Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.
With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.
With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.
*Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*
Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap? and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?
If the
living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it. Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.
Poll
