What are you on the wrong side of History of?

[LennStar]

With logic that circular you can put a tire on it and compete in the Tour de France.

That's a good one! I have to remember it! Is there a unicycle TdF or is it enough for 2 tires?

[poxpower]

Using your definition of "big government" as anything scoring low on this index, then are you saying that Switzerland, Sweden, Finland all have very small governments compared to the rest of the world? That Canada has a smaller government than Mexico?

Yes that's literally what this index measures. It's a "big government" measure.
When people talk about "big government" they don't just mean the budget/tax rates. They also mean things like "can women own property here?".

You know this, come on.

When you actually try to measure all the involvement government has in a country, you spit out an index that shows you a clear trend where the less involvement there is the better off people tend to be.

There's no "U".

And like I said before: There could be. Libertarians think there is one, that's why they want at least a minimal government.
But wherever that point is, if it exists, no country on earth is remotely close right now.

[nereo]

And like I said before: There could be. Libertarians think there is one, that's why they want at least a minimal government.
But wherever that point is, if it exists, no country on earth is remotely close right now.

They have been countless examples throughout history of areas with little or no effective government oversight. Consider most frontiers, and regions after an occupying power has contracted. Most of these places were characterized by instability, violence and very low “freedom” as defined above, despite the lack ofregulations and laws “limiting” one’s behavior.

[GuitarStv]

When people talk about "big government" they don't just mean the budget/tax rates. They also mean things like "can women own property here?".

Without government restrictions on the ownership of people, enterprising capitalists will buy and sell slaves.  We've seen this happen in every market where it's not prohibited though history.  And we've seen that it still happens in non-government regulated black markets.  So there seems to be a certain level of government that becomes necessary for freedom, no?

[deborah]

Freedom of countries worldwide
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country

[poxpower]

They have been countless examples throughout history of areas with little or no effective government oversight. Consider most frontiers, and regions after an occupying power has contracted. Most of these places were characterized by instability, violence and very low “freedom” as defined above, despite the lack ofregulations and laws “limiting” one’s behavior.

ok well lots to say on this because people say this often.

1- No government oversight in an area is not indicative of the size of that state. Example: Cartel controlled zones. This exists because of the failure of the parent state to enforce legislation fairly and to protect the citizens. Effectively monopolizing protection and failing to provide it to law-abiding citizens.

2- A warzone or a in-between total collapse that is then almost immediately replaced by another dictator is not an "anarchist society". The american war of independance wasn't "anarchy" until the winner of the war was decided.

3- People tend to make weird anachronistic comparisons, so they'll compare the wild west not to other areas of the world in 1850 but instead to... Canada in 2020, thinking they're making some kind of point about government structures.

4- The one best example I know of a decentralized state society was Iceland during the medieval period.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2020-6-page-957.htm
https://www.worldhistory.org/Icelandic_Government/
If you compare how those people did compared to people of the same period, they were kicking some serious ass despite living on horribly inhospitable land.

This lasted a few hundreds years until they were taken over by Norway.

5- People attempt the "it's never been tried" against Libertarians, thinking that Libertarians are making some case that society will be really shitty until we just put in place all that they want. That's what socialists do. That's where the "it's never been real socialism" comes from. Because the more socialism you implement, the worse your society gets. Socialists require this one final 100% socialism ( communism) stage where everything finally flips from "horrible North Korea / Soviet Russia / East Germany" disaster to "worker-owned paradise". This flip never happens.
By contrasts you get the benefits of more economic freedom as you implement it. The more you implement, the more benefits you get. The only thing in question is "can you go to 100 or not?".

But here is where people's understanding of the facts differ. Leftists/progressives/democrats/whatever tend to know absolutely nothing about economics but be very bold and smug about their opinions on it.

Without government restrictions on the ownership of people, enterprising capitalists will buy and sell slaves. 

And governments don't? lol.
Slavery is largely a state program, especially the worst iterations of it ( i.e. Nazi and Soviet work camps ).
The America slave trade was all fueled by African tribal conflicts and dictators and the plantation owners enjoyed many special protections as well from the state, such as one where escaped slaves were to be hunted by citizens. That's right, even if you didn't own slaves you had to participate in a chase to get them back for the owners.

This is also again this goofy double standard where you imagine some perfect slaveless utopia ( that doesn't exist right now ) and demand I solve this for you. Like the only condition to remove the US government is nothing bad ever happens in this new world. Bad things happening now don't count though.

[ChpBstrd]

When people talk about "big government" they don't just mean the budget/tax rates. They also mean things like "can women own property here?".

Without government restrictions on the ownership of people, enterprising capitalists will buy and sell slaves.  We've seen this happen in every market where it's not prohibited though history.  And we've seen that it still happens in non-government regulated black markets.  So there seems to be a certain level of government that becomes necessary for freedom, no?

I agree, but a libertarian would say "I'm for civil rights, rights for women, nobody being exploited, etc. I just want a very small government with a tiny tax burden."

The paradox is that such a small government would lack the resources to disperse a lynch mob, stand up to a bloc of religious people who want to oppress others, investigate crimes or enforce the law, set up an internal law enforcement system to eliminate corruption within its ranks, defend its territory, collect taxes fairly, resolve disputes, or represent its people's interests in international affairs, among other things.

When we ask why undeveloped countries can't seem to hold themselves together, impose stability, and implement democracy, it may be because they have trouble attaining the scale necessary to keep things from falling apart.

Weakness is provocative for warlords, zealots, and authoritarians, and small governments are more vulnerable than entrenched bureaucracies. Democratic governments in parts of Africa and Latin America have been overthrown by militant groups no bigger than a few hundred people. Contrast this with the failed US coup on January 6, 2021.

[poxpower]

I agree, but a libertarian would say "I'm for civil rights, rights for women, nobody being exploited, etc. I just want a very small government with a tiny tax burden."

The paradox is that such a small government would lack the resources to disperse a lynch mob,

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

That is the only logically sound resolution of this "but who's going to protect me????" question.

America tried this with the second amendment and it still failed quite miserably. You'll never get away from individuals having to be the ones to keep themselves secure. It won't be the mob, it won't be The Great Leader, it won't be Justin Trudeau. You have to do it. You always have to watch others. The second you don't, you'll get exploited or attacked.

That's the reality of the world.

[PeteD01]

I agree, but a libertarian would say "I'm for civil rights, rights for women, nobody being exploited, etc. I just want a very small government with a tiny tax burden."

The paradox is that such a small government would lack the resources to disperse a lynch mob,

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

That is the only logically sound resolution of this "but who's going to protect me????" question.

America tried this with the second amendment and it still failed quite miserably. You'll never get away from individuals having to be the ones to keep themselves secure. It won't be the mob, it won't be The Great Leader, it won't be Justin Trudeau. You have to do it. You always have to watch others. The second you don't, you'll get exploited or attacked.

That's the reality of the world.

This is paranoid thinking. Seriously, you might want to get that checked out.
I'm really serious, you are living in Canada of all places, so relax.

[Posthumane]

When people talk about "big government" they don't just mean the budget/tax rates. They also mean things like "can women own property here?".

Sure, but solutions like "privatize everything" only solve the former, not the latter. It decreases the actual size of the government but does nothing for determining how fairly people are treated. One thing that's lost on someone who grew up in a society that's surrounded by various protections for their freedoms is that those protections are not automatic or guaranteed. Your argument is centred around the idea that all the restrictions to personal freedom that people have placed upon them originate from a government (some do, and some don't) and that changing that one variable will cause the other variables to follow suit.

Many of the countries on the list have low freedom not because the governments are imposing restrictions, but because nobody is acting to remove restriction placed upon people by others. Your solution to avoiding becoming the victim of a person or group that aims to violate your freedom to own property by taking it, for example, was to simply stay away from that group. There will always be people around who want to get ahead by taking advantage of the weaker and without a strong rule of law (which involves both codifying and enforcing laws) those people thrive and become the dominant presence. Somalis don't experience a lack of freedom because the government doesn't allow them to own or buy things or taxes them heavily, they have a lack of freedom because there is little resources available to protect them from groups that are able to enforce their own values on them.

Individuals having to expend their resources on private security forces for their protection or having to pay to settle a "dispute" with someone more powerful is precisely what drives some of the low scores on several variables. A big part of those scores is the impartiality and equal application of laws, which is unlikely to be maintained with private enforcement. A legal system funded by everyone can work equally for everyone, whereas one funded by a small group of individuals often does not have the freedom to go against those individuals.

[Posthumane]

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

This is one of these statements that's true and basically useless. This is the case with any security you get from anything/anyone. If you hire a private security firm to protect you, they could just as easily kill you and take your stuff. Your previous response to this phenomenon was that private security firms would rely on maintaining their reputation in the community, otherwise they wouldn't get hired. In a democracy, governments work the same way. They rely on the support of at least a plurality of people in order to maintain their seat - there literally is nothing else keeping them there. You are, once again, making a distinction between a government and any other large group of people that simply doesn't exist.

[poxpower]

It decreases the actual size of the government but does nothing for determining how fairly people are treated.

No one is saying the income tax rate is linked to fairness.
That's why they have all these separate metrics.

And yes some of it is arbitrary but I've never seen anyone propose a better way to quantify this.

Many of the countries on the list have low freedom not because the governments are imposing restrictions, but because nobody is acting to remove restriction placed upon people by others.

North Koreans are indeed oppressed because they haven't overthrown the state yet, correct.
Not sure what you're saying.

Your solution to avoiding becoming the victim of a person or group that aims to violate your freedom to own property by taking it, for example, was to simply stay away from that group. There will always be people around who want to get ahead by taking advantage of the weaker and without a strong rule of law

They will do it whether or not you have laws. Usually they join the state so you're making their job way easier.
The 20th century is a good lesson in how much damage a handful of psychos can cause if you let them be the leaders of a country.

A legal system funded by everyone can work equally for everyone, whereas one funded by a small group of individuals often does not have the freedom to go against those individuals.

This is not reality, sorry.
By this very logic the legal system doesn't serve the poor, since they pay little to no taxes ( and in absolute terms receive more from the state than they ever pay ).

The reality is the current legal system is extremely expensive and poor people cannot afford to defend themselves. Only rich people can. Lawyers will charge tens of thousands of cases and it just goes up from there. Prosecutors bully poorer defendants into taking plea deals by scaring them with ludicrous sentences. There's no justice. That's just in instances where there's even a trial or a case, some things like family courts in the UK are pretty much just one sided kangaroo courts.

Everything that is tax-funded works for the state, not tax payers.
You are not the boss of the Supreme Court, the police chief, the fire department, the senate or the teacher's union. Sorry to break it to you. They don't work for you. You can yell at them and they might listen to you, but they get the money regardless.

Again an example of where people tell themselves stories that don't' at all tract with reality.
Even if I was totally wrong that decentralized law could be fair, that wouldn't make our current system work like you're describing it working.

They rely on the support of at least a plurality of people in order to maintain their seat

I mean you can see this doesn't do anything since states constantly turn tyrannical or flat out ignore the will of the people. That's before you even get into the real depressing stuff about how campaigns are run and how the taller more handsome guys win more often lol. The idea that any part of this process is somehow keeping tabs on the political class is just weird the more you look into how the world is actually going.

Again that's not to say my alternative is perfect, not even that it would turn out better, but that how people describe democracy working is just completely divorced from how they actually work.

Decentralized defense at least has more logical feedback mechanism.

1- it's only provides one specific service and as such has a much smaller market share then a government and thus way less ressource to come after you
2- You can still defend yourself and your home. Governments always restrict this abiltiy as one of their first actions so citizens are totally reliant on the police and totally at the mercy of the state.
3- the defense agency doesn't' control your money. The state does. They literally can hyperinflate your cash to nothing and they often control the banking sector to such a degree that they can loot your account or at least freeze it. They can immediately transfer your wealth into their own coffers and keep on stomping you.

This "at least I can vote" idea is so weird too because nobody would subscribe to some shitty service that you can't cancel for 20 years but "lets you vote". How would that turn out do you think? Like shit, yes. Correct.

Why do people think this work for presidents?

[Posthumane]

I see you're back to your canned talking points that were made several pages back so I guess the conversation has come full circle. I don't think I have the energy to go once again around the loop, so I'll just leave with some closing remarks.

This is not reality, sorry.

What you are proposing is not reality either. You are not able to differentiate between a concept like various funding models without devolving back to arguing against specific arguments that someone may have made to you at some point in the past. At no point have I expressed a desire to keep things exactly as they are (either where we both live or in the US system that you keep referring back to).

While nobody is contradicting the fact that very authoritarian states hurt their citizens and a move away from the is beneficial, compared to modern democratic states the anarcho-capitalistic model results in a lateral move at best. Most functions would be largely unchanged in anything other than name, some would be improved and some made more challenging. You would probably be spending just as much as now on all your services, only it would be going to pay CEOs and company workers instead of politicians and public servants. Even the essay you linked to about medieval Iceland, a crown jewel of A-C, concluded only that it probably wasn't noticeably worse than its peers (although one could argue that they would have done better to spend more resources on defense in order to not get annexed).

I get the impression that your dislike of anything associated with the word "government" is rooted in a deep seated fear of being oppressed or controlled, even if that fear has never played out for you in reality. A life philosophy based on fear is not a healthy way to live. As someone prone to depression and loneliness, feeding yourself with sources that promote that fear is likely not helping your well being. It seems that fear is based in loss aversion - you are desperately seeking to hold on to as much of your money as you can because you fear that you will not be able to get it back. Unfortunately this fear is manifesting itself in other areas of your life - like not being able to spend the money to rent your own apartment despite making 6 to 7 figures, even though you feel that it's hurting your dating life. I think if you can find a way to get over this fear to some extent it would greatly help your mental suffering and also set you more at ease about the system you live in. I've seen similar fears break up a family because one person couldn't stand to live in the hostile and oppressive state that is Canada.
I wish you the best of luck.

[GuitarStv]

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

If you are strong enough to defend yourself from the state, then effectively you are the state.

[PeteD01]

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

If you are strong enough to defend yourself from the state, then effectively you are the state.

Unfortunately, he does not understand this simple logic which makes anarcho-capitalism an authoritarian and not a libertarian proposal - a seeming contradiction.

Looks like anarcho-capitalism is a fail already at the level of basic logic.

[GuitarStv]

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

If you are strong enough to defend yourself from the state, then effectively you are the state.

Unfortunately, he does not understand this simple logic which makes anarcho-capitalism an authoritarian and not a libertarian proposal - a seeming contradiction.

Looks like anarcho-capitalism is a fail already at the level of basic logic.

It's just such a weird statement to make.  States have armies.  To defend against an army, you pretty much need an army.  Which would make you a state.  :P

[nereo]

If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

You'll never get away from individuals having to be the ones to keep themselves secure. ... You have to do it. You always have to watch others. The second you don't, you'll get exploited or attacked.

That's the reality of the world.

You can still defend yourself and your home. Governments always restrict this abiltiy as one of their first actions so citizens are totally reliant on the police and totally at the mercy of the state.

To say that I disagree is an understatement. Frankly I find these comments to be highly disturbing, and they run counter to my experiences living and working in several different democracies, all of which have a much stronger centralized government than what you seem to be proposing.

Ironically, it's comments like the ones you made above that make me more supportive of police and government, as I do not wish to live next to people who believe that only they can keep themselves secure, and that they must watch over me, and who believe they are always vulnerable to attack.

[ChpBstrd]

I agree, but a libertarian would say "I'm for civil rights, rights for women, nobody being exploited, etc. I just want a very small government with a tiny tax burden."

The paradox is that such a small government would lack the resources to disperse a lynch mob,

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.
If you're strong enough to defend yourself from the state then you don't need it's protection.

That is the only logically sound resolution of this "but who's going to protect me????" question.

America tried this with the second amendment and it still failed quite miserably. You'll never get away from individuals having to be the ones to keep themselves secure. It won't be the mob, it won't be The Great Leader, it won't be Justin Trudeau. You have to do it. You always have to watch others. The second you don't, you'll get exploited or attacked.

That's the reality of the world.

Individuals cannot effectively protect themselves. One cannot patrol a perimeter 24/7 without sleeping, eating, or producing anything to sustain oneself. One is not likely to survive a confrontation with 2 or more similarly equipped people. One occasionally gets sick or injured and becomes nearly helpless. Finally, one eventually gets old and becomes nearly helpless in the end anyway.

For these tactical reasons, humans tend to form large tribes and conflict with each other that way. See the gangs that rule much of Hati, Rio de Janero, El Salvador, and other places where there is governmental weakness. Individuals in such places face a choice with no good outcome: Be oppressed by the controlling power or join the gangs and be oppressed by the authoritarian structure within the gang.

A powerful government could organize people in a way to suppress the gangs, but that leads back to your concern that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you. Yet we can't go too far into this false dilemma, because lots of people all over the world live in places with governments strong enough to prevent the sort of things happening in Hati, Ethiopia, and Rio, and yet would not describe themselves as living under an oppressive regime. The balance seems to occur well over the point where a government is powerful enough to oppress you, because any alliance of 2 or more people are usually powerful enough to oppress a lone individual.

[LennStar]

a decentralized state society was Iceland during the medieval period.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2020-6-page-957.htm
https://www.worldhistory.org/Icelandic_Government/
If you compare how those people did compared to people of the same period, they were kicking some serious ass despite living on horribly inhospitable land.

This only makes sense if you set decentralized = less state
Which is BS. Decentralized often means more state (or at least more government), and not only because that means there are more levels.

And this specific case was successful because they had a more structured and more democratic government than many others. It's actually an example against your POV.

That's where the "it's never been real socialism" comes from. Because the more socialism you implement, the worse your society gets. Socialists require this one final 100% socialism ( communism) stage where everything finally flips from "horrible North Korea / Soviet Russia / East Germany" disaster to "worker-owned paradise". This flip never happens.

sigh I know that there is practically no American who get's this even half right, but there was no reason to pain me with that!
 

Leftists/progressives/democrats/whatever tend to know absolutely nothing about economics but be very bold and smug about their opinions on it.

1) citation needed
(Fun fact: "The (US) Economy" was better in the 20th century whenever "lefts" were in power than when when "rights" were in power)

The America slave trade was all fueled by African tribal conflicts

not all, and those conflicts were very often fueled or even started by "entrepreneurs". I know you can't get reality right, but at least try it with history, okay?

The only paradox is that a state large enough to protect you is large enough to oppress you.

That's not a fact, that is simply THE TRUTH.
Which means exactly nothing, since in the libertarian world there is always one on whom this also apllies - just that this X is less checked and balanced than a democratic state and such has it easier than this state to opress you. That is the whole f***** center point libertarians always ignore.

Looks like anarcho-capitalism is a fail already at the level of basic logic.

Yes it does. Didn't someone mention this before?


Once again I recommend the videos by Adam Something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g because they are funny and show what happens in nice graphic.

[poxpower]

Eh aight I think I've had enough insults for a while lol.

Shout out to posthumane for being able to carry an actual conversation. Thanks for the concern but this isn't a big part of my life, I don't watch the news, I don't discuss politics except briefly online. For me ( and a lot of people like me ) this is just an interesting philosophical discussion.

I'm not scared of the government destroying my life any time soon and don't make any life decisions based on what I think the government will be doing.

[nereo]

I'm not scared of the government destroying my life any time soon and don't make any life decisions based on what I think the government will be doing.

Then why all the rhetoric earlier about governmental oppression and having “very little” freedom in Canada?

[PeteD01]

I'm not scared of the government destroying my life any time soon and don't make any life decisions based on what I think the government will be doing.

Then why all the rhetoric earlier about governmental oppression and having “very little” freedom in Canada?

I guess he was just trolling after all.

[poxpower]

Then why all the rhetoric earlier about governmental oppression and having “very little” freedom in Canada?

Little freedom compared to what we should have yes. That doesn't mean life is bad.
Yes lots of people are currently being oppressed by their government all over the world. Just China is already a billion people to put in that category.
That's without even going back in history.

Of course what you guys have done here is replace the word "government" with "stuff that I like" lol.

[dividendman]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

[GuitarStv]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

[LennStar]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

[bill1827]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

[GuitarStv]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

[LennStar]

Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

It's not about me, it's the future. Who knows what they will think?

After all the natural state of the negro is to be subservient to the whites. ;)

[dividendman]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

I think that regardless of would have happened in the wild, creating animals, chopping off their body parts, and having them live in questionable conditions for our own amusement will eventually be looked upon poorly. They're basically your own personal circus animal. Not to mention the cruelty of individual owners and breeders.

[former player]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

I think that regardless of would have happened in the wild, creating animals, chopping off their body parts, and having them live in questionable conditions for our own amusement will eventually be looked upon poorly. They're basically your own personal circus animal. Not to mention the cruelty of individual owners and breeders.

There isn't any ethical justification for either domesticated animals or farm animals, incalculable harm is being done to both every day and it's all just selfish human interest. Humans should stop breeding all of them as soon as possible.

That's not to say we are any better behaved in relation to wild animals, once you take into account hunting and habitat destruction. The most ethical position would be for humans to limit their numbers and retreat to compounds so that nature could run free in the rest of the world with the only human interference being that necessary to compensate for damage irretrievably done already such as the introduction of alien species.

[LennStar]

Thing is we have made so much damage that letting nature run would actually be harmful now.

The WTYP guys just did a podcast about Forests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn3GyOSJ3uQ

spoiler: kill deers!!!!

[GuitarStv]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

I think that regardless of would have happened in the wild, creating animals, chopping off their body parts, and having them live in questionable conditions for our own amusement will eventually be looked upon poorly. They're basically your own personal circus animal. Not to mention the cruelty of individual owners and breeders.

Of course, I can't speak to all pet owners . . . but I've never chopped off an animal's body parts, or had an animal under my care living in questionable conditions.  As a matter of fact, the last several animals I've had were previously strays (living 'free' in the wild you might call it).  They all seemed quite appreciative of their prison . . . and although all of them had opportunity to escape to regain 'freedom' during their time with me, none decided to do so.

[ChpBstrd]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

I think that regardless of would have happened in the wild, creating animals, chopping off their body parts, and having them live in questionable conditions for our own amusement will eventually be looked upon poorly. They're basically your own personal circus animal. Not to mention the cruelty of individual owners and breeders.

Of course, I can't speak to all pet owners . . . but I've never chopped off an animal's body parts, or had an animal under my care living in questionable conditions.  As a matter of fact, the last several animals I've had were previously strays (living 'free' in the wild you might call it).  They all seemed quite appreciative of their prison . . . and although all of them had opportunity to escape to regain 'freedom' during their time with me, none decided to do so.

You don't spay or neuter?

[GuitarStv]

I think pet ownership will be one of those things future generations will judge us harshly for.

Wouldn't that depend on the actions of the individual owner?

How many pets to you know that live a really "natural" life?
Not to mention breeding towards races that live in pain just because we think that looks good.

Is a natural life a good thing? Most pets will live longer as pets than they would in the wild. Well fed, kept sheltered and away from potential dangers.

Dogs seem to have been bred for their capacity to get along with humans, so living with them is probably pretty natural.

Agree about the breeding issue. And the resources needed to feed those pets is somewhat questionable.

Yeah . . . I used to hunt pretty often and have observed many animals living natural lives.  Natural life means sickness, parasites, extreme cold/extreme heat, long periods without enough food (occasionally malnutrition), constant fighting/predation, and near certain death if any serious injury happens.  Not sure that's the standard you want to hold up as an ideal.

Poor breeding practices are certainly something to get upset about though.  I've always been uneasy with the weird sloping back that some breed into German Shepherds, or the extreme pushed in faces that bulldogs and Pekinese have.  But it seems to me that the majority of dog breeds out there are not living in pain, and the few breeders I've had contact with are very careful in breeding practices to prevent problems that would cause pain from cropping up in their puppies.

I think that regardless of would have happened in the wild, creating animals, chopping off their body parts, and having them live in questionable conditions for our own amusement will eventually be looked upon poorly. They're basically your own personal circus animal. Not to mention the cruelty of individual owners and breeders.

Of course, I can't speak to all pet owners . . . but I've never chopped off an animal's body parts, or had an animal under my care living in questionable conditions.  As a matter of fact, the last several animals I've had were previously strays (living 'free' in the wild you might call it).  They all seemed quite appreciative of their prison . . . and although all of them had opportunity to escape to regain 'freedom' during their time with me, none decided to do so.

You don't spay or neuter?

Ah, is that what was meant?  I was thinking of cosmetic tail docking/ear cropping, which I'm not a fan of.

Yes, I've always spayed/neutered my pets.  There are medical benefits (reduced risk of several types of cancer and reduced chance of UTI) when you do so.  FWIW, I also got myself fixed - so don't really view it as a tremendous problem for my dogs.  :P

[Just Joe]

You don't spay or neuter?

Would you have intact pets across the land? I've seen the ways stray cats multiply. We've seen how intact rodents multiply.

I think limiting domestic animal reproduction is a good thing. For the natural world to be in balance, they would need a predator in the equation to limit their spread - and that outcome seems alot scarier for our pets than a snip at the vet's office. Perhaps we need a meaty tasting birth control pill?

I let all five of our pets (dog and cats) out this morning. The dog and cats love living with us. Always come home. Before any folks get excited. We live on acreage in the country. They can explore all they want and never leave our property.