Are all animals self-owners with the same inherent rights as Humans?

Defining terms:

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Right: an inherent entitlment to perform a specific type of action unobstructed.

Privilege: a non inherent right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit or advantage.

Self-ownership: the inherent ownership one has over their own body.

Power: the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.

Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint; or, the absence of necessity, coercion, of choice and or action.

Self-agency: the subjective awareness that one is initiating, executing, and controlling one's own volitional actions in the world.

Capacity: the ability or power to do, experience, or understand something.

Almighty: having complete power; omnipotent; superior to all others known.

The origin of human rights.

Self-ownership; Self-ownership is the foundation in which all rights take root, and it is an inherent state. Negative rights are not to be conflated with privilege, as they are not subject to be taken away; only respected and or violated; and they create no positive obligations. Humans own their own bodies, and as a result, they own the effects of their actions. That is axiomatic and self evident; but do animals own themselves too?

When the same reasoning is applied to animals that is applied to the concept of humans being self-owners, the answer is yes, they are autonomous beings possessing self-agency, are capable of demonstrating self-ownership, and often times, are sentient. The difference is their rights are just violated way more often out of greed.
(Link to greed post.)

If it is not an aggressive act to violently confront someone who has shown himself to be in violation of somebody's non-consent, then there is no objective difference if the aggressing man's victim is a dog. Therefore, next time you see someone mercilessly beating on a dog, you can stomp a mudhole in their ass, secure in the knowledge that you haven't violated the non aggression principle.

Negative vs. Positive rights

Positive rights create positive obligations for people, while negative rights create negative obligation. Positive obligations require certain actions, like providing somebody with health care; while negative obligations require the absence of certain actions, like not aggressing against somebody.

A negative right is a claim to the entitlement of being able to perform a certain action, or maintain a certain state, without obstruction.

A positive right is a claim to the entitlment of being provided with a certain service.

Negative rights are in line with morality and protect an individuals autonomy, while positive rights conflict with morality and often require violating somebody's non-consent and or autonomy; public health care for example.

Positive rights, are pseudo rights, and are actually just privileges to the detriment of negative rights.

Here is a list of positive "rights" that people often claim, and or believe to have:

• Protection of person and property
• Food
• Water
• Housing
• Education
• Healthcare
• Internet access
• Imposing your will on people via voting

And here is list of inherent negative rights that humans universally do have.
You have the right to the freedom:

• from aggressive force and fraud.
• of defending one's self and property.
• of first use ownership and homesteading.
• of association.
• of motion.
• of thought.
• of vocalization.
  Since negative rights are the only legitimate rights, all uses of the word "right", or, "rights", used within this content, from now on, will be used as defined in the defining terms section; or as a negative right is defined.

Comparing non-humans and humans

Dogs and cows are:

• conscious
• sentient
• autonomous
• often respect property rights
• often adhere to the NAP
• can learn words / be "trained".

All of the above applies to humans and are components and or points used to form arguments intended to logically prove what is already axiomatic, self-ownership.

Most animals possess all of the traits that are required in order to be identified as a self-owner.

Video examples of cows demonstrating self-ownership, and that they are concious, autonomous, intelligent and or sentient beings.

Cow mourns over slaughtered and butchered family member:

Happy cows:

Cows who are rescued from slaughter:

Cow demonstrating intelligence and problem solving:

Cow demonstrating intelligence and problem solving(2):

I'll spare you the dog videos.

Dogs and Humans share an almost parallel evolutionary timeline.

It was previously believed that humans had been keeping and training (and hence living alongside) dogs for over 100,000 years. That is, until it was discovered that certain specimens of higher-ape species, (bonobo, orangutan, and chimpanzees, specifically) were capturing wild puppies to take home, feed and train using both positive and negative reinforcement methods.

In light of these discoveries, it is now believed that dog and man have been living alongside one another for well-over a million years. Since before we were homo sapien.

Experiments provide evidence that humans and dogs now inherently understand each other's communications.

Recent experimental and clinical trials have established that human beings are born inherently understanding dog's communication methods, and dogs are born inherently understanding human's communication methods.

Also, previous reports of dogs exhibiting traits such as generosity, sympathy, spite, and even love, have now all begun to be re-examined as more than just projections of our imaginations onto insentient animal behavior.

Example One: Domestic canines were shown images of human faces, with whom they were not familiar. In every, meaning 100% of the trials, the dogs exhibited definitive evidence that they were able to read the emotional state of the human depicted, via observing the facial expression of the image shown. If the face looked angry, the dogs became scared; If the face looked sad, the dogs became concerned; If the face looked happy, the dogs became playful, etc.

In this same test, the eye-movements of the dogs were tracked. In 100% of the trials, the dogs' eyes tracked left, (meaning they instinctively looked at the right side of the person's face). The right side of your face is more faithfully expressive of your true emotional state. Human eyes instinctively track leftward when looking at each other's faces, as well. The dogs all did this when looking at humans, but not when looking at other dogs.

This experiment, and various variations of it, have been recreated and or performed with strikingly similar findings, time and time again.

Example Two Human beings were played sounds of various dogs making noises. They were asked to describe the particulars of what they were imagining when listening to the dogs. They were over 90% accurate in describing the situation that each recorded dog was in.

Even babies inherently uderstand dog vocalizations.

Sources

University of Lincoln. "A man’s best friend: Study shows dogs can recognize human emotions." ScienceDaily. Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160112214507.htm

University of Helsinki. "How dogs see your emotions: Dogs view facial expressions differently." ScienceDaily. Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160119074313.htm

A Hungarian university discovered dogs process barks the way humans process speech: https://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/663967.htm

Brigham Young University. "Babies Understand Dogs, Bark-matching Study Finds." ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720163559.htm

Another canine vocalization study: https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/you-barkin-at-me/

Due to this evidence, there is every reason to suspect that we, as two separate species, have evolved together.

Applying the same argument(s) that are used to morally justify the act of humans treating other animals like property, to the concept of a superior and or almighty alien race morally enslaving humans.

When the same reasoning is applied to humans, that is applied to animals in order to morally justify them as property of humans, then an argument could be made for an advanced and or superior alien race morally enlsaving humans and or treating us like non-humans, like cows for example.

Some of the arguments for humans possessing inherent rights over non-humans, have been the potential for capacity.

Some of the following capacities have been used as talking points as part of their arguments:

• developing family ties
• solving social problems
• expressing emotions
• starting wars
• having sex for pleasure
• using language
• thinking abstractly

Some of these things can't even be indefinitely proven, like thinking abstractly, having sex for pleasure, or starting a, "war".

• Many behaviors of non-humans imply that they think abstractly; like mating rituals, decorating their nest, flying v's, and seemingly playing games for fun, even ones with an objective.
• Brain scans of non-humans do show pleasure centers lighting up when engaging in sex.
• If you don't speak their language, how can you indefinitely identify a declaration of war? By observing non-human action, it is pretty safe to say that most non-humans will enage in war-like behaviors under certain stressors and or conditions. Also, is the potential capacity to start a war honestly a good factor to be used to determine if a being has inherent rights or not?

The rest of the listed potential capacities should be blatantly obvious to be possessed by most non-humans.

• Many non-humans demonstrate that they develop family ties. An example of this would be herds, packs, and flocks. Another example would be non-humans that mate for life, or the period of time that a mother and or father spends raising their offspring.
• An example of nonhumans organizing a social problem is the V formation made by flying birds, or the hierarchy that is present within a wolf pack.
• Animals express emotion all of the time, every dog owner has experienced this. If you havent owned a dog, watch the videos of the happy cows, or go to youtube and type, "happy animals".
• Any observer of nature knows that it is self evident that animals use language amongst themselves. Chemical signaling, body-language, and sound are all mediums of communication used by non-humans.

As I grow older though, I realize that the majority of people have comparmentalized, and apparently believe that what makes human's rights inherent, is that non-humans do not possess the same potential capacity for intelligence and or power, even though intelligence and or power is not the focal point of their argument to as of why humans possess inherent rights. With that said; following that logic; all it would take for another species to morally enslave, and to treat humans as property, is for them to be significantly more powerful and or intelligent than us; for them to be almighty.

The line between a being with rights, and a being considered and treated as a piece of property, is apparently predicated on the degree of the intelligence differential between the two beings, according to some. In which case, the parent of the child who fell into the gorilla enclosure may need to have her IQ tested to see if she is deserving of possessing those elusive inherent rights that humans are suppose to possess.

Too low of a capacity = no inherent rights, correct? (Sarcasm)

So basically, according to consensus, if you are stupid enough (according to arbitrary standards) or there is a certain amount of power differential present, then you morally become viewed as property to the superior being, and somehow are never able to develop and or acquire inherent rights. You forfeit the ability to be a self-owner with inherent rights, and instead, are potentially morally subjected to enslavement and or an execution-farm.

Can an almighty, and or an intelligently superior alien race morally enslave humans, why or why not?