There’s an internet meme going around that in Finland, you cannot buy a dog until all the shelters are empty.
It’s not true, but people wish it was, because we’ve all seen the “In the Arms of the Angel” Sarah McLachlan commercial, and if you didn’t feel bad for not picking up the next stray you see on a street corner, you should just step off that corner into traffic, you monster.
This kind of thing is a great example of feel good authoritarianism. Which is, by the way, the best kind of authoritarianism!
What makes adopting shelter dog more virtuous than buying a professionally bred dog?
Whoops! That’s question 8, question 1 is; “What makes you the dog chooser for someone else?”
What claim do you have to walk into someone else’s life and limit the choices presented by the market? What makes you think you know their situation better than they do? Be it their choice of dog, or their choice of bag at the grocery store.
Individually, we understand that WE are uniquely positioned to know what is best for our lives, but when considering others, we imagine they inexplicably lack this ability. “Everyone is stupid except me. I know better than them, so I’ll just force them to listen.”
It’s wasteful to buy a new car when there are used cars. It’s elitist to buy ground beef when there’s so much potted meat available. It’s wrong to have your own children when so many are up for adoption. Where does it end?
No, this is not a “Slippery Slope” argument. It’s an argument of principle. The very root of the concept of telling someone else what dog they can and can’t buy is authoritarianism and statism. There’s no slope to slide down, you’re already at the bottom. The only difference is how big the briar patch is at the bottom of the hill.
Feel-good-ism requires you to believe you know better than someone else, and requires you enforce your will on them with direct or the threat of force.
Have you ever had potted meat?
© Copyright applies, details in sidebar