|
When I see examples like this one, I think about how socialist Europe is becoming overly willing to legislate the daily affairs of its citizens. This is clearly a law that is overly invasive, disrespectful to the good judgment of pet owners, and not based on the actual physical needs of animals.
Where is the compelling state interest in banning goldfish bowls? Why the hell are we even assuming that goldfish have rights that the government should defend? Unless I'm missing something here, it's still legal in Rome to kill a fish, chop it up, and eat it. If that's legal, then what does it matter that round goldfish bowls supposedly cause the fish to go blind?
I'm being driven towards libertarianism on a daily basis, it seems...
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|