Thursday, February 15, 2007

Fuuuurrrr, it's cold out there

I applaud Virginia Congressman Jim Moran for requiring the honest labeling of fur. Faux fir made in China is often real fur from dogs and cats that is mislabeled and sold as the fake stuff.

It is illegal to import, export, sell or advertise any domestic dog or cat fur in the United States. Fur from other animals must be identified with a label, but only if the value of the fur exceeds $150. U.S. Representatives Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Michael Ferguson (R-N.J.), along with 25 additional cosponsors, today introduced the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, which aims to protect consumers and animals by outlawing the import of fur from raccoon dogs and requiring all garments trimmed with fur to be labeled, regardless of value.

However, I don’t understand why it is illegal to sell dog or cat fur but not the fur from non-companion animals such as mink or fox. Wearing fur of any type of animal is cruel and inhumane. If it were not, I would turn my cat Fiddle Sticks into a scarf. He is sooooo soft!



5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice pussy.

Hayduke said...

There it is! The first picture of your pet!

As if that weren't enough, you went and changed your template, too.

These are watershed moments, my friend. You are officially a blogger. Welcome to the club.

Why people still wear fur is beyond me, but does that mean we should make it illegal?

FreeMarket said...

I don’t see a moral difference between wearing human skin and wearing fur or leather. So yes, I think wearing fur should be illegal. There was a time when using animals for survival was necessary. Some primitive societies still rely on killing animals to survive, and that is fine. Those folks have much more respect for animals than we do. In a modern society like ours, killing animals so that we may survive is no longer necessary. Let’s leave animals the heck alone now.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised to hear this sentiment, FreeMarket. A common refrain on this blog and in your comments on other blogs is that we should leave decisions such as this to the free market.

If we are to leave the wellbeing of our children to the free market, as would be the case with not banning smoking in public areas, why not leave the welfare of animals to the free market as well?

In a modern society like ours, smoking is no longer necessary, so why allow it? Perhaps there was a time when growing and selling tobacco for economic survival was necessary, but not now.

If killing animals to survive is truly unnecessary, why not leave that to the individual to decide, rather than mandating your personal beliefs?

For the record, I am all for banning the sale of fur, meat, cigarettes, chocolate, diamonds, milk, and video games. But I am curious as to why you take this uncharacteristically emotional and irrational departure from libertarianism.

FreeMarket said...

Good question, Numbers. Generally, I think government regulation is a bad idea. However, I do not believe that humans should violate the moral rights of animals. A law to ban the abuse and misuse of animals would acceptable to me because such a law legally protects the moral rights of non-human species. Similarly, you don’t hear me suggesting that laws against murder should be repealed so that people can be free to murder those who wrong them. Murder is a violation of one’s moral rights, so laws against murder are justified by the same logic. Btw, I don’t think that is a departure from Libertarianism.