Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!
Siri asks: What do you think about laws requiring dogs to be transported in portable kennels or otherwise restrained while riding in cars?
My reply: I think they are another example of one-size-fits-all authoritarian busybodyism!
In the first place, it’s your car – and your animal. A matter of property rights. Your electing to let your pooch ride up front – or wherever – causes no harm, as such, to anyone else. Some of those anyone elses might not like it, but that doesn’t give them the right to forcibly intervene and compel you to transport your pup in a cage (ruining the experience of just going for a drive for you both).
I hear the usual warble already . . . but something might happen! The dog might see a cat and suddenly jump in your lap and cause you to lose control!
But only hypothetically.
Rights are a function of actuality. Meaning, simply, that rights aren’t negated by “mights.”
One could just as easily argue that anyone “might” have a seizure while driving; whether it is more or less likely to actually happen than a dog bounding into your lap while driving is pure speculation and in both cases an irrelevance until something actually does happen that causes harm to another party.
At that point, one becomes responsible for whatever the consequences are. Not for consequences that never were – but which “might” have occurred.
This is a hard thing for most people to swallow because they imagine it means a run-amok society. But in the first place, it’s a an exaggerated fear because most people aren’t murderous or reckless by nature – even in the absence of laws – and in the second, the certain knowledge of being held responsible for harms actually caused (which isn’t the case today) would serve as a very powerful deterrent to those who are.
People who are reckless and criminal will be reckless and criminal regardless of “the law.” It is hardly necessary to state this; it’s self-evident. On the other hand, laws that punish people for hypothetical harms not actually caused punish everyone without cause – and that imposes a general harm as well as immoral one, since it is morally wrong to punish people who’ve not harmed anyone.
No matter how much you don’t like what they’re doing or worry that what they’re doing “might” result in harm.
So, I consider this a matter of personal choice. No one else knows better than you whether your dog can be trusted to sit beside you on the passenger seat without interfering with your driving. I would never presume to second guess your decision – because I don’t know your dog and because it’s none of my business… unless you lose control of your vehicle because of your dog and hit my vehicle!
But if that never happens, it’s none of my business – or anyone else’s. Much less the government’s!
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.