Care to join me on a Sunday night thought experiment?

I learned in PoliSci 101 that a basic difference between conservatives and liberals in America is the underlying belief about the nature of mankind. Conservatives tend to think that man is inherently bad/evil in nature, while liberals tend to think that man is basically good. This, of course, underpins policy actions and belief in legislation. And regardless of how you view mankind, both sides have long arrived at the idea that forcing two animals to fight for human enjoyment shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society.

However, what has long confused me is the position that libertarians take. They generally don't take a position on mankind's inherent nature and instead focus on private property and maximizing freedoms. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that "you can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe upon me" is the libertarian motto. As far as I can tell, libertarians don't have a position on animal fighting, other than people should be allowed to do with their property as they see fit without government infringement.

So all of that introduction to ask, "Is Michael Vick a libertarian?" An affirmative answer is the only way I can rationalize why a guy who makes silly money to play a game once week would throw it all away for dog fighting. Maybe he is a libertarian that viewed his dogs as his property. He should be allowed to do with them as he wished as long as he didn't infringe on the rights of his fellow humans. And I think it could be argued that dog fighting doesn't infringe on any of the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Could it be that Michael Vick is a libertarian? Or is he just a stupid punk that tortures dogs for his own enjoyment? Or both?