Dear Friends,
It seems to me, to willingly invite government regulation, is foolish. I bet everyone who invites regulation into their lives, do not believe it will ever apply to them… else they wouldn’t do it. Yet regulation is not a stone, it is more like water, and filthy water at that. It seeps into everything it touches. Even the most well intentioned regulations then, always eventually spread and interfere with normal operations, thus effecting the very people, who believed they would never be effected. I see this happen all the time, in a myriad of places, where government has no business whatsoever. Government sticking it’s long nose in. Yet we, in mindless empathy, will invite the government into the most intimate parts of our lives, never thinking how that could come back to bite us… and it does.
The latest thing I see going around, is people excited the government is going to regulate the interactions between dog owners, and our dogs. No way that could go wrong. Today people are cheering the new regulations determining how long a dog can be tied. The other meme is that a dog cannot be left outside all night. While I agree that dogs should not be tied for too long, nor should they be left outside all night, I am not willing to open the door to government interfering with my relationship with my dogs. Today they want to decide how long I can chain my dogs, and that I cannot let them out all night, tomorrow, they may decide what type of bed I need to provide them, and what calorie intake is best… with appropriate punishments for failure to comply.
Who and what agency is supposed to enforce these regulations? Is it by nosy neighbor or by a government official? If by a government official then what will be the budget to enforce this new code? I wonder, how often the official will visit every dog in town, to insure uniform compliance with the regulations? If the enforcement mechanism is by nosy neighbor, then clearly the regulations are arbitrary, and as such are unjust. Because, the definition of justice requires consistency, and enforcement by nosy neighbor is anything but consistent. Every regulation contains within itself these, not insubstantial questions, which must be answered if a regulation is to be enforced fairly. If it is a means to keep a politically disfavored group from having dogs on the other hand…
We all know regulations are only enforced against the politically weak… and regulations we invite in are even more so. The most glaring example of this is the selective punishment for perjury to Congress and the courts. When we examine the consequences of people who have verifiably and materially lied to Congress, James Comey, John Brennen, James Clapper, Eric Holder, Micheal Cohen and for good measure, H R Haldeman. In most cases, Comey, Brennen, and Clapper, they have not been charged. That is not to say, they could not be charged later, if they loose their political favor, but they have not as of today. Holder was convicted of lying to Congress and faced a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, H R Haldeman was sentenced to eight years in prison, and served eighteen months, for his lie.
So it is clear that regulations, like perjury, are selectively enforced, and when selectively enforced they are not just laws, but arbitrary rules, to punish the politically weak. In the case of the government stepping in and regulating how you interact with your dog, if you have political favor, you can rest assured that those regulations will not apply to you, no matter how flagrantly you flaunt them. If however, you happen to be politically weak, ie, poor, come from a “bad family,” a lower percentile in intellect, or are simply disagreeable, those regulations could be used against you, as a means to keep you from having a dog. If you think about it, there are thousands of ways government noses in, where it doesn’t belong, pushing open the door by our misplaced compassion… our own foolishness.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
