The revelations of extreme animal cruelty in the recent Michael Vick case have provoked quite a discussion among some young, economic libertarians.  They are trying to square their perceptions of inherent rights for humans versus any that might be due to other animals.  Apparently, it is enough of a conundrum to cause my favorite young, libertarian blogger to retreat from the blogosphere to check his premises.  Since checking one’s premises periodically is an excellent practice, I have a tiny hope that something good may actually result from the despicable Vick story.  That will, of course, depend on what, if any, new perspectives emerge.  

Matt Yglesias joined the conversation and really nailed the essential issue.  It is not really a question of animal rights or even cruelty to animals but cruelty.  Whether pulling the wings off flies, putting firecrackers in a frog, hanging and killing dogs with a nail gun or waterboarding other human beings, cruelty is not a trait we admire or respect – at least in most of our culture.  We are uncomfortable with people who reveal a cruel aspect to their personality -- with good reason.   Matt points out that this is unlikely to be an acceptable argument for most libertarians.  He is probably right, at least about economic libertarians.  After all, there is a certain degree of cruelty in the extreme laissez-faire ideology. 

Still, I am an optimist.  I believe many young libertarians will outgrow the crueler aspects of the ideology as life forces them periodically to think in new categories.   This discussion definitely seems to be one of those times.  I hope they make the best of it.