Matt: Firstly, I can't believe you would post a piece promoting violence
David, please point out to me where I have promoted violence through my post. One of the main reasons Dr. Best has supported the ALF, and led the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, is because of the ALF's strictly non-violent policy.
i) we should reject "paths" such as welfare reform/sucking up to industry because there is an enormous deal of empirical evidence that suggests that they will *not* lead to abolition
But David, due to the early stage of our movement, we cannot say what will indeed lead to animal liberation -- or which path will take us to that ultimate goal faster. However, what we can say without a doubt, is that bickering on here wont. But, I'll also add, looking at history (although no historic 'rights' movement cannot be fairly applied to ours), we can clearly see nothing was ever achieved though such a black & white strategy of which you fundamentally promote; and all movements were successful through the employment of a wider-base of people, each finding a group/org/principle in which they could relate and promote themselves, tying in together the greater population - the No. #1 requirement for achieving political change.
*are due for implementation (if at all) many years down the track and have a whole bunch of extenuating conditions and loopholes associated with them (e.g. Proposition 2 in California doesn't come into effect until 2015!...there are countless examples I can give)
I think in political movements it’s important to be both idealistic, but also realistic. With less than 1% of the world vegan (therefore 99% of the population desiring animal products), did you really expect for all legislation to be written and implemented within the hour?
I think that has to be one of Francione's most flawed arguments. Why in the 1960s was intensive farming proposed by a few uni students and professors? Because it proved to be extraordinarily more profitable than the then 'free range' norm.
*they don't challenge the property paradigm. They make people feel better about exploiting animals
Do you have any 'empirical evidence' to support this argument?
(btw, elsewhere you said that your idea of welfare reform didn't encompass a more 'humane' or 'happy' version of animal products, and you challenged me to give an example of a group that does...what does your idea of reform entail then, if it is not a more improved version of animal exploitation that are designed to make people feel better about exploiting animals)
Engaging industry, while promoting the GoVeg message. I.E, doing all that I can for animals on both the retail politic level, and also the major-corporate level - achieving better living conditions for animals now (like the freedom to express natural behaviour), and lessening the demand for animal products - which at its ultimate climax is what we ALL want; animal liberation.
And in all seriousness, what happens once these incremental changes (if ever) are implemented? Where do you go from there? Do you think there is going to be a magical shift of consciousness in people? Of course I want to reduce suffering now, please do not get me wrong on that; of course I want to help animals *now*. But it is wrong to think that we are ever going to see any meaningful change for animals, on a long *and* short term level, through welfare reform.
We both want people to go vegan. We both believe that when there is no demand for animal products, the liberation of non-human animals will naturally occur. You believe in it, and I do too.
