Month: April 2019

The debate about vaccines, immunity, and risk to others is often a complicated topic as there is so much information to digest from ethics, to biology, to risk factors. For the principled Voluntaryist, the question of vaccination is one that is readily answered by going to the root of what vaccination is as relates to individuals and property rights. First, it’s important to understand what vaccination is and what it is not. Vaccination in modern times is the injection of either a live, weakened, or dead virus into the body of an individual, sometimes coupled with an adjuvant (a substance to increase immunity response) to cause the body to produce white blood cells for the sake of fighting off infection from viruses. Vaccines are not cure-alls or some nanotechnology that itself fights infection. Rather, what is injected stimulates the body’s immune system so that the body can fight off future infection from related viruses. Because the act of vaccination involves an invasion of the body by a foreign object (a needle and solution), the Voluntaryist principle of self-ownership comes into play. Forcing an individual to get a vaccine should be, in-and-of itself, considered an ethical harm without consent of the affected individual. Some people attempt to say that not vaccinating produces a great risk of harm to others and, thus, people who do not get vaccines are somehow endangering others and should be viewed as committing a rights violation. This reasoning should be rejected outright when one looks at the nature of viruses and the actual actions taking place in the spread of disease. As viruses are independent agents that exist within the living cells of an organism, they should not be considered a chosen harm unless specifically procured and produced by an individual. This would be viewed no differently than someone who finds that a bee’s nest has been established on a tree in their backyard or a rats nest has been created in the roof of their home, to their annoyance. As a person is not responsible for the independent actions of other organisms, people cannot be charged with responsibility for being infected when it is not of their own will. A person should only be held accountable to the extent they create and/or privatize an independent organism such as intentionally manufacturing anthrax or purchasing a pitbull. In this framework, individuals are only responsible for their specific property rights claims taken on and are responsible for the actions that stem from that privatization. The rightful remedy in response to risk concerns of those who are not vaccinated is to make property rules for entry to various venues. A property owner can make entry to their facilities conditioned on having certain vaccines and, within this permission, be able to bar those who have not had certain vaccines and hold responsible those who violate the rules of the property owner. This method of robustly respecting the rights of individuals and the rights of property owners is key to delineating when a harm has taken place based on specific actors and actions. Of course, it should be noted that the fears about a lack of vaccination should be reckoned with the realities of vaccination. Vaccines are not absolute bars to illness and, as many vaccine manufacturers note, there are varying effectivenesses and protection periods depending on the specific brand and content of the vaccine. In addition, vaccines today do not protect against bacterial infections (just viruses) and the available vaccine options do not cover all possible forms of illness. Many who are eager to push vaccination onto others also do not hold themselves to a strict standard of quarantine as they return to work or school well before the infectious period abates (up to two weeks for the common cold and 8 days for the flu). I mention these facts as a reminder that protection against spreading disease involves more than just vaccination, but a social norm of accepting that people need to be able to stay away from others for extended periods while ill so as to not spread sicknesses. This, of course, can readily be metered through a robust respect of property rights for all people. SOURCES: Virus Vaccine History: Developments by Year Differentiating the wild from the attenuated during a measles outbreak Period of Flu Contagiousness How long is someone infectious after a viral infection? Vaccine Effectiveness – How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work? Vaccines for Adults The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time

The post Voluntaryism, Viruses, and Vaccines appeared first on Voluntaryist – The Comic Series.

Source: Volcomic Liberty.me – Voluntaryism, Viruses, and Vaccines

The treatment of children is often a difficult topic for many to navigate as children are largely unable to take care of themselves. As such, they are dependent on their parents for care, support, and wisdom to flourish into functioning adults. As Voluntaryists try to maximize consent and minimize the initiation of violence, the respect of children’s bodies and wills is an important consideration in fostering and reciprocating peace and love. Of first importance is defining the relationship between parents and children. Unlike Rothbard, I do not see children as being “owned” by their parents. This is because children are independent human beings who are exercising control over their bodies to the exclusion of others. Rather than defining the relationship as “ownership,” I consider the relationship to be a trust relationship where parents are acting as stewards of children until they are mature enough to take care of themselves without their parents’ help. This makes for a clear distinction and rejection of Rothbard’s “market in children” formulation as offering children up for adoption is not a “sale” so much as a negative contractual duty to not claim that someone is the parent or steward of a child. As stewards, parents have the highest trust relationship for children as the biological norm. It is well-known that a child’s biological parents have the closest connection because of the bio-chemical relationship fostered by a child and mother in utero. A mother has the highest investment in the wellbeing of a child in that she has offered up her bodily resources and, thus, should be viewed as having the highest stewardship rights claim. In this environment, parents may exercise their property rights for the sake of rearing a child in a healthy path. A parent can offer a child food, shelter, and companionship so long as those actions are not violating the physical body of a child. A parent can refuse to provide unhealthy things to a child as well to ensure that a child is not harmed by something that he or she cannot handle. In this realm, young children are not able to fully consent to all activities an adult can because they do not have the brain capacity to be able to understand what it is they are engaging in. This is where the stewardship of the parent exists to help protect a child from poor choices or unknown risks and dangers. A Voluntaryist parent who wishes to help a child build a strong foundation for independence so that their children can meaningfully consent one day ought to use peaceful parenting tactics based in reason and evidence as opposed to spanking, threats, and yelling. If you’re not familiar with peaceful parenting, that is okay. For now, it can be summed as looking to use words and empathetic touch over threats and physical hitting to help children learn how to manage their thoughts, emotions, and bodily functions. (You can read several books on how to be an effective peaceful parent and non-violent communicator below.) Voluntaryist parenting discipline, if required, is focused on removing rewards/good things rather than using hitting and threats. In this manner, Voluntaryists seek to provide such a loving and building home environment that a child would want to behave in a peaceful manner to continue enjoying their fun activities. A parent can of course stop a child’s dangerous behavior through force, but this does not need to be escalated to hitting to help a child learn. For example, many mistakenly make a hyperbolic assertion that a parent cannot stop a child from touching a hot stove or running across a road with traffic because it stops the “will” of the child. This is a mistake of thinking that stems from not analyzing all property rights norms in the environment. At home, the stove belongs to the parent, and a parent has a property right to stop a child from touching a hot stove as it is their property. A parent could, in teaching a lesson, even hold a child’s hands above a hot stove if a child is curious while saying “hot” to communicate to a child the dangers of touching a stove. Likewise, a parent stopping a child from walking into a busy intersection is providing property rights defense for oncoming drivers as the child walking into their moving cars would be a violation of that driver’s property right in their car. While describing a parent’s right to stop a child from danger in property rights terms may seem a bit academic and pedantic to explore, it is an important analysis to build a consistent framework of philosophy so that the ethical treatment of children can be advanced. Eventually, when a young person is ready and able to leave out on their own, their journey into adulthood will be complete and social norms built on the Voluntaryist ethic will lead to respect of a young person’s decision to start their own independent life. If you wish to build your own toolkit for helping children grow up in a peaceful and supportive home, please get and read the following books below: Healing The Child Within: Discovery and Recovery for Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families Paperback by Charles L. Whitfield M.D. https://amzn.to/2UOu7Qt Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd Edition: Life-Changing Tools for Healthy Relationships by Marshall B. Rosenberg Ph.D. https://amzn.to/2V8hOxG Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids: How to Stop Yelling and Start Connecting by Dr. Laura Markham https://amzn.to/2GnKyck Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life by Peter Gray https://amzn.to/2VfFnVq

The post Voluntaryist Principles and the Treatment of Children appeared first on Voluntaryist – The Comic Series.

Source: Volcomic Liberty.me – Voluntaryist Principles and the Treatment of Children

The topic of abortion is a heated subject that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. While many people focus more on the end results for analysis, the principled Voluntaryist first must analyze the situation from inception and apply the core philosophical principles to the entire process that leads to children being born. In doing so, it becomes much easier to balance the negative rights of the mother and child without creating contradictory assertions and unlimited duties. To properly analyze the situation, we must first look at the nature of conception itself. Pre-existing humans came to be through the evolution of organisms over time. Without reproduction, there are no humans to even have a philosophical discourse about. If no one reproduces, within a generation, all humans would die off. Seeing this fact sets the groundwork that reproductive action is a biological function and a predicate to existence. Next, we must look at the nature of conception and how that fits within the non-aggression principle ethic. As Voluntaryists seek to maximize consent and minimize the initiation of violence, it becomes difficult to tackle the nature of conception as children are created without their consent. It is physically impossible (as far as we know) to gain consent from a conscious being before they have consciousness with which to consent. Which would mean that, if we hold the N.A.P. standard to conception, it would justify stopping parents from procreating as their action forces a child to come to life without their consent. This absurdity cannot be metered without reaching a nihilistic, anti-human end where humans would eventually go extinct if kept from procreating on the notion that a child cannot consent to being created. To avoid this self-defeating conclusion, the act of conception should be considered in-and-of-itself a biological process that is a-moral, much like the act of having blood or breathing air. As conception is itself a necessary predicate to existence and human life, the N.A.P. analysis cannot be applied to it as it would lead to human extinction. With this in mind, arguments about parents choosing to have sex and, thus, being held responsible for a child’s existence as a unilateral duty can be rejected. If unnerved by this rejection, we can look what applying the N.A.P. to conception would look like for the other absurd results in consequence. 1.) If procreation creates a duty-causing violation, then people would be justified in using defensive force to stop would-be parents from procreating. 2.) If procreation creates a duty-causing violation, then parents can be held as indentured servants to their child for their child’s life as the N.A.P. violation is life-long. 3.) If procreation creates a duty-causing violation, people are justified in investigating whether a woman’s miscarriage was caused by the woman, either by intentional force or by negligent or reckless behavior. 4.) If procreation creates a duty-causing violation, and a mother has an abortion, that woman could be killed for their violation under estoppel, as women cannot claim that they should not be killed if they themselves murder. 5.) If procreation creates a duty-causing violation, then people can use physical force to compel a mother to provide whatever a child demands, as there is no minimum or maximum standard of care to limit what a parent should be providing save the victim’s demands. As you can see, the idea of holding a parent as having a duty to a child because of a unilateral responsibility from “forcing” a child to exist would create some bizarre situations that would encourage force being used against mothers and fathers. In addition to these deductive conclusions, it is also important to note the current biological conditions of mothers in procreation. Miscarriage, a biological eviction, currently takes place in 20-30% of conceptions depending on access to medical care. Because of this, one should also consider the fact that attempting to have a child is itself a risk of a child dying. Put into perspective, this 1-in-5 chance of miscarriage would be akin to running over and killing a child unintentionally 1-in-5 days of going to work. Would most people drive cars to work if one day each week they ran over and killed a child? Probably not. Yet, this takes place in millions of iterations as billions of people around the world have sex and, in many cases, conceive but then lose the child. While some people try to suggest miscarriage is a special situation as it is not necessarily chosen, one should recognize that miscarriage risks are known and that a woman could reduce miscarriage risk or choose not to procreate should the risk be too high. Some factors that increase miscarriage rates includes obesity, weak uterine lining, and unhealthy food and drink choices. Women who have had a prior miscarriage are also at a significantly higher risk for future miscarriage as well. So, if in other areas of life, risky behavior can make someone considered liable for unintended consequences, why would the act of procreation receive special pleading? For example, driving and texting (distracted driving) is a known risk that can lead to someone’s death if they are run over. If someone was distracted while driving and hit a child, killing that child, they would be considered negligent or reckless in causing that child’s death, even if they did not intend it. To be consistent, women who attempt to procreate with known risks, and whose attempts lead to miscarriage, should be held liable if holding a strict N.A.P. standard. Of course, few, if any, proponents who consider abortion outright “murder” hold this standard. Instead, they attempt to downplay the risks and outcomes of attempted procreation while holding women to a standard of care only if their mind wishes for the abortion/eviction to take place. Between the inherent risk of miscarriage and the focus on not causing infant death, one would expect that a robust application of the N.A.P. to procreation would put a duty on women to only attempt procreation if they are healthy enough to do so with minimal risk. This standard is not generally held and, thus, should be another factor in rejecting the argument of anyone trying to suggest that abortion/eviction is always outright murder. If one is unwilling to place a duty of care on a mother to not procreate if there is risk, but they will put a duty of care for other activities that can lead to unintended deaths, then they are hypocrites. So what then is the ethical conclusion about what a mother could do with a child in her body? For the sake of argument, we can assume that a child should be considered a full human being at the point of conception. This helps to eliminate any ambiguity and gives the most favorable position to respecting the body and property rights of a conceived child. It’s also a reasonable position to take as all the genetic information for a child is present when the egg meets sperm and the process of cellular division begins. Given a most-favorable light position to a child in the womb, one can then analyze how to meter out the hierarchy of property rights and self-ownership. As the mother pre-exists the child, and the child only comes into existence through the grace of the mother’s continued supply of blood and nutrients, it should be noted that the mother’s claim to her own body is at a higher right of claim than a child’s. A child cannot be owed a duty and a right to the mother’s bodily resources as this is a forcible taking of the mother’s bodily resources. Any attempt to create an analogy to this situation with third parties fails for a lack of true similarity. For example, some suggest an analogy to conception with someone who accidentally ends up on an airplane. The person who ends up on the plane may have drunkenly stumbled into the plane or may have been a worker who was knocked unconscious by a falling suitcase while putting bags into the plane. Someone unwittingly ending up on a plane is not analogous to conception and child carriage as a child’s existence is wholly predicated on the actions and givings of the mother, unlike a stranger caught in someone else’s property. This is important to remember as the argument for suggesting a duty to a child can also be conversely argued in similar fashion of a child owing a duty to a mother and father. It could be said that, as a child’s life is formed from a property giving of a mother’s body, that the child should be the mother’s property or, at least, “owe” his or her parents for his life. This, of course, should be rejected for the aforementioned idea of considering conception a-moral to avoid unlimited, unilateral duties and, as well, for the logical absurdity of outright human ownership (explained in another article here: https://vassociation.com/2018/07/30/property-rights-norms-under-voluntaryism/) Looking at the mother and child’s independent rights to their bodily property and the existing hierarchy, it can be argued that a mother has the right to remove the child from her body. Walter Block has called this process “evictionism.” However, unlike Walter Block’s position, I do not argue that a mother has a duty to pay for and use life-sustaining technology to keep a child alive. Rather, a mother has a right to expel a child from her body and, if that child dies in the process, such is a consequence of the exercising of said rights. While I do not personally find this to be an admirable thing, it is an important consistency to hold to avoid rationalizing other people escalating violence against mothers. To uphold the Voluntaryist prongs of maximizing consent and minimizing the initiation of violence, a mother should avoid going out of her way to kill a child i.e. killing a child as a focus rather than as a result. Where this comes most clearly into play is where a mother is nearing term and the eviction of a child would still leave a child alive outside the womb. Killing a child intentionally, such as with using scissors or a vacuum on the way out, should be considered an escalation of violence as it goes beyond removal. In sum, killing a child who would otherwise survive the chosen removal process would be a violation of the child’s bodily property rights. What this standard does is permit respect of a mother’s bodily property right to expel unwanted persons from her body while also respecting that other human beings should not intentionally kill a child outside of the removal process. In tandem with this, a mother has a negative duty to not harm a child physically beyond removal and, thus, a mother cannot forcibly keep a child from care offered by others. Holding this standard both avoids imposing a duty on a mother to provide care but also permits the opportunity for a child to receive care from willing persons. The reason why this standard is wise to maintain beyond the deductions from establishing property right hierarchies is to recognize that unwilling mothers are going to be problematic in how a child is treated. Forcing motherhood on an unwilling mother would likely have serious consequences for how a child is cared for growing up. Further, any deviation from this reciprocal standard would also rationalize physical, violent force being used against a mother to both take care of a child prenatally and after a child is born. Anyone who tries to impose a duty but who will not articulate a standard of care for how a child should be treated before and after birth and, for what duration, is trying to hide behind ambiguities. They have no skin in the philosophical game for a “compared to what” of what a mother should do for her child to not be considered negligent and for how long she should offer a child care to not be considered abusive. Continuing with this line of thought provides a clear framework that parents should not be held to a standard of care outside of N.A.P. thinism and that children, likewise, cannot be forced to remain with parents who are hurting them through physical violence or starvation. This makes the most sense when one internalizes that “good parenting,” whatever that may entail depending on the social sphere, cannot be forced without creating more opportunities for physical violence against both parents and children who are threatened to conform to some amorphous outside social sphere of “right” or “wrong” parenting styles. Of course, with education and technology, abortion and eviction can be reduced, trending toward zero. This requires a change in culture where people are actively thinking about how to respect the bodies and properties of others so that they can grow in empathy and prudence. Rationalizing more opportunities for violence against women exerting their bodily property rights is only going to lead to a rationalization for interventionism and spying on women and their families. Sources: MISCARRIAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/miscarriage.aspx Miscarriage Probability Chart https://datayze.com/miscarriage-chart.php Mens Rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Evictionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

The post Voluntaryist Principles and Abortion appeared first on Voluntaryist – The Comic Series.

Source: Volcomic Liberty.me – Voluntaryist Principles and Abortion

Voluntaryism and Animals Voluntaryist philosophy naturally revolves around human beings and their interaction because, by-and-large, it is human beings who are coming up with the concepts of property rights and applying those concepts in social and market norms. Despite this being the normal relationship dynamic, some people wish to extend the Voluntaryist ethic and, of specific concern, the non-aggression principle, to species outside of homo sapiens. This article demonstrates why Voluntaryist values cannot be extended to animals and, in tandem, offers a methodology of what it takes to foster a consistent application of Voluntaryist norms. First, Voluntaryist norms applying to humans does not need to have argumentation to support it outside of axiom. One could assume the set of actors (human beings) and simply apply the principles as a positivism as human beings are the ones who are acting on the principles and are the class of organisms looking to communicate and apply these principles among themselves. However, we can also produce a meaningful logical framework that not only shows why human beings should be the only species considered (given known lifeforms), but the problematic consequences of attempting to apply the N.A.P. to other organisms that do not have the intellectual capacity of human beings. The primary reason why human beings are the subject class for Voluntaryist ethics is that human beings are generally viewed as having the capacity to understand and reciprocate property rights. This is a crucial feature because any system of ethics where the subject class of actors cannot meaningfully hold the tenets will soon fall into violent chaos. Take an extreme case to see what this means. For example, if I were to come up with an ethical rule/principle that stated, “It is unethical for human beings to breathe air,” this would be rather problematic. If held consistently, all human beings would immediately begin to suffocate and, within minutes, die off. As can be seen, coming up with an ethical rule that causes all or most all members within a group to immediately perish would be problematic as those members cannot reasonably be expected to uphold the rule or they will die. Likewise, creating and applying ethical rules that would inherently be broken to an extreme degree is also poor philosophy as people will then either suffer or be subject to punishment for breaking rules they inherently are going to break. If people cannot be expected to uphold certain ethical rules, then they cannot be held liable for their actions, no more than a fish could be found at fault for swimming or a baby be blamed for burping. When it comes to the non-aggression principle, Voluntaryists have the expectation that people at large are at least capable of respecting the physical bodies and the physical properties of others. This expectation and ability to reciprocate is what underpins the psychological drive of “justice” and “responsibility” for human action. Of course, within the whole of human diversity, there are those who are unable to understand and reciprocate norms due to developmental stage, like young children, and those who cannot understand due to biological dysfunction such as those suffering Alzheimer’s or those with Down Syndrome. To accommodate for this diversity, the principle for species-wide reciprocity should be executed for application when the average member of a species is capable of understanding and reciprocating respect of other people’s bodies and properties. Human beings have the brain size and raw intelligence for this kind of understanding that most all animals simply do not have. To further see why the “average member” metric is important, consider what the world would look like if most people could NOT understand and reciprocate some form of property rights. In that world, people would be taking things from others, destroying other people’s property, and causing physical harm at large to others through rape, battery, and murder. Such a world would be littered with violence beyond imagination, and even having the time to philosophize would be ignored to focus on fighting for survival against a brutal horde of human predators. In such a world, there would be so many violations, that people would essentially be focused on protecting themselves and exacting retribution for violations of their body and property. Thankfully, we live in a world where most people can maintain some semblance of respect of body and property. Largely, people only make exceptions to this expectation when it comes to rationalizations of proxy violence through the state. Animals, on the other hand, do not have the ability to internalize and act on property rights to any meaningful degree. Carnivores would, categorically, be engaged in the business of committing violations against other living creatures. Herbivores would, by nature, violate physical property norms and even some standards of recklessness and negligence in accidentally killing other creatures they step on. Because of this, we can see absurdities emerge in applying the non-aggression principle to animals. First, human beings would be justified in stopping all carnivores from eating other animals. They would even able to use deadly self-defense on behalf of herbivores. This would lead to a kind of eugenics for carnivorous animals until they go extinct, disrupting the ecosystem dramatically. Secondly, applying the N.A.P. to animals as against humans would also produce a justification for human beings to use force, even deadly force, against other humans for violating the bodies or possibly even noted “properties” of animals. A human being killing an animal for food or clothing would be viewed as murderer meriting punishment. Any attempt to craft special categories for animals as compared to humans would inherently create special pleading. For example, if one rationalizes carnivores eating other animals, then one could not really suggest that they are upholding the N.A.P. for animals as they are permitting violations to happen for one group, but not another. Trying to use the term “need” puts the cart before the horse biologically as well, as all living things are evolutionary products of their environment and a “need” to eat a living organisms is itself a product of genetic gravitation from survival selection of food source. In simpler terms, the very reason why there are carnivorous organisms is because some creatures long ago were able to eat other organisms and then become dependent on that kind of nutrition with adaptation over time. To rationalize carnivorous animal activity is to put a stamp of approval on continuing the genetic dependence of killing other animals for food. If this same property were to be reciprocated to humans, human beings could not have arisen as they are a product of eating meat, which was what allowed humans to grow such a large brain size in the first place. Holding different standards for carnivorous creatures here commits a special pleading and, thus, should be rejected outright for being inconsistent with the supposed first intent of trying to end the killing of animals through the application of the N.A.P. Secondly, one can readily see that the expectation of reciprocity is not consistently held for animals. To see this in concrete terms, it can be understood that human beings can be expected to not step on or drive over other humans. To do so typically imports a kind of negligent or reckless behavior analysis. However, human beings regularly kill and maim other creatures, from hitting them with planes, trains, and automobiles, to killing and displacing them in the construction of homes and roads. Outside the sophistry of state violence, people at large would not rationalize killing thousands of humans by steam-rolling them over to pave a road or build an apartment complex. (And, if they did at first, they would likely backtrack upon performing a comparative test where the killing involved themselves and their loved ones instead of strangers.) Because of this, it is clear that the very fundamental nature of human existence comes from the ingestion of and killing of other animals in a manner that cannot be meaningfully abated or stopped without causing mass starvation and/or death to humans for their otherwise mundane activity. If each person was held accountable for any animal he or she killed, directly or indirectly through use of modern facilities, they would be worthy of the death penalty or a life sentence for the death they have brought to other living things. As was noted before, any ethical rule which quickly leads to a justification for mass violence and death of an extinction or near-extinction level of a species is a principle which ought to be rejected lest there are no more actors left to even engage with the philosophy. Anyone trying to suggest that animals could be treated with respect on a different scale is then also devolving away from the original premise of applying the N.A.P. animals. Again, by holding two different standards between animals and humans, the proponent is now trying to create an apartheid system of ethics where human beings are treated more harshly for the same actions taken by other animals in the wild. Why should force be permitted to stop a human from eating deer, but not a lion? This cannot be answered without abandoning a consistent application of the non-aggression principle through creating a two-tiered ethics system. Ultimately, what this means is that human beings cannot, and should not, use force against other humans for their actions against animals at large. Rather, animals should be treated under the property rights ethic of privatization until it can be shown that the average member of a particular species is capable of understanding and reciprocating property rights. Should there be an exceptionally intelligent animal, that particular creature could be considered a moral agent exception to the rule. However, this is something that is more likely relegated to science fiction than a meaningful, present-day concern. If people wish for the treatment of animals to change, that must come through voluntary social norms in changing minds – not through physical violence whether done through a private actor or someone acting under the auspices of “the state.” Any other standard will inherently lead to human beings enacting violence against other human beings for participating in activities that are already rampant in nature and are not going to be meaningfully stopped by the people who supposedly care about animal wellbeing. Remember that the aim of Voluntaryism is to maximize consent and minimize the initiation of violence as among humans, so any principle that would validate human-on-human violence where a human is not violating the property or body of another human will only amplify the discord as among humans. Sources: Meat and Nicotinamide: A Causal Role in Human Evolution, History, and Demographicshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417583/ Sorry Vegans: Here’s How Meat-Eating Made Us Human http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ Evolutionary Adaptations to Dietary Changeshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/

The post Voluntaryism and Animals – Does the N.A.P. Apply? appeared first on Voluntaryist – The Comic Series.

Source: Volcomic Liberty.me – Voluntaryism and Animals – Does the N.A.P. Apply?