Snuggles Update
This is Snuggles, happy to be home finally from her surgeries and near life-ending coyote encounter. Thanks to everyone who sent in their best wishes.
Like most of us she is a bit vain so she asked for the head shot, since from the sides she is a total mess of randomly shaved patches, bite marks, and Frankenstein-like stitches. She has lost about 25% of her body mass, so she is no longer the World's Largest Maltese (TM). She has, though, upped the ante in the competition for World's Most Poorly Groomed Maltese (TM).
For dog and pet lovers, I don't have to explain why we spent thousands of dollars to keep her alive.
For those of you who are not (and I was really in that camp a few years ago as this is my first pet), I will tell you what I told a cynical friend: "I did not necessarily spend thousands of dollars to save the dog. I spent it to save my kids from heartbreak. And just possibly, to preserve my reputation in the eyes of my family (sorry kids, I really wanted that new Alienware laptop so Snuggs is not going to make it)."
Update: I find the rational choices discussion in the comments unsurprising given the diversity of responses I have had from friends. Key facts here: 1. I could afford it (grandma was not going to get put out on the ice flow to save the dog); 2. I was entirely responsible for the costs; 3. The hospital, unlike in the human world, gave me a very detailed cost estimate of what the procedure would cost in advance. When the costs went over, we challenged them and they agreed to a refund. 4. My daughter had a very difficult day yesterday. This morning I found her sleeping snuggled up with the dog in bed. Put a price on that.
There have been reports of coyotes in my area, though not many, and my dog spends most of his time inside.
When he is outside, he has a nice fenced in yard to play in, but I never leave him outside when I am not home. Aside from possible threats from wildlife, Pit Bulls are a prime target for theft.
By the way, that locked jaw thing is a myth. Pit bulls are tenacious, they have very strong jaws and if they don't want to let go of something it can be difficult to make them without risking injury to the dog (or yourself). However, there is no truth to the myth that their jaws lock to the point the dog couldn't let go if it wanted to.
I got mine from the local humane society. He had been picked up as a stray and had been on the street feeding himself for who knows how long. If he ever did end up in that kind of circumstance, I would expect to find him wounded and guarding a half eaten coyote.
sure I do but don't claim an economic principle that people make only rational decisions as an underpinning to an efficient economy because it's a demonstrably false premise.
there is no virtue of economic "efficiency" because the money you are spending is "yours".
the government may well spend YOUR money more efficiently than you would....in fact.
they take money from you and build a road that benefits you economically while you'd spend that money on "saving" snuggles.
that's a separate issue from whether it's moral to take your money or not in the first place... right?
some people think it's moral and efficient for the govt to take your money for some things... like it's better to take your money to build an aircraft carrier to keep the bad guys from hurting you...
others disagree with the carrier idea but believe in the govt taking money for..say fire and ems service.. others disagree .. but there is no hard and fast rule here that the individual who pays taxes will always spend the money "better".
"the government may well spend YOUR money more efficiently than you would....in fact."
The people who run the government are just as flawed as the rest of us. While your quoted statement may be true in regards to any one specific person, it is an impossibility in the aggregate.
No libertarian economist has ever claimed that every single individual will spend their money more efficiently than the government. The claim is and always has been that in most cases and in the aggregate more net efficiency results from people spending their own money than if that money was spent by the government.
I totally agree that govt makes flawed decisions but so do citizens.
in terms of Libertarians - please consult the phrase "rational choice". It's a basic libertarian concept that underlies the whole idea of supply/demand.
it presumes from the get go - that decisions by individuals are what makes the free market - efficient.. and I just point out that buying lottery tickets totally violates the entire concept of "rational choice" ...in economics... so then the argument shifts to the idea that they are "entitled" to not spend their money economically "efficiently" and that the got has no right to take their money morally and that the govt could never spend it more efficiently than the individual would.
people who spend money to save "snuggles" are likely to believe that spending by govt for similar purposes is also valid.. like spending money on providing seniors with Medicare.
it's hard to separate the two unless you just want to label the concept of elected government as illegitimate to start with.
Warren has his business - because people believe it is legitimate for the govt to tax people to provide campgrounds... right?
yet Warren goes on and on about the illegitimacy of govt taxing people instead of letting people keep their money and spend it more "efficiently".
The Snuggles issue really got to the dilemma.. in my view.
You are misconstruing the rational choice theory.
The theory is not about individual cases but about the aggregate result. The theory does not state that people will achieve perfect economic efficiency either individually or in the aggregate.
The root of the rational choice theory is that in the aggregate people spending their own money will produce greater economic efficiency than any other means of resource allocation.
"The Snuggles issue really got to the dilemma.. in my view."
In my view, your view is twisted and utterly irrational.
the theory asserts as its fundamental basis for advocating for a free market that buyers make rational decisions.. individuals and in the aggregate and that's simply bogus because it asserts that in the aggregate that people make more efficient economic decisions than govt.
there is no real evidence to back this up- anecdotal evidence is used to demonstrate the flaws of govt while purporting that there individuals don't have those issues.
you can use anecdotal evidence on both citizens and govt or not..
the only thing that is twisted is the one-side view of the zealots who basically believe what they want to believe.. and ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary.
Did I just just see you and Snuggles walking south on 53rd Place, south of Mountain View? Snuggles looks pretty good.