the loony leftists in Europe but the failure of the "pro-hunt" lobby holds a number of important lessons for conservatives in America. The primary causes for the failure of the hunting lobby to defend their rights were their willingness to compromise and a failure to offer a moral defense of their rights. Two weeks ago, Andrew Linzey, a prominent British "expert" on morality and "animal rights" compared fox-hunting to rape. To quote, "'Causing suffering for sport is intrinsically evil. Hunting, therefore, belongs to that class of always morally impermissible acts along with rape, child abuse and torture...All acts of cruelty to animals are of a kind ....they diminish our humanity and offend." While Linzey's argument is flawed on oh-so-many levels, I am more interested in what the opposition had to say in response. Here is one of the spokesmen of the Countryside Alliance, a pro-hunting group: "If you ask a rape victim or a victim of torture who has suffered so much whether they think what they have gone through can be compared to hunting, I think you know the response you would get. Frankly, it's disgusting. We are talking about a legal pastime which is being likened to illegal acts of gross exploitation." Note that no attempt is made to defend the moral argument Linzey is making. The best answer the spokesman comes up with is that rape feels worse that hunting. The second part of his reply is to say that rape is worse because it is illegal, which is completely irrelevant in the question of whether it is right. Similar flaws are found in arguments in all of the Alliance's defenses. Their latest slogan is "59% say keep hunting." Other arguments call for a defense of their "way of life" and that hunting an improper priority for the legislature. Not one has dared to offer a moral defense of hunting or to explain why it's wrong to kill humans but not animals. In response to the Alliance spokesman, Mr Linzey could easily say "Well how do know that rape feels worse than hunting? Have you ever been hunted?" In a comparison between being hunted down by dogs and being raped, most people would probably choose rape, and any sane person would certainly say that both are immoral and ought to be illegal. If a clear distinction between the moral status humans and animals is not made, what possible defense of hunting can be made? And how can one defend the moral status of humans if one does not recognize what makes them different from animals in the first place? In short, hunting is doomed in England not because the arguments of the anti-hunt lobby have any merit, or because the defense of the hunters are wrong, but because hunters fail to provide any defense for their views at all, other to offer vague clichés such as "tradition," "way of life," and desperate resorts to public opinion. Realizing that they have nothing to offer in defense, they argue for compromise measures such as registration and various limits on where and how they hunt. The gun lobby in America faces the same proposition. While the liberals offer laughable claims that guns are intrinsically evil, gun owners fail to defend their position on a basis of individual rights and refer to the traditional role of guns in American society and the Second Amendment. There is no certainly no question that gun ownership is an American tradition and a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but until recently fox hunting was an even older British tradition that collapsed before a small but vocal minority. Until gun owners on both sides of the pond realize that they must defend their rights on a moral basis and offer a principled stand, their freedoms will continue to be eroded by collectivists with preposterous claims that hunting amounts to rape and guns are evil while criminals are not. Ironically, it is Tony Blair who stated in response to calls to weaken the hunting ban that "this is a moral issue, and as soon as you try and compromise on a moral issue you end up hacking everybody off." Until conservatives stop "conserving" and start defending their rights, their stance is as useless as the fox hunters. (Btw, while I think the NRA's willingness to compromise on their principles makes them unworthy of anyone's support, I was surprised to find a link to CapMag on their site. If you want to support an organization that truly supports your rights, I recommend you check out Keep and Bear Arms) Posted by David at July 1, 2003 04:00 AM | TrackBack
Comments
i hate and i meen hate fox hunting im only 11 years old and have riped down every singh i have seen in my area Posted by: liberty at September 26, 2003 12:23 PMWow, the educational system in the UK is even worse than our own! Not only are they growing up to be good little commies, but they don't even know how to write! Posted by: David Veksler at September 28, 2003 02:40 AMits do wrong and bad if i see a poster then ill rip it down Posted by: sum kid at October 16, 2003 08:54 AMits wrong ok dont do it Posted by: sum kid at October 16, 2003 08:55 AMok Posted by: at October 16, 2003 08:55 AMgood so capaign aganst it and if i see it again then congratulations:) Posted by: at October 16, 2003 08:56 AMWow, Im an american researching this topic and Im surprised to see how ignorant you people seem to be here. I wish they made people take a test before the get internet acsess, you people would still be reading the newspaper. Oh and the author of this article is absolutely correct. Posted by: American at November 18, 2003 09:42 PMi think those fucking tiny dicked cunts should be hunted down slotered by a pack of beten brainwashed dogs deinared decapitated and plased above my fier place and then see how those stuk up so far-right-they-fall-of-there-horse up there ass mother fuckers like that. stop fox hunting Posted by: fred at November 25, 2003 03:01 PMi dont se how andrew linzey has got the bottle to say that fox hunting is like rape. not atall being a rape victim myself i feel that it is morally wrong to even think that. being raped ruins the rest of your life and its always there staring you right in the face. you obviously have no idea what you are going on about. if your gunna make judgements then make sure you know what you are asaying and how you are addressing them . Posted by: corrina at November 26, 2003 07:35 AMwow, id like 2 c hunters get chased down & shot, it is a matter injust dis-respect Posted by: marie at December 16, 2003 04:55 PMhow can u say she is wrong? yes, rape ruins ur life 4eva, BUT SO DOES BEING SHOT.... i mean u dont even hav a life 2 ruin, lol !!!
Post a comment
|
Interact:
Forum
Top Shelf:
Friends:
Calendar:
Archives:
March 2004
February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002
Search
Recent Entries:
BB&T offers $1 million to study Capitalism
The UN supports terrorism On a "lighter" note Carving up the loot Rattling the Chains of Slavery Hamas leaders are cowards after all Guilty of Being Innocent Hamas leader killed in Israeli airstrike My Favorite Streaming Internet Radio Stations
Categories:
Random Blog:
|
About Me | Blog | Essays | Photo Album | Resume | Webcam | Favorites | Projects | Contact | |