Meat consumption and the Libertarian Philosophy

These are some collected thoughts on an issue that is relatively new to me, but nonetheless an issue that I firmly believe will mature and spread with the Libertarian movement as a whole.

To mods: I posted this thread on www.adamvstheman.com a week or so ago, so there's no plagiarism here.

I'm arguing for a vegan lifestyle, but don't worry, I'm not using emotional arguments. Just to make that clear from the get-go; I want people to think critically on this, so don't expect some PETA-inspired nonsense stinking up the place. Rather, I am arguing that a vegan lifestyle is the logical and philosophical conclusion of the Libertarian philosophy.

***
The freedom to live one's life without restrictions on one's life, liberty, or property imposed by violence or the threat thereof is the core principle of the Libertarian philosophy. And a Libertarian society would therefore be one in which this principle of non-aggression and non-coersion is exercised in all aspects of life.

Many of us have pet dogs or other animals. Most of us love them, and might even consider them as a family member. I don't care for emotional arguments, as they are weak and manipulative compared to pure logic. So logically speaking, if you consider your pet (or perhaps the species your pet belongs to) as worthy to be treated more or less as a sentient individual with some natural rights, then how is that different from, say, a cow or a pig? Most Americans would be horrified (and are) by seeing dogs and cats casually cooked and eaten on the streets in southern China, yet don't blink an eye when eating a steak.

People can come up with reasons - the intelligence factor... dogs and cats are intelligent emotional creatures while cows and pigs are not. It's a bull# argument and I don't intend to use it as a strawman, but I just thought I'd mention it for thoroughness.

Other (better) reasons are that it would upset a cultural/economic balance. Raising livestock is tradition for millions. Many jobs would be lost if the meat industry shrank significantly. But is this a good argument? As you've argued regarding religion, tradition is no excuse for continuing barbaric practices like stoning children to death, burning 'witches' alive, etc. Extreme examples, yes, but is the principle any different?

Then there's the most contentious reason: nutrition. I don't intend to get into this. I will only touch on this to show that there is no nutritional necessity for consuming animal products. Everybody seems to have a very strong opinion on this, but for the moment, let us please not touch on that issue, unless you care to argue that eating animal products actually is necessary.

However I think this is also a very poor argument. For example, every person on the planet can not just survive, but thrive on a vegan/vegetarian diet. There is nothing in meat that is essential. Shaolin monks are vegetarian and they are raised that way since 2-3 years of age in most cases. I'm not saying it's superior (that's a different argument altogether!) all I'm arguing is that, everyone CAN thrive on a vegan diet.

What about B12 you might say? Well, remember that animals do not produce B12; rather, bacteria that mostly thrive in the intestines of animals are the only life forms that create B12. The B12 you get from animals is supplemented to them in their feed lots. So in other words, you're basically just taking B12 supplements when you eat a hamburger. Exact same as the vegan eating a veggie burger who took some vitamin pills that morning.

You could argue from this that it is "natural" for humans to get their B12 from animal products. But that is quite a different argument and rather off-topic. But, to briefly respond to that argument, I would argue that such a nutrient scarcity is the direct result of breaking away from living "naturally". To sustain our populations we are required to use advanced farming techniques which are certainly not found in the wild. And if that is not enough of a rebuttal, I will add that without artificial supplementation, the B12 that people get from their meat and dairy would be present in such small amounts that they would probably be deficient themselves.

The only remaining argument I've heard, is that meat-eating is good for biodiversity. The theory goes like this (I think): for free-range live-stock farms, the animals become part of a food cycle that involves their life and death, excrement (nutrition deposit), and many dozens of species of microbes which thrive on the particular chemical composition of the soil throughout the cycle.

Even if this is true, it still remains to be demonstrated, and it would only apply to free-range farms. Over 90% of the meat people eat come from factory farms, which obviously everyone hates, vegans and meat-eaters alike. And factory farms are some of the biggest environmental disasters currently facing the planet, beneath fossil fuel burning. Rainforests are deforested on massive scales to make soil-destroying factory farms as well as massive grain farms, 80% of which are used to feed the livestock of the factory farms. The methane being released by these farms is vastly more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, and things are getting real ugly real quick. And these are absolute disasters for biodiversity.

Reducing meat consumption would strike a serious blow at all of this, thus providing a benefit to biodiversity that is not even remotely comparable to the hypothetical increase in biodiversity that would be provided with more free-range farms. So that argument is rather effectively blown out of the water, no?

So those are the logical reasons I can think of. I really wanted to make this about philosophy, the Libertarian philosophy in specific, but I feel I had to bring it resting upon a strong logical foundation.

What is the philosophical conclusion of the so-called Lovelution? Is it just for humans? Or just for humans and their completely subjective decision on which species are worthy to escape slaughter for consumption? How is this in line with the Libertarian philosophy of non-aggression? Is it just meant for us humans? That seems an awfully religious mentality, that humans were "given" the earth to rule, that humans have a divine spark while all other creatures do not.

To make an extreme example, what if aliens landed tomorrow, and eating enough of their flesh somehow cured cancer? Barring scientific curiosity - exactly what reasons would you make to "not" kill them and eat them? Whatever you come up with, compare it to the kind of reasons you have for supporting the Libertarian movement. There is only one reason that can unite the two - and that is, we have no ultimate, in-born right to violently impose our will on others, regardless of species.

What do you believe?

Since eating meat is certainly not necessary for survival, it is entirely a choice to kill an animal. It's almost identical to coming across a snake in the wild minding its own business, and smashing it with a rock for no reason. Sure it might make you feel good, like eating meat might taste good or feel fulfilling in some way, but it's ultimately just needless destruction. I would argue that expanding the non-aggression princple to all sentient species, and not just humans, is the only logical and philosophical conclusion of the Libertarian philosophy.

And it just so happens to be a course of action that can reduce our footprint on the planet and probably even reverse some of the damage we have done.
***

Cheers

reply to post by Son of Will


Very logical. There's not very much I can deny—if anything.

There are entire vegetarian cultures who seem to live perfectly normal and healthy lives. Meat plants are abhorrant and a crime to nature.

The only thing I might ask is, do you think man eating meat is a natural or not? This isn't an argument. I only ask because there are also cultures, ie: the inuit and native cultures who rely on meat. Or does this apply strictly to urban or more "civilized" cultures.

I need to get back to work, so I will check back later if you respond

Good write up.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by Son of Will

 

Very logical. There's not very much I can deny—if anything.

There are entire vegetarian cultures who seem to live perfectly normal and healthy lives. Meat plants are abhorrant and a crime to nature.

The only thing I might ask is, do you think man eating meat is a natural or not? This isn't an argument. I only ask because there are also cultures, ie: the inuit and native cultures who rely on meat. Or does this apply strictly to urban or more "civilized" cultures.

I need to get back to work, so I will check back later if you respond

Good write up.

Thankyou for the response. Good question - since people in those cultures require meat just to survive, they would need to make the personal choice to change their lifestyle in order to fit their personal philosophies. I do think Libertarianism can apply to everyone - but it does require sacrifice in some cases.

For us in modern cultures, those sacrifices are minimal. They revolve around changing which parts of the supermarket we shop at, and not much else. But those with less access to variety might need to take such drastic steps such as moving away from their homeland. It comes down to choice in the end; what changes in your life are you willing to make in order to live according to what you believe is right?

That's the way I see it anyways.

Cheers

our ancestors population would have significantly decreased if they decided to not eat meat, with such a drop in population it is plausible that you would not even be here typing this pro vegan propaganda. There are certain humans on this earth whose entire race depended on meat and the death of animals to survive,is the tribe that kills animals to cloth, make tools, and shelter not what our modern society is based off of? , also the first forms of humans forming social groups was hunting together to achieve a goal(if it wasn't for human socialization you wouldn't have your precious Facebook, or internet of any sort), this being said there are people that inherently are healthier eating meat because of there ancestry and DNA. the eating of meat has advanced our civilization and allowed whole races of people to live. if our more recent ancestors started out as vegetarians i may see your point(although i cant pass up fish). and by the way my dog lady would be cooked without question if there ever happened to be a survival shtf situation in which i had feed my children to keep them alive. and any vegan that has kids and a dog would be a liar if they said they not feed there own starving children if it meant the death of there dog.

reply to post by Son of Will

If you are an ADULT and choose a Vegan Lifestyle and a TRUE VEGAN does not eat Cheese or Eggs or drink Milk...then by all means...your choice.

But if we talk about a Growing Child...they NEED ANIMAL FATS AND PROTEIN. They cannot develop properly without them and substituting Beans and Rice will only hinder their development.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Son of Will

 

If you are an ADULT and choose a Vegan Lifestyle and a TRUE VEGAN does not eat Cheese or Eggs or drink Milk...then by all means...your choice.

But if we talk about a Growing Child...they NEED ANIMAL FATS AND PROTEIN. They cannot develop properly without them and substituting Beans and Rice will only hinder their development.
Split Infinity

This is simply not true. I covered this rather extensively. Since there are many examples of children growing who have never consumed animal products and live healthy and happy lives, your argument is flawed.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
our ancestors population would have significantly decreased if they decided to not eat meat, with such a drop in population it is plausible that you would not even be here typing this pro vegan propaganda. There are certain humans on this earth whose entire race depended on meat and the death of animals to survive,is the tribe that kills animals to cloth, make tools, and shelter not what our modern society is based off of? , also the first forms of humans forming social groups was hunting together to achieve a goal(if it wasn't for human socialization you wouldn't have your precious Facebook, or internet of any sort), this being said there are people that inherently are healthier eating meat because of there ancestry and DNA. the eating of meat has advanced our civilization and allowed whole races of people to live. if our more recent ancestors started out as vegetarians i may see your point(although i cant pass up fish). and by the way my dog lady would be cooked without question if there ever happened to be a survival shtf situation in which i had feed my children to keep them alive. and any vegan that has kids and a dog would be a liar if they said they not feed there own starving children if it meant the death of there dog.

edit on 11-7-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

Please stick to the thread topic, which is applying logic to the Libertarian philosophy. At any rate, what you are doing is passing off opinion as if it were fact. That is irresponsible.

Read the thread again, and try not to get so emotional this time. The entire point was to leave emotions out of this, so that we can concentrate on the subject matter at hand without manipulation or anyone getting too offended.

Remember, this is about Libertarianism, extending the principle of non-aggression to other sentient life forms. What you're arguing has nothing to do with this philosophy. (vegan propaganda? HAH! look who's talking.)

and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
our ancestors population would have significantly decreased if they decided to not eat meat, with such a drop in population it is plausible that you would not even be here typing this pro vegan propaganda. There are certain humans on this earth whose entire race depended on meat and the death of animals to survive,is the tribe that kills animals to cloth, make tools, and shelter not what our modern society is based off of? , also the first forms of humans forming social groups was hunting together to achieve a goal(if it wasn't for human socialization you wouldn't have your precious Facebook, or internet of any sort), this being said there are people that inherently are healthier eating meat because of there ancestry and DNA. the eating of meat has advanced our civilization and allowed whole races of people to live. if our more recent ancestors started out as vegetarians i may see your point(although i cant pass up fish). and by the way my dog lady would be cooked without question if there ever happened to be a survival shtf situation in which i had feed my children to keep them alive. and any vegan that has kids and a dog would be a liar if they said they not feed there own starving children if it meant the death of there dog.

edit on 11-7-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

Please stick to the thread topic, which is applying logic to the Libertarian philosophy. At any rate, what you are doing is passing off opinion as if it were fact. That is irresponsible.

Read the thread again, and try not to get so emotional this time. The entire point was to leave emotions out of this, so that we can concentrate on the subject matter at hand without manipulation or anyone getting too offended.

Remember, this is about Libertarianism, extending the principle of non-aggression to other sentient life forms. What you're arguing has nothing to do with this philosophy.

im a little dazed, but my whole post wast all opinion, there is fact within it. even if one is a complete vegan death of other beings will support that vegans life within this society, what about the pesticides that are used to grow crops that are available in all supermarkets, the death of a bug means vegans can eat "healthy". its ok to kill bugs but not fish, or dear? it seems your logic may be flawed. bees die to make honey.
.

reply to post by Son of Will


Nice block of words, I am sorry however I did not get far past the vegan or vegetarian idea.
Sorry when all the animals are gone with the exception of dogs of course, I will be hunting humans for my meat.
I'm not ashamed, it is who I am.
I need blood on my plate and a full feeling in my tummy.
Veggies just do not seem to get me there alone.
I like meat, the taste, texture, well everything about it.
Pray we keep the animal stock up, if not I'm eating human.
Really.

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Son of Will

 

If you are an ADULT and choose a Vegan Lifestyle and a TRUE VEGAN does not eat Cheese or Eggs or drink Milk...then by all means...your choice.

But if we talk about a Growing Child...they NEED ANIMAL FATS AND PROTEIN. They cannot develop properly without them and substituting Beans and Rice will only hinder their development.
Split Infinity

This is simply not true. I covered this rather extensively. Since there are many examples of children growing who have never consumed animal products and live healthy and happy lives, your argument is flawed.

My understanding is that both parents need to be vegetarian for at least 10 years before conceiving in order to raise that child without meat protein. The OP is correct, when you think that the majority of India is vegetarian.

If you want to pursue spiritual practices, a vegetarian or vegan lifetsyle is most beneficial. Want to go hard-core then follow a Sattvic diet/lifestyle.

sattvicdiet.com...

Peace - Ned

reply to post by Son of Will


You make some valid arguments, Son of Will.

My question is: if you are a true Libertarian, why did you write this post?

Should we not all be free to do and live and eat as we see fit?

Why did you feel the necessity to present ideas that might interfere with the course of other people's lives?

And, why Vegan over Vegetarian? Egg and milk gathering does not hurt animals. Or, have you said this because most dairy products (in the US) come from commercialized cow and chicken farms?

You pointed out that a lot of people would refuse to eat their cats or dogs, when it is perfectly acceptable in other countries. What if we started eating stray cats and dogs so that conglomerates didn't benefit from our hunger and methane production slowed down because we no longer demanded their services? Would this not, also, be Libertarian?

Now, you liken meat eating (killing animals) to an aggressive act. What if people only ate meat from animals that had died naturally? There is no aggression involved, just cooking and eating. In essence, they are vegetarians until they find some meat to eat. Do they still need to turn into vegans to be Libertarian?

Another point I'd like to embellish on is that a lot of "Vegan" products - fake meat and such - is produced with GMO products by companies who are polluting the world with their tofurkey factories. How do we ensure that this huge push to veganism does not result in many more pollutive companies popping up to meet the demands of vegans? How do we prevent the death of our honey bees and other insects that rely on plants for life when the only crops that are growing are GMO?

Finally, what of the plants we are killing to become vegans? Some say that all plants have an energy and an intelligence, even though we may not understand it. I am one of the people who believes this. Does it still count as aggression if we are pulling the eyes off and then tearing into potatoes ripped from their cozy and safe underground home? Or does it only matter if the food has eyes that you can look into?

I love my dogs. I treat them as well as humanly possible. I just spent my last $500 on treating one for parvo and saved her at the last minute. But if there was no other food and no way to get other food, I would eat them both. Pets are always last resort food. It may be because I am an Indian and we always kept out animals for food if it got that bad. But I am not above eating dog if I am starving to death. I certainly eat them before I started eating bugs.

In a life or death situation there isn't any animal, pet or otherwise, that would be off of the menu .. Humans are geared to be omnivorous anyway, we don't function at our best on vegetables alone, and we don't on meat alone either..

As for pets.. Denis Leary basically said it best when he said we only want to save the cute animals.. that seems to be true for the most part.. Cows aren't very cute and they wouldn't be good to have around the house.. Cats and Dogs have been living with humans for thousands of years.. They are accustomed to us as we are them..

Ultimately if someone is a vegetarian or not is a matter of preference in most cases.. I wouldn't dare take away someone's choice.

reply to post by Son of Will


www.haaretz.com...

plants communicate with each other and are livings being, and what about all the microbes and benifical backteria that form a symbiosis with the plant root system, to eat a plant is to take a life. Vegans are murders as well, there prey just doesn't have a face, i guess some plants are murders as well and should be condemned for there beliefs

en.wikipedia.org... then that means the whole animal kingdom should be put on the chopping block because everything is food for something else, all life should just stop killing so we can all live in peace, and run hand in hand through the fields listening to kenny g, and in doing so make sure we don't step on any bugs because all life is so precious.....oohhh wait we live in the real world, and i can say with certainty that your view on this matter will never come to fruition no matter how much propaganda you spew.

Scott Pilgrim: [choking.] My neck. [gasps.] Your hair.
Envy Adams: Didn't you know? Todd's vegan.
[Todd flings Scott through a brick wall into an alleyway outside.]
Scott Pilgrim: [standing up.] Vegan?
Todd Ingram: It's not really that big of a deal.
Scott Pilgrim: No kidding. Anyone can be vegan.
Todd Ingram: Ovo-lacto-vegetarian, maybe.
Scott Pilgrim: Ovo-what?
Todd Ingram: I partake not in the meat, nor the breastmilk, nor the ovum, of any creature with a face.
Envy Adams: Short answer: being vegan just makes you better than most people.
Todd Ingram: Bingo.
Todd punches Scott and sends him, screaming, high into the air and out of sight.


Your post comes off like this, primarily because you're saying in one breath:

"Let's not talk about nutrition because it's contentious. However, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong without doing anything more than deflect criticism while not citing legitimate facts and simultaneously slamming you if you oppose me."

Exact text:
"Then there's the most contentious reason: nutrition. I don't intend to get into this. I will only touch on this to show that there is no nutritional necessity for consuming animal products. Everybody seems to have a very strong opinion on this, but for the moment, let us please not touch on that issue, unless you care to argue that eating animal products actually is necessary.

However I think this is also a very poor argument. For example, every person on the planet can not just survive, but thrive on a vegan/vegetarian diet. There is nothing in meat that is essential. Shaolin monks are vegetarian and they are raised that way since 2-3 years of age in most cases. I'm not saying it's superior (that's a different argument altogether!) all I'm arguing is that, everyone CAN thrive on a vegan diet. "

You're arguing that, but citing shaolin monks is not sufficient proof.
So allow me to counter your argument with why meat/animal products are necessary. As a former vegetarian, consider it a courtesy.

www.fi.edu...

www.independent.co.uk... -535726.html

www.livescience.com...

You can go on and on. On the meat side: The fact is that there's a whole body of scientific evidence that shows the value of eating meat. On the vegan side: There's a whole lot of blogs which throw around opinion, personal testimonials (interestingly a significant portion also point to needing to go back to animal protein such as eggs), and other non-reputable bodies of evidence.

Fact: we are omnivores as a result of evolution - not herbivores. In fact, the herbivore parts of our system are minimally such. Take for instance the almighty cow. The most efficient grass chewing machine on the planet. Flat teeth. Multiple stomachs. Sedentary lifestyle which allows it's manure to help recently chewed grass to grow back to repeat the cycle. Our being omnivores is not some genetic accident. It is not 'more natural' for humans to eat plant matter at the complete exclusion of animal matter. We are designed to eat both and we very efficiently process animal matter. Vegetable matter actually has difficulty processing due to our very simplistic digestive system (compared to traditional herbivores). Our digestive system closely mirrors carnivores, but we ADAPTED to ALLOW vegetables into our diet.

That said, I have to agree with the previous poster from the libertarian perspective. You're taking the stance that violence against any creature is the same as the non-aggression property in libertarian creedo.

en.wikipedia.org...

Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

Now.. I know this will probably be controversial, but person is referring to humans. Dictating what people can and cannot eat is extremely authoritarian and violates more core libertarian values than I care to mention.

So do as you like with your food, as long as you don't force it on others or cause harm to other humans in the process.

Originally posted by rlnochance

Your post comes off like this, primarily because you're saying in one breath:

"Let's not talk about nutrition because it's contentious. However, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong without doing anything more than deflect criticism while not citing legitimate facts and simultaneously slamming you if you oppose me."

Exact text:
"Then there's the most contentious reason: nutrition. I don't intend to get into this. I will only touch on this to show that there is no nutritional necessity for consuming animal products. Everybody seems to have a very strong opinion on this, but for the moment, let us please not touch on that issue, unless you care to argue that eating animal products actually is necessary.

Quoted for truth.

I don't see how ONLY eating plant matter is "more natural" for the same reasons rlnochance pointed out (and that any person educated in anatomy or evolution would), we have those sharp pointy teeth in the front of our mouths for a reason, and that reason is for cutting through the flesh of other animals...

If we were intended to eat only plants we would have more teeth like our molars, not our canines and incisors.

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by Son of Will

 

You make some valid arguments, Son of Will.

My question is: if you are a true Libertarian, why did you write this post?

Because communicating with other people is not coercion or threatening violence of any sort. I'm a bit confused by the question.

Should we not all be free to do and live and eat as we see fit?

Yes, as long as "eating" does not infringe upon the rights, liberty, or property of another sentient individual.

Why did you feel the necessity to present ideas that might interfere with the course of other people's lives?

My purpose, if I were to clarify one into words, would be to encourage people to think more. That thing sitting on their shoulders is a very powerful tool if used correctly. Libertarianism, to me, is about living smart and practical. I feel the same way about living a vegan lifestyle. There are quantifiable benefits to the environment. So with this thread, I hope to encourage people to think about both of these lifestyles in a critical manner.

And, why Vegan over Vegetarian? Egg and milk gathering does not hurt animals. Or, have you said this because most dairy products (in the US) come from commercialized cow and chicken farms?

Good question - I forgot to address this point in my OP. Basically, gathering milk and eggs may not be physically harming those creatures, but it is certainly interfering with their right to live free of coercion. That milk is intended for baby calfs. It's my understanding (I could be wrong on this) that cows can only give milk if they have recently given birth. In that kind of system they would be forced to slaughter a great deal of males because they'd cost too much to keep feeding. I've heard male mammals can lactate but that would be weird.

Maybe I'm just being short-sighted here. I'd love to hear a sustainable system where there's basically no coercion involved. Maybe other people feel completely differently =)

You pointed out that a lot of people would refuse to eat their cats or dogs, when it is perfectly acceptable in other countries. What if we started eating stray cats and dogs so that conglomerates didn't benefit from our hunger and methane production slowed down because we no longer demanded their services? Would this not, also, be Libertarian?

Eating stray cats and dogs is infringing on their life/liberty in this broadened Libertarian perspective. Those corporations are so powerful because people keep buying their food... it's not really the fault of the corporations. And with regards to methane reduction, that sounds Green I guess, but it's not Libertarian =)

Now, you liken meat eating (killing animals) to an aggressive act. What if people only ate meat from animals that had died naturally? There is no aggression involved, just cooking and eating. In essence, they are vegetarians until they find some meat to eat. Do they still need to turn into vegans to be Libertarian?

Hahah, that's an awesome question, I didn't foresee that at all. As far as Libertarianism goes, I don't see a conflict. On that note, anyone can feel free to eat me if I die suddenly, and you don't have any qualms with meat eating. I won't mind, I promise.

Continued.

Finally, what of the plants we are killing to become vegans? Some say that all plants have an energy and an intelligence, even though we may not understand it. I am one of the people who believes this. Does it still count as aggression if we are pulling the eyes off and then tearing into potatoes ripped from their cozy and safe underground home? Or does it only matter if the food has eyes that you can look into?

edit on 7/11/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)

One could argue that plants have some sort of "spiritual life force" if you will, but not intelligence. Without intelligence there's no perception of harm. I know some people would argue that plants actively take steps to mitigate harm, but these are pretty well-understood chemical interactions that have no basis in conscious decision making. There's no sense of liberty to infringe upon.

That's how I see it anyways. Thanks for the awesome questions.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by rlnochance

Your post comes off like this, primarily because you're saying in one breath:

"Let's not talk about nutrition because it's contentious. However, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong without doing anything more than deflect criticism while not citing legitimate facts and simultaneously slamming you if you oppose me."

Exact text:
"Then there's the most contentious reason: nutrition. I don't intend to get into this. I will only touch on this to show that there is no nutritional necessity for consuming animal products. Everybody seems to have a very strong opinion on this, but for the moment, let us please not touch on that issue, unless you care to argue that eating animal products actually is necessary.

Quoted for truth.

I don't see how ONLY eating plant matter is "more natural" for the same reasons rlnochance pointed out (and that any person educated in anatomy or evolution would), we have those sharp pointy teeth in the front of our mouths for a reason, and that reason is for cutting through the flesh of other animals...

If we were intended to eat only plants we would have more teeth like our molars, not our canines and incisors.

This thread has nothing to do with what's natural. "Natural" in the sense that you're putting it, does not exist. In terms of evolution, we adapt to our environments to optimize procreation, not longevity. As long as a food source is barely good enough, we would have evolved some mechanisms to deal with those foods. But this is all in the context of procreation. Adaptation does not affect any biological activity after the typical age of procreation, 12-40.

This thread is about Libertarianism, and extending the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusions to include all sentient life forms.

My reason for leaving nutrition out of this thread is simply because it is completely irrelevant. Read the OP again with this in mind. (note: it is explicitly stated in several places)