I just missed out that we’re talking about animals as pets so there might be some “inner resistances” to trade-in a single morph for a 2 or 3 gen morph, escpecially when I’m thinking about my first ball python. I’d never trade or sell him

Just my 2 cents,

cheers,

Axel

Cheers!

John

Herp Harder!

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the things I write. I appreciate it.

I’m always happy to see that reptiles can be a common footing for people who disagree on things politically and philosophically. I tend to walk away and say, “Well, at least we’ve got snakes…”

I’m curious about the personally invasive laws you mentioned (in Virginia). I don’t know about them so if you’d let me know, I’ll be grateful.

People who read what I write often assume that I’m a republican. I’m not. For those who care I consider myself an Objectivist Libertarian with an unfortunate tendency toward anarchism (a realization with which I continue to struggle). I’m not perfect at being one (an objectivist libertarian) but I’m constantly learning and assimilating. The sad state of our political system sometimes forces me to seem republican because I am so NOT a democrat.

The fate of reptiles is more of a party line issue than it is not a party line issue. But reptiles are not interesting enough to be considered an issue for either party, I’m afraid. They become a party line issue by being pawn material in larger environmental issues (e.g. global warming allows Burmese pythons to migrate north into New York, for instance). They are positioned in the environmental battle to become anecdotal evidence (most likely for an environmentalist Democrat) later down the line. They are also a party line issue because it is more of a tendency for Democrats to take the “I know what’s best for you so I’m going to make rules that decide for you” approach. No, republicans are not immune from such things either. But come now, who does it more? Health care and Social Security come to mind right about now.

I’m going to refrain from commenting on your digs on the health care system. We do not agree and never will. Back and forth between us will not yield any results. I can tell from you comments that the gap between our perspectives is not one to be bridged.

Best,

Colin

As for this one, I’m afraid it’s overly simplistic. If exotic laws were a party-line issue, we wouldn’t see legislative “attacks” on reptile (and other exotics) ownership at the state level irregardless of how the state voted in the presidential election or which party controls the given state’s general assembly. Virginia, for example, voted for Barack Obama in both ’08 and ’12; yet, the state is Republican controlled and enacting some of the most personally invasive laws imaginable. This can be seen throughout the South, legislative attacks on all types of personal freedoms. In North Carolina, a bill updating an outdated obscenity law making an errant (female) nipple a felony offense, for example, not to mention. Obscenity and reproductive health laws are rife throughout the south and some of the most personally invasive laws for a family, not just the individual woman.

When it comes to weighing the issues, two things come to mind, first personal freedom, then morality. I enjoy personal freedom, but that means not only being able to own and breed reptiles but also to be able to buy the morning after pill over the counter or to get an abortion if I so choose. This second freedom is so important to me that I will vote for it at the expense of other freedoms if the latest jackass in office decides to hold it hostage under the guise of “small government.” The second issue, morality, is quite sticky, but it’s one I have some experience with being degreed in philosophy and steeped in ethical studies. Sometimes our choies are hard. I mean, I want to have reptiles, and I want to breed them, but I also want that my neighbors and marginalized peoples not suffer from hunger and that hard working people have access to affordable health care and not be robbed penniless by a privatized medical system and bloodsucking pharmaceutical industry. That not just wealthy children but all children have food and opportunity for an excellent education places a moral imperative on me that I vote with my conscious considering the least among us and not just my own desire to bank on breeding animals (which is another ethical consideration all together).

So considering that both parties attempt to enact invasive legislations, some more personal than others, and considering that ethical considerations outweigh (at least for me) my perceived right to breed exotic animals for profit, it’s just not as simple as voting red equals more freedom and voting blue equals less freedom. The real question each person must ask is what *is* freedom? And is my freedom of greater value than freedom for other people? The answer to these questions places an imperative on the individual to vote according to their personal conscious and to understand and acknowledge one important moral fact: Voting according to conscious may create additional challenges and burdens for me or for an entire society, but that has no bearing on it absolutely being the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

I did get a new dog about a year ago; a 4-year old Weimaraner. A rescue! And the kicker: my friend who works with rescues/shelters brought us together.

Funny how things work out sometimes…