You Libertarians are So Paranoid. Government Would Never Use its Power to {Fill in the Blank}
From San Francisco, of course. Via Maggies Farm's great daily link roundup
If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country's first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.
"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."
This is the same city that is replacing Cokes with Soy Milk in its vending machines. Oddly, when you read the pet article, it turns out their main concern is with hamsters, that get euthanized a huge rates as people who initially think they are cute wake up one day and realize they are just irritating rodents. One wonders then why they ban on all animals just to get at one kind. And why are fish OK but dogs are not?
I think I blogged this the other day but I want to repeat the un-ironic comment made by a city official on the soda ban in vending machines:
"It's entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property."
One wonder if any limitation on individual choice (save perhaps on abortion) would be considered inappropriate or intrusive by these folks.
morganovich:
seems like producing the definitive book of yummy hamster recipes might be an easier solution...
July 9, 2010, 10:47 amRob:
Hamster euthanization? Hamster euthanization? These guys are all pro-choice but they're more concerned about hamster euthanization than partial birth abortions. Good grief. We put down probably millions of mice for medical research but we'd hate to put down a few hundred hamsters in SF, therefore you may not sell pets.
July 9, 2010, 12:56 pmanon:
Oddly enough, I just had a discussion with a good friend about the rise of fascism in the states. Foreigners are particularly baffled about how we can't seem to leave well enough alone. There has to be a right and a wrong, and it's important to punish those who are wrong. Can't tolerate people hanging their laundry out to dry on their own property (it might be indecent). Can't tolerate people consuming soft drugs in the privacy of their own home (while banks that engage in drug money laundering get by because they are too big to fail!)
July 10, 2010, 1:01 amFred from Canuckistan:
Coyote, you just don't understand . . . these people are Progressives . . . that means they are smarter than us, they know better, they care more, they are more equal than all of us equal people.
And their crap doesn't stink either.
July 10, 2010, 5:19 amD-man:
I think Bill O'Reilly put it best: "the city that wants to put medical marijuana dispensaries on every street corner now wants to ban machines selling Pepsi."
July 11, 2010, 2:02 amdullgeek:
Substitute "city property" with "private property" and the city officials statement is sensible, right?
"It’s entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for a private owner to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on private property."
What changes when "private" becomes "public"?
I realize that every citizen of the city "owns" (in some sense) the city property. But does that give anyone the right to sell whatever they want on city property? Does it give all city residents the right to do whatever they want on city property? Could a husband and wife go (if they were so inclined) have sex on city property?
I think the point that the city official is making is that the soda ban on city property is not like a broad soda ban on all property. Rather it's the city exercising it's stewardship of the public property. Prohibiting certain things that are perfectly legal on private property. I don't see the problem. What am I missing?
July 12, 2010, 3:09 pmIgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society:
> One wonder if any limitation on individual choice (save perhaps on abortion) would be considered inappropriate or intrusive by these folks.
Warren, it's clear that libtards are nothing but frustrated busybodies who want to tell everyone else how to do things (I'll concede there are some similar issues for conservatives, but they are more narrow and easily defined).
Most of the rest of us just want to be let alone.
July 12, 2010, 11:06 pmIgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society:
> Substitute “city property†with “private property†and the city officials statement is sensible, right?
Actually, sort of, yes -- an individual property owner CAN make such assessments. And those who utilize the vending machines can take their business elsewhere if the property owner makes the wrong decisions. The distinction is, the private property owner would then suffer from lost revenues, and possibly be encouraged to change their position. The city won't care about lost revenues -- they'll just raise the license fee for privately owned vending machines sitting on private property to pay for the lost revenues...
And y'all know that's true.
> Could a husband and wife go (if they were so inclined) have sex on city property?
In San Francisco, that's a legitimate question. Especially if the husband and wife are same-sex.
July 12, 2010, 11:20 pmmbt trade:
At Masai Barefoot we don't believe in shoes. We believe in footwear that makes you better from the ground up.
July 16, 2010, 12:45 am