Correction

In my post Animals and Libertarian Property Theory, I wrote that one conventionally libertarian way to limit someone's ownership over their animal (assuming animals can be owned as property) is to include a prohibition against abuse into a lease for a house, condo, or whatnot. If there is such a condition, and the tenant abuses his animal, the landlord can evict the abusing tenant. But if there is no such condition, I wrote, then in a conventional libertarian framework, the tenant can do whatever he wants to his animal, without fear of eviction.

This actually isn't true. A very popular theory among libertarians is the title transfer theory of contract. This theory, shared by Rothbard, Kinsella, Long, brainpolice2, and me, states that the obligations in a contract exist only as conditions for receiving something. They do not hold by virtue of a mere promise. If A wants x from B, he has to do y. And if B wants y from A, he has to do x. If A doesn't want to do y, fine. But he then isn't entitled to anything from B. B can then refuse to do x for A, but he can't force A to do y.

If I am a landlord and you are my tenant, you are entitled to part of my property only by my permission. You can get that permission by paying me rent, and keeping certain obligations that are laid out in a contract that both of us agree to. But that isn't the only way you keep my permission.

If our contract happens to not forbid loud parties, and you have a few loud parties, I have no obligation to put up with your noise. I can kick you off my property even if you didn't agree to not have loud parties. If it's my property, I can decide who uses it, for what purpose, and on what grounds. Saying otherwise is to say that my permission isn't necessary for other people to be entitled to my services.

If our contract happens to not forbid animal abuse, and I find you abusing your animal on my property, I have no obligation to be polite. I can kick you off my property even if you didn't agree to not abuse animals on it. If it's my property, I can decide who uses it and who doesn't, etc.

If I convert to some leftist religion which dictates that families of the same race should not live adjacent to each other, I have every right to demand that the tenants switch up their places, and to kick out those who refuse to. If it's my property...

By acting that whimsically, though, I might be forfeiting my coverage with my defence agency and my dispute resolution organization. I am only entitled to their services on the condition that I follow the rules they lay down. If following a certain eviction procedure is a condition of my coverage, and I bypass that procedure, then my insurance providers have every right to drop my coverage. But they don't have the right to force me to accomodate the people I don't want on my property.

So no, a landlord theoretically doesn't need a provision against animal abuse written into the lease in order to have the right to evict animal abusers.