Quote from: Mike Christ on December 14, 2013, 10:46:40 PM

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on December 14, 2013, 08:35:03 PM

Quote from: Hawker on December 14, 2013, 08:30:27 PM

Have you a concrete idea how what private services you would use to prevent animal cruelty?

If you have to ask this, you're not getting the point of "personal responsibility". YOU are the private service that prevents animal cruelty. Any questions?

This is of extreme importance to understand. Point being, the law makes no difference; if you have a principle against animal cruelty, you are not cruel to animals. If you do not have this principle, you don't care. Either way, there have been laws against animal cruelty for a long time now, and the animals are still treated cruelly. The fact that PETA exists at all is enough evidence that the law is meaningless; nothing can replace knowledge and empathy, which is the only way animal cruelty can ever be resolved. If the state is the sole, or among, the solutions to animal cruelty...what are they waiting for?

Hawker doesn't want to prevent animal cruelty, he wants to harm the people who are cruel to animals; little does he know, this is the societal behavior that contributes to producing the people who are cruel to animals in the first place. It's a horrendously vicious cycle that can only be brought to an end with knowledge and, for our less-empathetic friends, abstinence from the use of violence.

Orders prohibiting people owning animals prevent those people abusing further animals. The system isn't perfect but its a lot better than nothing.

Your fundamental problem is that as long as you are ok, you don't care what happens on someone else's property. That's fine. Just be aware that you do not have to right to impose your rules on other people. If we vote to prevent an abuser from owning animals, then that person has no right to own animals.