|
May 02, 2005
High prices are always immoral
It's been some time since I wrote a post about animal cloning, but I see that there's now legislation pending which would criminalize the practice in California: SACRAMENTO - With a Bay Area company making international headlines by pioneering commercial cloning, a state legislator said Monday he will try to outlaw the practice in California.Well, any industry which is unregulated has to be regulated, right? When I posted about this back in December, people thought I was out of line to criticize the regulatory mindset -- because they hadn't yet proposed any legislation. Well, now they have, and my objection has not changed. Nor has the "reasoning" of the moralizers: . . . Critics say the money used for cloning would be better spent to support shelters or find new homes for the animals stuck there. Others say the practice is ethically wrong.You can't? While I have better things to spend my money on than creating a twin of Puff (which I think would be a mistake because he wouldn't be the same dog, and it's better to start fresh), the only moral objections they can come up with are: Neither one of these objections makes any sense. As I said in December: Lots of people would spend thousands of dollars to save a sick pet. Isn't that also elitist by the same argument, and wouldn't that money be better off spent on "homes for a lot of strays?" Seen this way, purchasing any expensive item is immoral. Plenty of people spend $50,000 for a car. Isn't that also technology "available only to the wealthy?"I suppose that someone might make the argument that if it's immoral to create a new human life by means of cloning technology, that it's just as immoral to create animal life, but I haven't heard it in this debate. It boils down to the high cost, plus availability of alternatives, and these arguments could be made about nearly anything. If something is too expensive, make it illegal! That's at the core of the inane objection to Apple iPods by an MIT professor who complained of a "participation gap." Might as well ban expensive guns! (Well, that's after we get rid of inexpensive Saturday night specials.....) And while we're at it, private schools have got to go. Do you realize how much money parents fritter away on elitist education while existing public school districts can't even afford to pay their teachers? UPDATE: Randall Parker has much more on this subject (including some very cool hypothetical examples), and links to this press release from GSC answering man of the critics' objections. (If only ideologues were persuaded by having their objections answered!) posted by Eric on 05.02.05 at 07:42 AM
Comments
Oh, and I love my shelter kitties, and would never bother with a cloned pet myself. B. Durbin · May 2, 2005 01:27 PM We have always been faced with idiots proposing idiotic laws (and even getting them passed - see assault weapons ban) but seeing such proposals is like a canary in a mine; we know liberty is safe. notherbob2 · May 2, 2005 02:06 PM That's the problem with the lefties. My money *must* be spent on someone else's welfare. Good think I drive a Kia--if I drove an Escalade, who knows what kind of names they'd call me. People should be able to spend their money on anything legal, and a *compelling* state interest should be identified before making an item (or a practice) illegal. Darren · May 4, 2005 07:47 PM You People (tm) always complain about guns and gas prices. Good thing. Therefore, you can carefully and rigorously ignore all of the other government/plutocracy control over the price of nearly all commodities. Yes, your heroes at the American Enterprise Institute and Cato are the defenders of the price controls, kept under the radar by both the media and the think tanks (and, apparently, the libertarian bloggers). Virtually every aspect of doing business, making a purchase, travelling, working, or eating is under control of the precious "market" plutocracy. Payroll taxes, property taxes, tariffs, protections on commodity prices, etc. all have profound impact on wages and prices. Don't forget the massive subsidy on gasoline (about 800%) that "fuels" the "market-driven" economy. It's all a big shell game. Good thinkg you are Glenn Reynolds are there to support it. Anonymous · May 9, 2005 09:45 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I say let people have their cloned pets. They're paying for research that may eventually get the rest of us cloned organs. (I'm ambivalent on the subject of cloned humans, given the fact of real clones in the form of identical twins. If they're treated as twins, that's one thing; if they're treated like test tube babies that's the same, but if they're treated as somehow lesser I see big red STOP signs.)