Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Nanny changes her mind
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, June 15, 2008

Yes friends, it is now again possible to eat foie gras in Chicago:
Chicagoans can feast on foie gras once more. The Chicago City Council just repealed the ban on its sale that it put in place two years ago.

[...]

The Chicago council’s vote was 37-6, according to the Chicago Tribune’s Web site.
One has to wonder what caused them to change their mind. Could it have been the ridicule up to which Chicago has been held that turned the tide? Or perhaps the understanding that Chicago banning foie gras wasn't going to stop it from being produced (no matter how much they disapprove of the method).

Or could it possibly have been an awakening within the Council to the fact that banning something like foie gras is an unwarranted intrusion into the lives of its citizens and not a proper function of government?

Nah.

Had to be the ridicule. Nanny-staters never understand the latter point, but they really don't like to be laughed at.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I look upon this philosophically. The more time the City Council spends on debating ridiculous measures like this one, passing them into law, debating them again, and repealing the ordinacne, the less time they’ll have to get into more serious mischief.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Or could it possibly have been an awakening within the Council to the fact that banning something like foie gras is an unwarranted intrusion into the lives of its citizens and not a proper function of government?

Nah.

Had to be the ridicule. Nanny-staters never understand the latter point, but they really don’t like to be laughed at.
It’s Chicago. It was probably pockets being lined that made the turnaound...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So where do libertarian minded people fall when it comes to animals and harm? What is and is not permissible? Are they all just property? What about animals that are not owned by anyone?

I realize that there is no one monolithic viewpoint, but I also know that there is a viewpoint which is more monolithic when it comes to people and harm (though obviously libertarians don’t even agree on the definition of ’harm’):

"you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don’t harm the person and property of others."
I ask these questions sincerely. Libertarians use lines like:
X is an unwarranted intrusion into the lives of its citizens and not a proper function of government.
quite frequently without further clarification. I think quite a bit is left out (perhaps conveniently?) when this happens. A lot is left unsaid and unexplored and I question whether libertarianism can ever be as simple or clear as it’s often presented.

I consider myself a proponent of many libertarian ideas but the longer I hang around those ideas, the more cracks I see in the facade.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Animals and harm?

Animals are my food. What’s the harm?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
So where do libertarian minded people fall when it comes to animals and harm? What is and is not permissible? Are they all just property? What about animals that are not owned by anyone?
I think that goes back to philosophy, specifically the difference between ethics and morality. In my college philosophy class, morality was a subset of ethics that dealt specifically with rules about how you treat humans and higher beings. Mistreating animals is not immoral, only unethical, while mistreating humans is immoral.

Is is moral to hunt animals for food, but it is immoral to hunt humans for food. However, there are ethical restraints on the hunting of animals; it would be unethical to hunt in a manner that maximizes pain, for example.

The issue of libertarianism only comes into play when one considers what laws are reasonable with respect to the treatment of animals.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don,

I don’t agree that morality only deals with human to human interaction (and I think you have the ethics/morality relationship backwards - ethics seems to me to be a subset of morality that deals with a narrower scope) but letting that go and sticking with what you said:

Are you saying it wouldn’t be immoral to kill animals indiscriminately? If I set off into the wild and kill every living thing I see, there is no immorality there?

Aside - I wonder how libertarians come out on the religious spectrum? I really have no idea. I myself am agnostic.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider