top of page

The Earth Party



on Animal Rights

Our platform regarding Animal Rights is synonymous with Title 2 of the Law of the Earth.

Whatever the true law is, that is our platform.  We don't claim to "make" the law - we derive our platform from the law.


The law already exists - right and wrong are set properties of the Universe, woven into the fabric of Reality.  We humans don't get to change them - we only discover them.


We don't get to change wrong into right just because we want to do it.  We don't have that authority.  Nobody does.

All we - and all anyone - can do, is find the true law, the true definition of right and wrong, and report it.


That's it.  And that's the Law of the Earth, and that's our platform on Animal Rights.

Title 2: Animal Rights can be summarized with a few key principles:

The Little Green Book.jpg


Please note:  This page explains what animal rights are, and how they work.  It you're looking for the Earth Party's stance on veganism as a social movement, and our critique of its justifications, methods, and role in society, please see our page on Veganism.



1.  Animals have consciousness.  They are alive; they sense and feel.  They are living Beings.


They are our neighbors with whom we share this planet.

They are members of the Community of Life.

They are our direct genetic relatives in the Tree of Life.

2.  Their well-being carries ethical weight. 


3.  With ethical weight come rights.


"What are animals' rights?"


All animal rights derive from one:  The Right to Freedom from Deliberate and Unnecessary Infliction of Harm or Suffering.

All specific rights are derived from that ONE right.

"Hmmm... And what exactly does that right mean or entail?"

Look at each word.


The right to be free from...

...hurt (i.e. harm or suffering)...

...the deliberate kind - the kind willingly inflicted, by a person, on purpose...

...when it's unnecessary (i.e. you don't actually need to do it).

"Who decides what's a need?  You?  Are you gonna tell me what I need and what I don't need?"

We don't decide - we just report facts.  And here's a fact:  specific forms of entertainment are not needs.

Surely we can all agree on that, right?


Surely any sane person can recognize that watching tigers jumping through hula-hoops set on fire is not a "need."  It's not a vitamin.  It's not a mineral.  There is nothing bad that would happen to anyone, biologically, from not being able to view whales in glass tanks or place bets on horse-racing, or see elephants balancing on a ball.

elephant balancing.jpg
tiger fire hoop.jpg


That's not an opinion... it's simply a fact.

So therefore, it can be logically deduced that horse-racing, whale captivity, and elephant circuses are not necessary. 

And since they're not necessary, they do not provide justification for deliberately hurting an animal. 

"Hey wait, is this some kind of totalitarian eco-socialist commie globalist green-extremist dictatorship thing, where everybody has to live on bare bones essentials with just enough to survive?"

No.  Because there's more to the equation.  Entertainment is not bad, and not outlawed.  It's only bad if it involves hurting someone.  You can entertain yourself however you please, but not up to the point of hurting someone else.


See the difference?

You can go to the circus - with human performers.  A circus with human performers doesn't hurt or violate anyone's rights, because the performers are consenting parties.  As long as they weren't kidnapped and trafficked or anything like that, they are willingly participating.  So go ahead!

But the animals do not consent to it.  Circuses hurt them.  Their nature is to roam the wilderness, eat foliage, and swim in rivers.  They have strong familial bonds.  They cry if they lose loved ones.  And circuses abduct them from their families and put them in chains, and bring them across the world, to be whipped and kept in cages.  The activities they perform for the circus are not natural to them, and the only way to make them perform is to torture them with fear and pain.

elephant family.jpg


Elephant circuses are:


-unnecessary (not related to anyone's survival or health)...

-very harmful...

-obviously deliberate...

and therefore...

Elephants have the right to be free from them.

And violating rights is unlawful.... therefore...


Elephant circuses are against the law.

"Wait, not, like TOTALLY against the law... right?  I mean... we can still have circus elephants, as long as we treat them humanely.  We can reform the industry, pass regulations, and have more oversight..."


There is no humane way to abduct someone.  There is no humane way to keep someone innocent in prison, and deprive them of their liberty.  It's against the law.  No circus elephants.

All elephants currently in circuses shall be freed, by force of law, immediately, and transported to shelters in their native habitats.

"But me and my family have been attending the annual such-and-such circus for generations!  It's a family tradition!"

Sorry, but the elephants never consented to be part of your "tradition," and your entertainment does not justify subjecting anyone to a life of enslavement.  Get another tradition.  One that focuses on compassion and doing good.

"I don't agree that you have any right to tell me this.  Sure, you can try to persuade me to willingly give up certain things, but you have no right to force me.  It's my choice to make."

No, actually, it isn't.  You factually do not "own" anyone besides yourself.  If you're having trouble with this, we suggest visiting the Introduction to Natural Law, for a more thorough proof of why the law is true and applies to you.

Next question:

"If animals have rights, doesn't that mean all animals - including the ones in the wilderness?  And wouldn't that mean we humans have to go into all the forests and all the oceans and stop all the animals from getting eaten by each other?"

No.  The right is freedom from deliberate infliction of harm, by humans. 


"Does it mean we'll have to provide healthcare and free college to chipmunks and pigeons?"

No.  The right is freedom from - not entitlement to.  It doesn't require humans to do anything - it only requires us to refrain from doing certain things - things that harm them.

Next question:

"What about fur?"

Not a need.

"Yes it is!  We gotta stay warm!"

But you have other materials for that.

"But some of those materials have micro-plastic fibers that pollute the environment!"

Then buy the brands that don't.

"But those are more expensive!"

And fur is cheaper?

"OK... you got me there."


"But wait... what if you're an Inuit/Eskimo, and you don't have access to those synthetic materials, and fur is all you have for keeping warm?"

But you're not an Inuit/Eskimo.  Are you.

"No... but what if I was!"

If you have internet access to read this page, you have access to modern clothing.

"What if I don't have money?  What if all I have is my spear and other traditional tools?"

Then fur becomes necessary.  And with necessity comes the ethical justification to utilize it.  So it would be legal.

eskimo fur.png

A need

fur fashion show.jpg

Not a need

"Ah, OK.  Sounds reasonable."

But of course, you're not in that situation, so it doesn't apply to you.  So next question!

"What about scientific research on animals?"

Vivisection is against the law.

"All of it?  Even for medical purposes?  Come on, I can see why animal-testing of non-essential products, like cosmetics, would be illegal, since those aren't 'necessary.'  But what about for medicine?  That actually saves people's lives!  Doesn't that count as a necessity?"

No, it doesn't, for 3 reasons:


Reason #1:  It's pointless.  It doesn't lead to any "cures."  Rats are not humans, and their bodies are very different from ours.  Results found in rat bodies cannot be generalized to human bodies.  Neither can results from beagles or monkeys.  That's why all studies eventually need human subjects before the so-called "medicine" can be marketed. 

"That's not true!  I know of specific studies, for specific medicines, where animal testing played a useful role.  Obviously, the animals were similar enough to us humans that the results WERE generalizable."

In that case, why was it OK to hurt them?  If their bodies and minds were so similar to ours, why were their rights not also similar to ours?

"What?  Hmmm... good question..."

Medical vivisection relies on a clear internal contradiction. 

vivisection contradiction.jpg

"Yes, I see what you're saying.  However, we can still justify it, because even though it causes suffering to the animals, it ALLEVIATES suffering for a LOT of people.  If we can save MANY people by tormenting a FEW animals, isn't it still worth it?"

That argument can be equally applied to human test subjects.  You're making an argument for human vivisection.

If this is your argument, then why not kidnap human babies, and experiment on them?


After all... it's just a few babies... and it'll help a lot of people...

"Ummm... I think that would make us a truly sick society, if we did that."

Yes.  And that brings us to:


Reason #2:  It creates as much disease as it cures.  For every ailment cured with the help of animal vivisection, ten times as much disease gets introduced into society.


This happens through collective karma.  When a person performs horrific abuses, they generate horrific individual karma for themselves.  And when a society condones the abuse, and the abuse takes place with the explicit legal support of society, then society generates horrific collective karma.

And all of that negative karma then goes on to generate imbalances, which eventually lead to disease, both biological and social.

The patients who take the "medications" that were developed with vivisection absorb the negative karma from it whenever they purchase the pills.  They then swallow that karma along with the pills, so even if the pills alleviate one kind of imbalance, they're simultaneously setting themselves up for more imbalances, and more disease.  The net result for their health, and for public health, is negative. 

And then we come to the subject of the experimenters themselves:

Reason #3:  It sets monsters loose in our society.  The amount of:

-cognitive dissonance...

-repression of empathy...


...that it takes to be a vivisectionist is truly mind-boggling.  The contorted shapes into which these "people" have to twist themselves in order to intimately torment someone, day after day, week after week, month after month, and not break down crying, beggars belief.  To do such "work" they have to turn off their own empathy, and purge that entire function from their minds.  They have to turn themselves into sociopaths.

Then, when they step out of their labs, they mingle with the rest of us.

Look at this picture:



Would you want the so-called "person" who did this to walk around freely in your society?

Do you feel safe with such a "person" walking around?

Would you want them anywhere near your children?


Face it:  This has nothing to do with medicine.  Vivisectionists are deranged, sadistic psychopaths, and the only reason they do this stuff is because they enjoy it.  It gets their rocks off.  They find pleasure in causing others pain, and "medicine" is simply an excuse that they've cleverly taken advantage of to get their "fix." 

We will make sure that every vivisectionist faces JUSTICE.


Next question:

"What about eating meat (and other animal products, like eggs and dairy)?"

Ah, the big question.

"I mean, I can see the logic in what I've read so far.  Entertainment doesn't justify hurting animals... but meat isn't entertainment - it's nutrition.  Doesn't that count as a necessity?"

Are you sure about that?  Is it really not entertainment?

"What do you mean?"

Most people who eat meat admit that they're doing it for the taste and the experience.  That is, at the very least, a major factor in their reason for eating it.

"Well, if it's necessary for my nutrition, I see no reason not to enjoy it while I'm doing it."

But is it really for your nutrition? 


All of it?

"Ummm... yes."

How much meat do you eat?

"About 2 pounds a week."

Are you saying that if you ate 1.9 pounds a week, you'd become nutritionally deficient?

"Well... no..."

What about 1.5?


What about 1?

"Probably not."

So then it's not all for nutrition, is it?  Even if we assume that you need X amount of meat for adequate nutrition, if you eat more than X, you can't claim that the extra amount is for your nutrition!

"So let me guess:  You're saying it's legal to buy whatever amount of meat you NEED, for your nutrition, but illegal to buy more than that?"

Well, if it's unnecessary, and it hurts others... do the math. 

Why would you even want to do something that hurts others, if its unnecessary?  You're not a sociopath, are you?

"Well I can agree with you, in THEORY, but there's a major flaw in this plan:  WHO DECIDES how much is necessary?  You?  Is some government bureaucrat going to come to my house and measure me and take my blood samples to determine how much meat I need to eat?"

No.  We don't need bureaucrats or scientists to figure it out.  All we need is logic.

Let's start with something easy:  dairy.  Milk is something that babies drink.  No adult animal, human or non-human, is designed by nature to drink milk past infancy.  Even if you use the argument that "eating meat is natural", you can't use that argument for dairy.  Your body is NOT designed to require milk as an adult.

"But... but... pizza..."

You're living in the 21st century, and there are numerous non-dairy cheeses available, some of them virtually indistinguishable from cow cheese.

Dairy is unnecessary.  If you have to hurt cows to get it, it's against the law.

"Oh.  Well... what if it doesn't hurt the cows?"

If it comes from a commercial dairy factory-farm, it did hurt the cows.  A lot.  They spend their entire lives confined in tiny spaces, with no access to any natural environment.  The abuses perpetrated on them are horrific, and you can read all about it here.  Even if they're "organic" or "grass-fed" or "humane", chances are, the farmers are still ripping the baby cows away from their mothers - otherwise, the babies would drink the milk, and there would be less "output."

"OK, so, what if they don't do any of that.  What if there's no baby-abduction, no confinement, no cages, no force-feeding, no hot-branding, no ear-docking, no forced pregnancy (rape), and no slaughter.  Then is it OK?"

Production of animal by-products, like dairy (and eggs too) is legal only under very specific, very strict circumstances:

1.  No confinement.  No cages.  Not even fences.  The animals (cows, chickens, etc.) must be free to roam, and free to leave, if they so choose.  If barns are used, it's only for warmth - and the animals are free to come and go as they wish.

"Ummm... but then they'd just leave..."

Not if you're taking good care of them, and not hurting them.  If a flock of chickens gets a reliable stream of food from you, why would they leave?  Why would they abandon such a reliable food source?  They don't.  They're not stupid.  If they leave, it's because you were not treating them correctly.  Same with cows, or any other animal.

2.  No vile acts.  No branding, tail-docking, beak-clipping, castration (without anesthesia).  No reaching up bulls' anuses to take their semen, no forced insemination, no rape-racks, no farrowing crates. 

3.  Non-GMO varieties only.  No breeding monstrosities that have so much meat on them that they can't stand up.

4.  No abductions.  No seperations of families or bonded individuals.  Every member of the flock/herd has access to every other member, at all times, 24/7. 

5.  No slaughter. 

6.  Milking takes place AFTER the babies get their fill.  You can take whatever is leftover.  And no forcing;  if you want them to allow you to approach them, you have to earn their trust. 

​"Chickens, cows, pigs... roaming around town... walking down the street... This sounds like madness.  Has this ever been tried anywhere?"

Actually, this is how things are in most of the world.  Travel to any country where industrial animal agriculture has not completely replaced traditional ways, and you will find exactly that:  Animals roaming freely.

Chickens tend to stay put, in one Village.  They eat the food scraps from fruits and vegetables.  Peels, stalks, shells, seeds, and other parts that humans throw on the ground, chickens come and eat it.  Then, they lay eggs somewhere, and humans pick them up when spotted.  It's a great way of making food efficient, as it converts inedible plant parts into edible food.  The chickens are happy because they get a reliable food source, protection from predators, and perhaps a warm place to sleep on cold nights. 

Cows tend to roam around from village to village, but still stay in the same general area (roughly approximating a Township, according to the 5-tier model of social organization).  If they have a herder (a person who takes care of them), he or she will lead the herd into the wilderness during the day, to munch on vegetation, and then lead them back into the village at night, where they sleep in an enclosure for protection and/or warmth.  The key part is that it's all voluntary.  The cows aren't forced to go anywhere - they follow the herder because of mutual trust.

"I've heard of places, like India, where the cows roam around, and there are tons of traffic accidents, because they walk in the roads!"

Replacing the insane automobile transit system with an Intuitive Transit Grid is one of the main components of the Earth Party's Master Plan for a Mature Civilization.  When this is done, this won't be a problem anymore. 

In the mean time, just drive slower.  Cows move at 1 mile per hour.  Really, they're not hard to avoid.  Drivers in India tend to drive very fast.

"What are the rules on who gets to harvest the milk and eggs?  What if my chicken lays an egg on my neighbor's land?"

First of all, animals are not property.  No individual is entitled to "ownership" over another individual.  They aren't property - they're fellow members of the Community of Life, with whom we share this planet.

Chickens naturally develop residency in a single Village, and hence, they are "village chickens", and anyone from the village may harvest an egg that they spot, and every member of the village has an equal right to an equal share in the eggs. 

For cows, it's the same, but by Township.  Anyone who earns a cow's trust may milk her, if she allows them to, without coercion.

(To learn more about these social units, visit our page on Restoring Natural Social Units).

So there we go!  Those are the rules for producing animal by-products.  If it's done this way, then it doesn't hurt the animals, and it's legal.

"OK, what about meat?  You still haven't answered that question."

When one of the cows, chickens, pigs, etc. passes from natural causes, there is of course no harm in eating the body.  So that's legal.

"That might suffice for the occasional snack, but not a steady, reliable source of meat as a dietary staple.  There would be nowhere near enough meat to satisfy everyone that way."

The population is already eating too much meat as it is.  You know that.  Where does all the cancer and cardiovascular disease come from? Folks could stand to eat less meat.  A lot less.  And it would be good for public health.

"OK, but... it still woulodn't be quite enough, even for real, true nutritional needs."

So now we come back to the question of "Do people need to eat meat", and "If so, how much?"

"So... do we?"

The vast majority of science suggests that no human needs animal flesh.  We can be at optimum health on a plant-based diet.  And the existence of millions of vegans, in every country in the world, proves that people don't die from not eating meat. 

"But what if my body is different?  What if there's a small percentage of people who, for whatever reason, do need protein from animals?"

Then how about using eggs, harvested from the aforementioned non-coercive relationship with chickens?

"I'd love to do that, but unfortunately I don't live in a "Village" right now.  What if I live in a city?  Or in a suburb that just doesn't allow chickens?  I know the Earth Party plans to restore the Village as a social unit, but that will take time.  What about right now?"

For the moment, you can utilize the existing agricultural system.  Including meat, if you feel you need it.

"Really?  So it's legal to buy and eat meat from the supermarket?"

Hang on.  Just how much meat are we talking about here?

"Enough for my nutrition."

And not more than that?

"Correct.  Not more than that."

And how are you planning to determine how much you actually need for your nutrition?

"Let me guess:  With a government inspector coming to my house and analyzing my blood samples!  That's what you want, isn't it?"

Hey, no need for sarcasm.  We said that's not the case.

"So then how should I determine it?"

Do you know the difference between protein-hunger, calorie-hunger, and micro-nutrient hunger?

How about only eating meat when you have a specific craving for it?

This video is a nice introduction to the concept:

"OK, I'll try that.  Is that it?"

No.  There are other things.  How about becoming more knowledgeable?


"About what?"


1.  About nutrition in general, so that you can be in a position to properly analyze health information, and make more informed decisions about whether you actually "need" meat or not?

2.  About the suffering of animals on the farms (more like factories) that provide the meat you eat, so that you can be in a better position to determine whether that suffering is actually worth it?  You can't compare the costs and benefits if you don't really know what the costs are, can you? 

3.  About alternative ways of meeting your nutritional needs, perhaps from types of plants you weren't familiar with.

There are many ways to reduce your meat-consumption, and still fulfill your nutritional needs!

"But that sounds like a lot of work."

Of course it will require a conscious effort on your part.

"What if I don't want to bother?"

Do you care about the animals you're hurting?

"Well... yes..."

So then doing a little research and watching some Youtube videos now and then is surely worth it, if it helps you reduce the suffering you're causing them.  Right?

"I agree in theory, but how is this in the realm of law and legal matters?  Are you going to ENFORCE my duty to do this research?"

Why should we need to?  You WANT to do it, right?  You WANT to minimize the suffering you cause to others, right?

"Right!  I'll get on that.  Don't worry!  I'll do my research!  You can count on me!  But right now I gotta go - I'm taking the family to McDonalds for some nice juicy burgers!"

And once you're there, would you mind if a Title 2 investigator sits down with you to have a chat?

"A what??"

That's someone who investigates Title 2 (Animal Rights) issues.  They'll sit down and have a chat with you and your family about your motivations for consuming those burgers.  They'll ask you questions like:

-How much meat do you believe your body requires in any given time period?

-How recently did you eat meat?

-How has your research (into nutrition, farm conditions, alternative methods, etc.) been going?  What have you found out?

They'll see whether your answers are internally consistent - or whether they're self-contradictory.

"And who exactly is going to be this "investigator"?"

Anyone who feels like it.  As long as they follow the protocols in Title 5 - Upholdment.

"So a random person can just sit down next to us, at the restaurant, and start interrogating us about our diets?  That's totalitarianism!"

Actually, totalitarianism is being forced into a cage, and kept there for your entire life.


Totalitarianism is being repeatedly tied to a rack and raped, over and over again, to produce children, who are then kidnapped from you immediately after they're born, without you ever getting to see them again. 

Totalitarianism is when you have owners, who can slaughter you whenever they feel like it, with no legal repercussions. 

Totalitarianism is when society views you as property. 

And if you're perpetrating these kinds of horrors on animals, then you're inviting the same treatment upon yourself.  Because how you treat those who are less powerful than you determines how you deserve to be treated by those who have more power than you.

Our ability to preserve Liberty rests on how we treat those who are less powerful than us, and thus, Compassion is the foundation upon which Liberty stands.  Animals are the least powerful members of our society, and how we treat them determines how civilized we are.

By consistently turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the suffering of animals, and contributing to that suffering without caring about the ones it hurts, you are shaping your society to be a compassionless, sociopathic society.  And that's how totalitarianism - the human kind - forms. 

So, ironically, it is really you who are inviting totalitarianism into your life, and into your society.  We, the Earth Party, are trying to prevent that.  We are the anti-totalitarians.  And if you want to be pro-Liberty too, then you need to start respecting the liberty of others - not just yourself.  

"OK, I understand.  But I don't want to be subjected to an interrogation at every meal.  Can't I just enjoy my food in peace?"

Then eat plants.

"But... what if I need meat?"

Then a little chat won't hurt you.

"Alright, so, if I do my research, and I talk to these investigators, and answer all their questions, then I'm OK?"

On an individual level, yes.  But socially, there are changes that must be made.  Big changes. 

The factory farms have to close down.  The cages have to be destroyed.  The barbaric practices of branding, rape-racks, baby-abduction, and all of those horrors have to be stopped, immediately.

And your duty, as an individual, includes supporting public legislation to outlaw those things. 

You can continue to use the old system (with its necessary Reforms, of course), as long as you're contributing in good faith to the effort to bring the new system in.


Observe the herd, find out when the calf drinks,then, when full, you can have what's left.  If not producing as much as you want, make them happier. Production increase only thorugh increaed happiness.  


Ruminant pasturing only in lands that were grassland or less prior to the anthropocene.


Free roaming ruminants in any land, but only allowed to create speicif fields for them in lands that were sub-arboreal before the anthropocene.


Solar panels in deserts, spaced apart to allow filiange while providing shade.  Each with a dehumifier to pull water and give to soil to grow crops under the shadow of the panel.  The energy is right there.  A percentage goes to the process, and the rest goes to other uses.


Fish villages

Villages whose pathways weave through a watery landscape, in which fish dwell.  Lots of pipes and tanks.  All waterways connected, to give fish maximal freedom to explore.  Tanks glass, suspended above walkways, so when a fish croaks from old age / natural causes, people se it, and can retrieve it, and eat it.  

bottom of page