Breed-specific legislation BSL is the blanket term for laws that either regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals. Many states, including New York, Texas and Illinois, favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs individually—regardless of breed—and prohibit BSL.
None of the Google Books links work for me, though. They just link to the same front-page of a book cover and some blurbs. Maybe old-fashioned citations are necessary. Certainly not including the right to pee during work. Which I suppose is intended to impress labour market forces into granting these freedoms anyway…?
Particularly not any forms perceived to be left-wing of the status quo. As Joshua Cohen remarkedduring the liberaltarianism dust-up: There is an inalienable rights tradition Breed specific legislation thesis descends from the Reformation and Enlightenment, and that was developed by the abolitionist and democratic movements into a per se critique of the voluntary slavery contract and the undemocratic constitution of the pactum subjectionis.
That critique has nothing to do with pee breaks. There is also an analysis of the person rental institution from the view point of property rights, but that is conceptually more demanding e.
These laws are evil, and the people that support them and benefit from them are wholly immoral as well. The laws you support mean that hundreds of millions of people will never even get the opportunity to complain about something like that.
We can observe the following traits shared by slavery and capitalism: In other words, what is effected by physical distance in one is effected by the anonymity of the market in the other.
This is true in capitalism too, at least in principle: This is created by the effects of command. Abstract labor is the sheer power of creation, to do anything at all. Obviously, this too is something of an unrealized ideal: As Moses Finley first pointed outmost societies take it for granted that no human is completely free or completely dependent, rather, all have different degrees of rights and obligations.
Hence the doctrine of personal liberty — outside the workplace — or even the notion of freedom of contract, that one so often encounters in societies dominated by wage labor, does not really mean we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of system. It means we are dealing with a transformation.
So, in effect, a transfer effected just once, by sale, under a regime of slavery is transformed into one that is repeated over and over again under capitalism.
Now, it might seem a bit impertinent to compare the morning commute to the Middle Passage, but structurally they do seem to play exactly the same role.
What is accomplished once, and violently and catastrophically, in one variant, is repeated with endless mind-numbing drudgery in the other. Libertarians, by and large, do little more than annoy people on the Internet.
Republicans etchave actual power and do their best to a increase human suffering and b make sure the rights of the rich to exploit the poor are never challenged. Targeting them unambiguously is more productive. I now await the inevitable complaints that I am tone trolling.
But otherwise the Graeber is very good. The original post is also excellent for what it is, an argument between progressives and libertarians. The argument could be trivially simple: Some employers impose costs on other employers through higher costs because of their behavior.
The reasons for these higher costs is that it increases the expected dis-utility of labor, ergo ex ante higher wages are demanded. Restricting this behavior can therefore slightly lower wages.
If morality is contractual, then these solutions would not violate that morality. Then again some people might call me a statist or paternalist and argue that the state cannot possibly know more than individuals do…the alternative would then be anarchy or to carefully formulate conditions under which we know the state would know more than individuals.
On that note, Curmudgeon, I think you get it pretty wrong in wanting to tie this to Republicans and Conservatives. Wage labor and right to contract yourself into slavery are hardly exclusively conservative positions; Democrats and New Labour just think the conditions under which you enslave yourself should be a very little more hospitable.
Lines up rather well with Graeber, I think: It has been frequently noted that many corporations exceed nation states in GDP.BSL is an ethical failure.
BSL is a public safety failure. Description.
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a law that bans OR restricts certain types of dogs based on their appearance, usually because they are perceived as “dangerous” breeds or types of dogs.
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is defined as a law or statute that equates the qualities of a dangerous dog with a certain breed, and bans or restricts certain breeds based on identity, not behavior of . Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics (United States) [Karen Delise] on grupobittia.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Today's headlines are filled with horror stories about fatal dog attacks. Consequently, the public has grown increasingly . Breed-specific laws can be difficult to enforce, especially when a dog's breed can't easily be determined or if it is of mixed breed. Frequently, breed-specific legislation focuses on dogs with a certain appearance or physical characteristics, instead of an actual breed.
Arguments for and Against Breed Specific Laws The dog bite epidemic is of great concern to humanitarians, the government, the insurance industry, and canine professionals, among others.
In addition, the nearly constant reports of pit bulls killing and maiming children is of special interest to the public in general. Breed Specific Laws Everyone agrees that people are to blame for the dog-bite problem, but there are different opinions about whether breeds are also a cause.
The time has arrived, many believe, for restricting the presence of, and even eliminating, certain breeds.