Dude, chill out already! How many people, exactly, are calling Mankind "evil" and calling for our destruction? And in what influential positions do they reside? You only name one name, hardly evidence that "science" overall is "invent[ing] superstitions of its own." Not only that, but your eagerness to portray the ravings of a few (unspecified) crackpots as representative of "science" in general, is itself a bit superstitious. This sort of "everyone who disagrees with us is an enemy of progress and civilization itself" rhetoric is one of the many means by which libertarians hose their own credibility. And what does your dog's welfare have to do with any of this?

Misanthropic superstition is not "infecting" science, any more than one homeless lunatic "infects" the city in which he blithers.

When I criticize a philosophy underlying variety agendas as "anti-civilization" I do not mean to suggest that people who work toward these agendas are consciously working against civilization. For example, many vegan non-smokers who believe in animal rights are highly sensitive, highly intelligent, highly civilized people who do not hate civilization, but think they can improve upon it. I think that it is entirely proper to criticize the animal rights philosophy as being against human progress, which it is, without being seen as criticizing individuals.

My dog's ovaries are a perfect example. Well-meaning people think my dog should be sterilized, but they forget that the philosophy behind it is based on the principle that man has no right to own or breed dogs. I think this philosophy is evil, and I also think it is part of an emerging coalition of deeply anti-social people who really do seek a radical reduction in the human population, an end to development, a halt to technology.

My criticism of philosophies of activism is not meant as criticism of individual activists, nor of individuals who might be manipulated by activists (unless, of course, they try to tell me what to do).

I believe I speak for all of your readers when I say "Huh?"

Sterilization of pets is not based on "the principle that man has no right to own or breed" animals; it's based on a desire by people in general to prevent animal populations from getting out of control in heavily-populated areas, which would then mean huge numbers of unwanted, mistreated and neglected animals, and the health risks that would result from this; and that in turn would lead to huge numbers of unwanted animals rounded up and destroyed. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people think forced sterilization is a better alternative than killing large numbers of unclaimed, unwanted animals.

And forgive me if I sould clueless, but I really can't see how this is connected to "an emerging coalition of deeply anti-social people who really do seek a radical reduction in the human population, an end to development, a halt to technology." Is this what they call "free association?"

Glad to hear someone is finally speaking for all my readers. . .

Seriously, I think you may have missed some of my posts on the connection between animal sterilization and the animal rights philosophy, because I've been making the case ad nauseam.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003810.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003619.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003420.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003422.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003416.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/002690.html

Once again, for the umpteenth time, these people have no right to sterilize my animal at all -- especially in the name of "animal rights." The people who would force me to sterilize my dog may not all be animal rights activists, but I think a lot of them are being duped, and in any event they don't seem to have thought about the premises or the underlying philosophy, or the implications of reversing man's relationship with animals.

As to the connection between sterilization of pets and eliminating the right to breed animals, it's not free association. And these days, it's not limited to the AR lunatic fringe. Here's Wayne Pacelle, President of the very mainstream Humane Society of the United States:

"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

Pacelle is just one small part of of what I'll again call "an emerging coalition of deeply anti-social people who really do seek a radical reduction in the human population, an end to development, a halt to technology."

I'd also suggest reading this piece (from the American Veterinary Medical Association) warning about "animal guardianship" laws which are rapidly being passed in various American cities:

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec04/041201d.asp

the campaign's primary objective is to shift the legal status of animals from property to personhood.

Leading activists Gary Francion explained the philosophy:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003419.html

These ideas were once wacky; they are now mainstream. What you are calling "free association" I am calling a coalition.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, these people have no right to sterilize my animal at all -- especially in the name of "animal rights."

Forget "animal rights" -- don't your neighbors have a right to take reasonable measures to keep the animal population under control? We may disagree on what constitute "reasonable measures," but it really doesn't help to shout "I gotta right!" when faced with other people's legitimate concerns about both animal and human welfare. Much as you may love your dog(s), as I love my cats, you and your pet(s) are not the only ones with rights here.

The people who would force me to sterilize my dog may not all be animal rights activists, but I think a lot of them are being duped, and in any event they don't seem to have thought about the premises or the underlying philosophy...

That could be because they don't care about, or support, the alleged underlying philosophy. Just because one or two people advocate a certain policy as part of a certain "underlying philosophy," doesn't mean others support said policy for the same reason. Plenty of people support the sterilization of pets for a multitude of reasons having nothing at all to do with "animal rights" or reducing human population. Calling those people "duped," without even asking what their reasons are, only implies that you don't care about their concerns -- and that is, in fact, exactly why fanatics, conspiracy-buffs, and ideologues of the left and right throw that word about so often.

you and your pet(s) are not the only ones with rights here

I never argued against anyone's right to control animal overpopulation. They can do so by trapping and euthanizing problem animals, sterilizing any animals roaming around or coming into pounds, etc.

But what concievable "right" does anyone have in removing my dog's ovaries without any showing that I or my dog have done harm? It's not as if I'm allowing Coco to roam the streets. She lives in my house, and what she does with her ovaries is no more anyone's business than what I do with my genitalia.

What someone might think she "might" do because of what others might have done -- that is not a reason to threaten me with criminal sanctions.

Really, this is like saying that because I might give someone venereal disease or might have children, that my nuts should be removed.

What this is about, though, is not controlling overpopulation, but outlawing dog breeding. I've tried to prove that as best I can, and I'm sorry you don't agree.

...It's not as if I'm allowing Coco to roam the streets. She lives in my house, and what she does with her ovaries is no more anyone's business than what I do with my genitalia.

What someone might think she "might" do because of what others might have done -- that is not a reason to threaten me with criminal sanctions.

If lawmakers in a given community notice large numbers of pet-owners failing to exercise the restraint you promise, then who can blame them for not trusting you to keep your promise? Not all people who drink and drive are dangerous, but so many are, that we outlaw drunk driving by anyone. That's not fair to the more competent among us either, but it's to be expected -- even the best laws are blunt instruments. Besides, pet-owners abandon their pets every day; how does the state know you won't do the same some day?

A friend of mine had a cat, who went into heat before she could be sterilized. During her heat, a large number of male cats gathered outside my friend's apartment to serenade the cat. And this cat wasn't even let outside of second-storey apartment! Thus, my friend's failure to sterilize her cat had an impact on the surrounding community (promptly rectified, I might add).

Perhaps the people in your community felt that requiring owners to sterilize their animals was a form of "taxation in kind" that spared them the expense, danger and heartache of trapping and killing unwanted, and possibly dangerous, animals.

I don't think the analogy to drunk driving is valid, because anyone who drives on a public street affects all other drivers on the road. I could see your point in the case of someone who allowed his animal to roam, though, and I have no problem with mandatory sterilization of wandering animals. Once the animal roams, I think your drunk driver analogy applies. The idea of preempting the problem caused by roaming animals by sterilizing all animals would be analogous to forbidding drinking in bars or restaurants (or even at home) because "large numbers of drinkers fail to exercise restraint."

I also don't think a proper analogy can be drawn between dogs and cats, because dogs are not allowed to roam, and if they are, they can be legally impounded. Cats inherently wander, and cannot be controlled by their owners. There are also huge numbers of feral cats, unlike the case of dogs.

While it's not related to my situation, you mentioned "a large number of male cats gathered outside my friend's apartment" -- for which you blamed your friend's "failure to sterilize her cat."

This "failure" is, IMO, not responsible for the problem of stray and wandering cats. The owners of the cats should be held responsible, but they are not. If the cats are feral, it means the animal control people are not doing their job.

(Such behavior by dogs would not be tolerated, and it has something to do with the distinction betweem dogs and cats. Similarly, cats are allowed to kill wild animals, while dogs are not.)

Notwithstanding this inherent, possibly unfair distinction, let's just suppose your friend had a purebred cat she wanted to show and breed, and which she did not allow to wander. It is one thing to say that she is running a certain risk by having an unneutered cat, but to criminalize her conduct is like prohibiting women from wearing short skirts because men might rape them.

Why single out her cat? Wouldn't it be a better solution to round up and sterilize the obnoxious male cats which had no right to be there?

A friend of mine had a cat, who went into heat before she could be sterilized. During her heat, a large number of male cats gathered outside my friend's apartment to serenade the cat. And this cat wasn't even let outside of second-storey apartment! Thus, my friend's failure to sterilize her cat had an impact on the surrounding community (promptly rectified, I might add).

Hi. This is Raging Bee's friend, his ex-wife. Since this is my cat, who is now Raging Bee's cat, we're discussing here, I thought I'd jump into the fray and tell the whole story.

The cat in question was scheduled to be sterilized and went into heat 4 or 5 days before she was to have had her appointment. I was living in Maryland at the time and they had a low cost spay/neuter program for people who didn't have much money to spay and neuter their animals. I was put on the waiting list and got an appointment. Unfortunately, a vet will not sterilize the cat when it is in heat. I had to put off the appointment. It was not my choice to allow her to go into heat and then "promptly rectify" it, I had little choice in the matter.

silver cigar case - http://www.allthingssimple.info/silver-cigar-case.html

accessory chair dining table - http://www.bestallgoodtab.info/accessory-chair-dining-table.html