OK, Euclidean. To summarize- Your opinion on the subject of laws prohibiting the torture or infliction of pain on animals is that such laws are 'morally wrong'. And although you personally abhor cruelty to animals,
such laws are 'morally indefensible'.
Correct. The course of rectitude in how one should treat an animal is not absolutely clear. Many believe slaughterhouses are unnecessarily cruel, but I think what happens in a slaughterhouse is acceptable because it's necessary, yet many would disagree with me, so who's right?
I believe that codifying these beliefs in a legal statute is beyond the necessary scope of government. However I also hold that private efforts to punish offenders can be effective. If you have a moral problem with slaughterhouses, simply refuse to purchase meat processed in these facilities, persuade others to do the same, and the slaughterhouses will be closed voluntarily.
Now, I'm not real clear on the basis for your opinion-whether it arises from some sort of logical reasoning or simply from your belief system. If it comes from your belief system, you don't need to explain it. Neither is your belief system imposable on others.
Perhaps both? I tend to see my outlook as ever changing, the cumulative result of all my experiences as cognitive concepts are added, discarded, and elaborated upon. In 10 years I may have a different opinion. A foolish consistency... well you know.
And it's not so much I don't think my personal beliefs are impotent, I just think it's morally wrong to use force to spread them when voluntary adoption is possible.
In any event, how about laws dealing with public safety? Building code regulation, for example. Or speed limits on public roads? What's your opinion on those?
Well that's quite a wide reaching query.
My overall outlook is that there's proof in many sectors that government interference makes things go FUBAR. The prime reason for this is not necessarily that the government is "Bad" or whatever, it's that the government is interested in the business of sustaining and expanding the government first and foremost, it's simply the nature of the beast.
Call me crazy, but I think the people who actually do the work in certain sectors should be left self regulate. When an industry is left alone, self regulation appears and works. The problem is, whenever anything happens, we have knee jerk reaction to "make a law". Then the law gets expanded on, and pretty soon we have what I call an expensive government boondoggle.
Let me give you a real life example. The DHS is supposed to make sure our power lines and other facilities are secure, and they act like that before DHS ever existed no one ever secured power facilities. Before 9/11 came to pass, my father, who worked in rural power for 25 years, had seen to it that his employer's substations had perimeters which could withstand the impact of a truck, infrared cameras, and other sophisticated measures which actually exceed the standards of the DHS. Why? Because he was an expert on rural power and the things which affect it, and it was his professional opinion it was necessary.
A private interest has motivation to perform and the superior expertise to succeed in competition. The government has neither.
Now as for building codes, I'm very familiar with the concept having sold building materials for several years in what feels like a previous life, but I'm not an expert. However, there are contractors and other professionals who
are experts, at least compared to me. Why shouldn't they set the codes?
I understand there may be some kind of provision necessary for coordinating with local emergency services if it's a public building, but even then I think the industry in question could produce better regulations than what the authorities, who are experts in government bureaucracy and not erecting buildings, could come up with.
After all, if I were not dirt poor but instead had the funds to build commercial buildings with, I'd want the one that met the industry safety standards that firefighters etc. would be familiar with. I don't need building codes to realize I want to build a building properly and in a standard manner that everyone else generally uses.
The roads is a whole different can of worms. For one, they're already publicly owned, so unless we auction them off to private interests a lot of "what ifs" are null and void. But as it sits now, they are owned by the government, so government traffic regulation is necessary.
If nothing else, even if a highway was privately built, if it crossed a state line at any point, that's affecting interstate commerce. This is something where we probably can't get away from government regulation at least not at present, so it's necessary evil which should be as minimal as possible.
The building code and the road scenarios are fundamentally different than the animal cruelty scenario however. There's nothing really inherently "moral" about erecting a structure. Traffic laws are about not infringing on other's rights not some arbitrary standard of what's "good" or "bad".
