And slippery slopes slide both ways.... (And that is not a pun, but a political observation.)

Bill Quick was gracious enough to leave a comment to my defensive post in which I probably misunderinterpreted a mutual misinterpretation or something, and in his comment he raised another topic which seems to be making a few waves -- libertarians and bestiality:

....I can advance some mildly libertarian arguments against [bestiality]....

So can I, and while I don't know whether Bill will agree with me this time, I thought I should credit him for making me finish what I might have been inclined to neglect.

I mean, who really wants to write about bestiality? Normally, it wouldn't occur to me, but reading this argument against sex with animals, it strikes me that what is missing from the debate is a libertarian argument against bestiality.

For the record, let me state unequivocally that not only am I against bestiality (and have no problem with laws against it), but I consider myself a libertarian. This does not mean that I speak for all libertarians (much less the Libertarian Party, which for all I care can advocate for bestiality until the cows come home for more.)

If being against bestiality makes me less than a full libertarian, I don't really care, as I am not in charge of their official doctrine, and I don't know whether even they are. Is there a "they" there?

At the outset, I should address a recurrent annoyance. I do not like it when people disagree with me by putting words in my mouth, and imputing to me whatever it is that they claim "libertarianism" means, because often I do not agree with whatever it is they're claiming libertarianism to be, and the disagreement becomes complicated by my not only having to defend my own position, but by the additional annoyance of having to either defend "libertarianism" or else argue that whatever they are saying does not constitute libertarianism. I'd rather not do that -- which is why I describe myself as a small "l" libertarian. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe I should call myself "libertarianish." On borders and national defense, for example, I tend to part company with many (but not all) libertarians. Perhaps it's the same way with bestiality; perhaps not.

Anyway, yesterday I saw that Glenn Reynolds is being taken to task by another blogger I really respect, Sean Gleeson (inventor of the famed "Autorantic Virtual Moonbat"). Sean argues that because Glenn is a libertarian and "for" bestiality, that this is evidence that libertarianism is wrong:

Within the narrow blinders of libertarianism, laws can only be justified by appeal to an unconsenting victim. Human dignity has no place in the libertarian worldview, and the libertarian is left with no basis to outlaw what he calls "victimless crimes." Prostitution, polygamy, pornography, incest, drug abuse, bestiality, and a host of other crimes, being consensual, must be legal, and that's that.

And this is libertarianism's greatest failing. The libertarians happen to come to the right conclusions on a great many issues of policy, and I am happy to ally with them on those issues. But libertarianism is not an adequate theory of governance.

Similarly, while I think grown men should be allowed to engage in public fighting exhibitions (because they consent to it), I have no problem with laws forbidding the pitting of dogs against each other even though they might appear to consent.

While I think man is inherently morally superior to animals, that does not mean animals have no moral worth. For once I find something with which I can disagree (albeit slightly) with Glenn Reynolds. Back to Sean:

These pro-bestial arguments are disarming to any honest and consistent libertarian. Even Instapundit Glenn Reynolds allows that he's "got nothing against" bestiality, explaining "since I'm happy to eat animals it's hard for me to consider people having sex with them to be, you know, more exploitative."

That's because libertarianism is fundamentally wrong.

If Glenn is wrong, can't he just be given credit for being wrong on his own? Why does "libertarianism" have to be wrong because Glenn Reynolds said what he said? It's almost as if libertarianism is wrong because Glenn is wrong, but Glenn is wrong because libertarianism is wrong.

Of course, according to another school of popular reasoning, if someone like Glenn is wrong about something, that must mean he is wrong because he is not a libertarian. So, either he's bad for being a libertarian or else he's bad at being a libertarian! Far be it from me to explain others, but I think simply disagreeing with someone for specified reasons is preferable to sidetracking the debate into questions of ideological purity.

(Easy for me to say; I'm ideologically impure!)

Once again, I don't see the contradiction between my libertarian leanings and law prohibiting sex with animals, because I think sex with animals is cruelty to animals. And unnecessary cruelty at that. I think that because animals are alive and feel pain, and we humans are entrusted with their care, our enlightened self interest directs that we not be unnecessarily cruel in our treatment of them.

What seems to not be receiving the attention it should here is the fact that the poor dog which was sexually violated was whimpering in agony:

McPhail's wife told investigators that she found her husband on their back porch Wednesday night having intercourse with their 4-year-old female pit bull terrier, the Pierce County sheriff's office report said. The dog was squealing and crying, according to charging papers.

The woman took photos with her cell phone and called the sheriff's office.

This is the third time I've read about a pit bull (or a close relative thereof) being violated like this, and if "libertarianism" really means letting that son of a bitch do that to the poor dog, then I guess it means I'm not a "real" libertarian. (So what? Will the world weep over my "treason"?) Libertarianism can be criticized for a lot of things, but I just don't see "libertarianism" in allowing this to be done to some poor dog.

It's a little easier to analyze this case because the animal let the humans know it was in pain. In general, though, there's no way to know, as animals cannot complain. Nor can they consent. There is no such thing as a consenting animal, and unless the animal cries, there is no such thing as a complaining animal. While I disagree with the animal rights philosophy that animals are like people, I nonetheless consider them more than inanimate chattel. Thus, while I would support the right of a person to neglect his car until it conked out (say, to buy an old clunker and run it into the ground), treating a horse that way would be unconscionable, and I support making it illegal. Indeed, the first laws against animal cruelty were passed to prevent the routine working to death of harnessed horses in factories once they had outlived their usefulness. Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals may quite properly define cruelty as including having sex with them for the animals cannot consent to sex. This is no more inconsistent with libertarianism than supporting laws prohibiting sex with minors.

Likewise, just as one cannot enforce a contract entered into by a child, there'd be no way to enter into a contract with an animal. Consent would be meaningless; suppose a valuable racehorse was "told" that it might sign a contract by imprinting a piece of paper with its hoof. If it did so, no court would consider that a valid contract because a horse cannot enter into a contract.

I see the question of whether it is within "man's nature" to have sex with an animal as basically moot. No one can define with precision what man's nature is anyway. Is masturbation part of man's nature? What about having sex with a dead animal? Is that necrophiliac bestiality? What about sex with a butchered carcass? Is that more "wrong" than screwing a rump roast?

How about a watermelon? Yeah, I know, it's considered by some to be an inflammatory symbol, and screwing fruit sounds pretty demented, but does it rise to that level of immorality requiring we punish the offender with criminal sanctions? And for those who are into smaller fruits or veggies and very different activities, how about bananas and cucumbers?

OK, let's really follow this out.... How about sex with a pumpkin? Halloween is approaching, and I remember reading about a man who did just that:

A Warren, Michigan, man has been sentenced to 90 days in jail for indecent exposure after neighbors spotted him having sex with a pumpkin. The man was already jailed at the time of his sentencing on a charge of domestic violence.

Morally, there is no difference between a pumpkin, a banana, and a jar of lubricant. What makes sex with animals different is that there is a victim. Maybe not the same victim as a human, but a victim nonetheless.

I barely touched on necrophilia, and while I know that corpses cannot consent, if a person may consent in life to having his body burned to ashes or dissected by medical students, might he give permission to sex after death? Is that a libertarian cause too?

Some of these arguments are at least as ridiculous as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether handguns should be sold in vending machines to elementary school students.

I don't know.

And much as I try to be serious, some of those pumpkins can be distractingly sexy.....

Sorry about the next one, but I'm just trying to be inclusive:

Now that I think about it, that last one's sick enough to make most normal pumpkins feel like this:

(Cinderella made me stop right there, lest the pumpkin of repugnance be transformed into a carriage of wisdom.)

UPDATE: Sean Gleeson has left a very thoughtful comment below, and I don't think this is as serious of an ideological dispute as it might appear to some.

Nor am I willing to engage in a speculative interpretation of Glenn Reynolds' "got nothing against bestiality" statement (that it's hard to consider sex with animals as more exploitative than eating meat).

(I'm sure there are those who would argue that because Glenn Reynolds says eating meat is the "moral equivalent" of sex, then his tolerance of sex with people means Glenn endorses cannibalism for people, but I think that carries the slippery slope argument too far. Besides, aren't there enough slippery slope arguments without my raising anticipatory defenses before they're even advanced?)