I definitely don’t like the implications, but the guy has a point:
No. Being selfish and argumentative isn’t being libertarian, it’s being a dick. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but so far as I know “DICK” isn’t a political/social philosophy.
Er, this isn’t reflective of libertarians at all. If this were remotely accurate, the pets would be strays/living in open waters. How many libertarians do you know that would argue positively for being “owned”?
Libertarian version would look something like:
1) what the hell? I come up to a house to play with a kid, they slap this collar on me and snip my balls off!
2) Man, it sure would be nice to be able to swim in something other than this friggin box!
3) Um, I really can’t come up with anything libertarian house cats. They are the poster-pet for lazy welfarism. Any libertarian cats would have to be feral and hunting their own food.
1.) sounds more like the entitlement mentality to me.
2) i agree with with JPB or he’d be like: let me determine if i need a filter in my tank.
3.) i would say it’s more about giving food and shelter to the stray cat who is expecting it least.
No, the cartoonist doesn’t have a point. Instead, he has a caricature in his head of what libertarianism is, and has projected that caricature onto non-human interactions. Foolishness.
This is why art majors make poor political analysts.
And of course, you are right to dislike the implications, because if house pets are rational, sapient beings (which they are not), then our ownership of them is equivalent to slavery. And slavery is wrong, kids.
Pingback: Libertarianism Is About Results | Whiskey and Car Keys
Comments are closed.
Join 11 other followers