They are excellent in clarifying and explaining the theoretical and practical aspects of animal rights, including why veganism should be the moral baseline of the animal rights movement, and why promoting 'free range' or 'humane' fails to produce any meaningful change at all for non-human animals.
While not going as far to promote 'happy meat', engaging industry does do a lot for animals, and does produce meaningful change. Its just change that is not on the abolitionist agenda. Granted, it's not animal liberation - but freeing pigs from sow stalls, or getting chickens out of battery cages is very much meaningful change. It's mobility. Its the freedom to express one more natural behaviour that was once denied. It's less cruel. It's less painful. It's the next step to animal liberation.
Yes, it may be minor, but it is in no way not meaningful.
Have you read either one of the books Matt? Also, have you heard of or read his other books "Animals, Property and the Law" or "Rain Without Thunder"? They both go into excruciating depth about why welfare reform *cannot* work. Welfare reform is not on the abolitionist agenda because it does not work: it makes people feel better about animal exploitation, and it actually improves industry practices that were once inefficient.
Shouldn't we be spending our time on creative, non-violent vegan education instead of welfare reforms that will never work? Imagine how many more vegans we would have...
Firstly, the answer David is yes; I've done my fair share of research into Francione and his opinions.
Welfare reform, or as I prefer the term 'incrementalist approach', is just a different strategy to the abolitionist approach. Both followers and employers of each genuinly believe theirs will lead to the abolotion of the property status of animals.
What's wrong with a two-pronged attack? - Of the employment of different strategy? While we can both say we do not believe the others strategy -- the abolitionist approach or the incrementalist approach -- will lead to animal liberation, we cannot be sure. Francione has talked of how far the movement would be if we had been soley employing vegan education alone for the last 30 years. That's fine, but he can't be 100% sure and neither can you, or me. Many people who have gone vegan have done so slowly, after been first shown evidence of say, pig abuse or the horrors of factory farms. They've taken the step to say, eliminate pork from their diet which has lead them to becoming vegan. I know I went down this route years ago.
Imploring people to reject the property status of animals for the last 30 years, giving people only one option: veganism, may not have worked -- we could very easily be in a worse place than we are today.
Both paths WILL lead to animal liberation, the question is: how long will the journey take?
It's safer, in many respects, to have two different set-paths to animal liberation. Putting all our eggs -- and we don't have many -- in one basket is just dangerous. It's especially dangerous, in my opinion, vesting them in such a black/white strategy as abolitionism.
Just by the way, with yours and Francione's plea for 'non-violent' education - do you limit it to people, or extend it to property?
