However, so long as your actions cause no harm (physical or monetary) to others, you should be able to do as you like with your property. A case can be made against dog owners that are irresponsible. It is an abortion of that principle to claim that ALL dog owners that do not choose to neuter/spay are irresponsible, and therefore in need of punishment. This is logic equivalent to that used by gun control activists: some people use guns irresponsibly; therefore, all gun owners should be punished. Or, more specific: all gun owners that do not use gun locks are prima facie irresponsible.

The logic that the animal is your personal property and so you can do as you like is absurd. By not sterilizing your pet, and if it breeds more animals, those feral or abandoned animals become an additional expense on society.

Why not address my actual argument? Why not fine the irresponsible dog owners?

You see, your statement has a lot of ifs in it. If the dog fucks. If the dog produces more offspring. If those offspring become abandoned and/or feral. Then, maybe, they will become an additional expense to society. Your laws attack individual dog owners BEFORE any of those ifs ever have the possibility of realization. It attacks dog owners that are responsible, and who do not let their dogs run free. Why not attack those owners whos dogs actually become an expense to society?

Your assumption that dogs are not private property make your argument even more absurd. Do you have a right to dictate what humans get sterilized? If dogs have the same rights, then how do you see these laws as protecting of those rights? Do you claim dogs to be some sort of communal property whose fate may be determined via vote by that community? What if that community voted that dogs make excellent steaks?

Indy would be a waste of cash. A new party might be fun for a few cycles but would just take up the sliver of room between the CP and LP until the loud idiots take it over. I think Paul could wait til the week before the LP convention and still be the front-runner going in.

Barr/Paul (in either order) would bring in both the most votes and a biggest share of activists & volunteers (from the ranks of Paul supporters). However, it would receive as much bad media attention as good (all the same anti-Paul articles we’ve read already, with spoiler and sore-loser additives).

Paul/Kubby (in either order) would bring in as many votes as Paul/Anybody, but Kubby might make it an easier sell here in CA.

Yup, I’m still holding out hope that RP’s going to pull a Perot. I’m not going to be able to disabuse myself of that hypothetical for another few weeks.

C’mon Steve. Can the wishful thinking. You and I both know that Bob Barr has no intention of running for president, and he’s made all within earshot quite aware of that.

Yea, cuz if he did the ENTIRE Outright Liber-nazi organization would revolt – all 5 of them. The LP would be doomed!