In this new age of nanny-state big government, I'm wondering why some things are still permitted. We suspend individual liberties in the name of "social and economic justice" or the "greater good" all the time when the elites can divine a compelling reason; health care, environment, poverty, etc... So why are there certain freedoms that are off limits?
This weekend, while getting my weekly groceries, I was behind a lady with a cart full of cat food and litter in the checkout line. While waiting she left the line momentarily to get more cat food (current selection wasn't enough?). And that got me thinking...
Why is pet ownership legal?
The world would be such a better place without pets which provide little or no value to society.
The cost of owning a pet can be over $1,000 the first year and $500 a year thereafter. That's $8,000 should a pet live 15 years! This is a conservative estimate. If a pet needs specialized surgery or care the costs could skyrocket. Most pet owners replace pets once they die and could end up spending $24,000 (in 2008 dollars) throughout their adult lifetime!!!
That money could be better spent providing social and economic justice (education, health care, food stamps/welfare) to the disadvantaged. Pet owners would never miss it as they've grown used to the recurring expenses.
If we believe the current Democrat talking points too many Americans lack access to "affordable" health care. How many is "too many?" Still up for debate but any system that doesn't cover 100% of the people 100% of the time is politically inadequate.
Veterinary providers could be re-tooled and retrained to provide care and services for humans. This would create more capacity in the health care system thus lowering costs. The government run health care system of tomorrow won't allow legal claims for liability or malpractice anyway so the government risks no additional exposure.
A few Veterinarians would be still be necessary to provide services for zoos, but the vast majority could practice on humans with a little bit of training.
How big of a carbon footprint does the pet food industry have? Don't know/don't care. But if it's more than nothing, it's too much. We can eliminate the environmental impact completely by eliminating pets altogether.
Mass transit will create a draw from the sparse suburbs to the dense urban areas around the country (after we outlaw private transport). This will put people in close living situations in which a barking dog or a cat house could be a problem.
Urban environments lack dog areas and dog waste would be a problem. Dogs have also been known to occasionally attack humans which, in a city, puts more people at risk.
We can further incentivize urban living by guaranteeing a person won't be listening to his neighbor's dog bark for eight hours while he's at work or getting bitten while talking a walk around the neighborhood.
All governments have pounds and animal control units. These could be scaled back or completely eliminated in some cases. That would free up funds for social programs or education. Tax cut? No, that money could be put to good use somewhere in the gov's budget to expand the size and control of said government--which we all know is a good thing and will serve a lot of people in only good ways.
All of this outlines a case, in the interest of the "greater good," to completely outlaw pet ownership. So why is it legal?