Here’s another oldie on the subject of resisting evil and stepping up to make the world just a tiny bit better. I’d forgotten all about having written it until a friend mentioned it the other day: “Sex, Drugs and Good Deeds.”
I guess I can confess now that “Mrs. Smith” was me. Nobody here will be surprised.
If there were a heaven it would be a place where we are reunited with all the dogs we have ever loved. You will have a really awesome pack when you arrive there.
That was a fabulous story Mrs Smith thanks for writing it.
That’s a keeper. Thanks, I needed it today! 🙂
Great story. Doing a simple act of kindness may not change the world, but it could change the world of one other creature.
At the risk of going off-topic, one way that folks can do a little something for privacy and communication freedom is by running a TOR relay ( http://www.torproject.org ). It isn’t hard to do, just use the Vidalia Bundle appropriate for your operating system. You take on a real risk of getting hassled by running an Exit relay, but running a non-exit relay is relatively safe and still contributes to the TOR network. Of course, the IP address of the non-exit relay is known by The Authorities, so they can track you down if they want, but so far this has not been a problem in most of the least-oppressive statist regimes. For some time the network has plateaued at about 2400-2500 relays, with approx. 1/3 being exit relays. The more relays we have, the more secure and anonymous we can be, the faster our anonymous browsing becomes, and the more difficult it becomes for The Authorities to track users.
As I mentioned, running an exit relay has its risks (see https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en#TypicalAbuses). By sticking your neck out just a little bit as a non-exit relay you can contribute to a more secure and anonymous web.
That is how it’s done. Good work.
I have never stolen a dog myself. A couple might of followed me home a time or two, but strictly voluntary.
I did wind up with a dog that was neglected and abused that a friend had bought from the abusing family. It was only to get him rehabilitated and readjusted to a loving family. 8 years later, he’s still underfoot.
Cats were all abused and abandoned, 3 out of 4 were just temps, not staying long. The last one has only been around about 3 years now. Just can’t find quite the right home.
Worst day I ever had was helping rescue a load of Golden Retrievers. County had resued them but the only recourse was ultimately Euthinasia or deliver them to the rescue society. Drove 300 miles in the august heat of AZ with a truck load of puppies. I didn’t know dogs got motion sickness. They were all cared for and adopted out to well screened and loving families though.
One little act of kindness has the possibility of creating a big change, much in the same way one loose neutron can cause a big reaction under the right circumstances.
Some years ago, a neighbor just staked out a dog and forgot about him. I fed and watered him for a couple weeks,and a coworker suggested calling the law, so I did. To their credit, they were out in less than 30 minutes,and took the dog away(I never found out what happened to him). I hope he got adopted by a family.
All of my pets have been shelter pets or rescues, everything from a lab rat(who lived 18 months longer than is typical) to my current cat, Sir Louie. Animals can be grateful for being rescued and adopted-anyone who thinks otherwise has never had a rescued pet.
As you said, I worked no miracles, but I made a few animals happy, I suppose,even if one was just a rat…
A great one for the holidays! I did help find a new home for a neighbor’s mistreated dog once and last I heard he was in doggie heaven.
I think all of us who have pets should be ready and willing to care for them properly. Feed them well, give them a healthy place to stay and be willing to at least basic vet care. I’m simply not willing and able to spend 10’s of thousands on pet chemo but do less extensive care. That also be willing to be there at the end of their road and help the passing.
If you are going to do a rescue, please be careful and plan it out.
Steve
From what I’ve seen of ‘official’ county and city animal facilities – I wouldn’t wish that on any animal. Calling ‘the authorities’ is the absolute last thing I would do for an already endangered animal.
I used to live in a barrio that had a couple (M&F) resident dogs that had been left there many years before by their people – no one knew the dog’s histories – only that they lived there and had for years.
One night a house guest was nipped by the male dog – given the circumstances it was pretty obvious that it was her fault. She kept on for a couple of days wondering if she should ‘do something’ about the bite. It was barely a scratch – so I told her to clean it up and we could easily observe the dog for rabies as it lived right there in the neighborhood. Well – she called the authorities – wondering if she should worry about the ‘bite’. By the time I was home they’d already captured him and taken him away to the pound. Needless to say – I was not happy with that person at all.
I couldn’t afford the dog’s bail – so got in touch with the local rescue group and persuaded them to pay 1/2. But there were conditions… Understandably – they wanted him neutered – but they also didn’t want him to go home. I took the money and drove down into the heart of the Big City and took him out of that hellhouse. Imagine living free in a small community and suddenly getting trapped and kidnapped and brought to some horrible drunk tank – that was about the size of it. Adding insult to injury – he was then licensed – and he got a special license that designated him as a ‘biter’ – so the next time he might fall into the system there would be no reprieve.
The first stop was the spay and neuter center – and then to his temporary foster home. It took a few placements to get him with the right people – but last I heard he was an only dog on several rural acres. It worked out well in the long run – but it was such a shame to see an animal have to go through such a transition for a human that didn’t have 1/2 the sense that he had.
The female of the couple stayed on in the community and was finally adopted by one of my room mates once I’d moved along – so things turned out well for her too.
If you have to get involved in the affairs of animals – I’d strongly suggest NOT going through official channels. Though animal rescue groups are generally short on resources – they’ll often come through and allow for a better resolution overall. Once you’ve seen a few county or city pounds you’ll probably see that the odds of an adult animal getting out of there alive are slim.
I am so proud (and not at all surprised) to know this place is full of folks who step up to do great deeds for small critters. 🙂
Kudos to Claire and to all who rescue animals … I find animal rescue to be one of the most rewarding of all endeavors … and St Francis is my favorite of all the saints, not only because he is the patron saint of animals, but his ‘peace prayer’ is the cornerstone of my faith ‘Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace, where there is hatred, let me sow love …’ thanks for this article, Claire, I’m sending it out to all my ‘rescue friends ”’
I’m sorry, that gets the ‘Statist Thug of the Gulch’ award. Being a libertarian means not interfering with how other people use their property, such as animals. Now, you have no grounds for complaint against the people who kill abortionists, or the child welfare system. Both of those groups are imposing their personal standards on others by force, just like you, for the children.
If the dog owner had caught you in the act and shot you, that would only be proportional to your considered, premeditated act of government. Today kidnapping for his dog, tomorrow public school for his child.
Our St. Bernard is a rescued-by-our-son dog, kinda like “Mrs. Smith” except he did an in-your-face rescue (he is a Marine) and carried the dog off with the owner screaming (empty) threats. Made us mighty proud, he did.
My wife is a member of several animal associations that help animals, and many of her hard earned dollars go to those causes (though I don’t agree with some of those groups, I won’t speak ill of them because they do bring awareness).
She frets so much for the animals (mostly dogs and cats) that are dumped here in the piney woods. Some have been so abused they won’t come to us, but accept our food after we leave their area. Some turn wild and go after cattle, and their fate is always a sad one.
Frequently, we have some animals come to out home. We care for what we can, and we take some to a no-kill shelter in the area where they might have a chance at a decent life. We frequently, when going to town, will drop off food and supplies to that shelter. Though they are always maxed out with animals, they seem to really care and truly do try to help the dogs and cats that have had a rough go with life.
We only go to town a couple of times a month and I don’t know that we have ever made the trip without me seeing tears in my wife’s eyes at some point along the way because of seeing a dog or cat ran over/dead on the highway in the middle of nowhere….or a couple of dogs dumped/standing on the side of the road, wearing collars without tags, as they look back and forth for their owner to come back for them.
The cycle never seems to end. The sadness can be overwhelming at times. So many mistreated animals and only so much a person can do.
Thank you, Claire for being who you are. I just emailed my wife your article to let her know she is not alone in this fight.
Well, Anonymous, that topic’s been done to death (https://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=22159.0) and as long as you don’t see any difference between a dog and a Dodge or a cat and a catamaran, there’s nowhere to go with the discussion.
However, I do invite you back to share with us the stories of the many times you personally put yourself at risk (or even mildly inconvenienced yourself) to save lives or put a halt to suffering caused by cruelty.
One belief I have is that anyone who can do something cruel to an animal could easily do the same to a person unable to defend themselves-in my opinion, it’s a very short step. When I was in high school, we lived near a guy that was suspected in the deaths of several pets in the area(all died in similar ways-broken neck or shot with a .22-usually in the owner’s yard)but nothing was ever proven.
He cussed and threatened everyone that walked by his place(according to him, he owned the road halfway out,and you better not get caught on “his half”). This wack attack had a wife and child..wonder what their life was like?
My kitty was dumped out in the middle of nowhere when she was in that teenage stage of kittenhood. She saw me out deerhunting, climbed in my coat, and just insisted that I take her home with me! I named her Snuggles because that’s what she does.
She was half-starved at the time, and her paws were burned in such a way that I’m pretty sure she tried to get food out of a burn barrel, so it’s amazing she was that friendly. One week after bringing her home, my older cat died, which made Snuggles seem extra special.
Claire, in that discussion thread you wrote:
“My question is: Why do you believe that animals should be property in exactly the same sense that a car or a DVD player is property?
Not why they should be owned. But why they should be regarded in the same light as inanimate objects.”
I do perceive a difference between a feeling, thinking, living non-human mammal and a boat. The belief “it nauseates me so I will hire someone to kill you if you do it” was sufficient to motivate the popular support that enabled the genocides of the 20th century. Given that anti-survival outcome, the idea of legal intervention for animal rights and other hot-button issues seems destructive to have as a moral rule. It appears that a human moral system must not legally prosecute these acts lest it be in danger of doing genocide. Thus, I believe animals should receive the same legal treatment as boats.
“Who wants to live in a world where every human is expected to think exactly like every other?”
I want to live in a world where people who have deep moral disagreements with me work hard to avoid conflict and thereby stay out of my yard.
“However, I do invite you back to share with us the stories of the many times you personally put yourself at risk (or even mildly inconvenienced yourself) to save lives or put a halt to suffering caused by cruelty.”
I have rescued many a child from the abuse of homeschooling by their fundamentalist Christian parents. I released them to the care of a public school, where they will receive a proper liberal education designed by certified experts. Before I worked for the child protective services, I assassinated abortionists. I believe I have chosen my moral values in exactly the same way you have (intuitive gut reaction –> government policy), and as I am using your moral foundation I expect you will honor my moral choices as equally as you value yours.
Anonymous — You are the only one talking about “legal intervention.” You are the only one equating the individual action of rescuers with handing children over to the state. I don’t know where you’re making those connections; they bear no relationship to a commitment to individual responsibility.
“The same legal treatment as boats” also makes no sense — neither from a humane viewpoint nor from a free-market anarchist one (e.g. the one I hold). “Legal treatment” has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.
Also, you’ve posted here twice and both times included images of violence — someone shooting me for taking his dog, “you” shooting an abortion doctor. The idea seems to be on you mind a lot.
Since you responded only snidely to my (also admittedly snide) suggestion that you recount your own actions to help others, I take it that you indeed have no history of taking individual risks to prevent harm to the helpless and victimized. You speak from a position of “philosophical purity” and “moral superiority.” But you also speak as someone who wants to stand on the sidelines and tell others how they should behave.
This is a waste of time.
I think I can see where Anonymous is coming from though I don’t share his perspective. If I were stealing an abused dog from its owner it would be with the expectation that the owner might object violently if he became aware of it. I would take the necessary precautions and weigh the risk of my actions prior to the deed. The legality of my act would be only a minor consideration. I suspect that people who believe abortion is murder might think much the same way. Everyone must act according to their personal moral code knowing that it could someday, in some circumstance, be fatal. I don’t share the belief that abortion is murder but I think I understand why those who do act like they sometimes do. I don’t like it but I think I understand.
Generally speaking stealing someone’s dog is not a good thing. However allowing a dog to be mistreated is not a good thing either. Stealing is not something I would do lightly . I choose to risk the wrath of the owner and the law to rescue the dog knowing there may be consequences. Sometimes the risk is worth is worth it whatever the outcome.
Bravo, Woody. Well said.
Okay so people stealing abused dogs leads to government schooling and genocide. Yeah sure, if you say so.
Then tell me where it leads when you live in a society where people stand around and watch people abuse and torture animals and say, “See what a great property rights respecter I am!”
@Anonymous you pat yourself on the back but a society full of people like you would be worse than one where crazy ladies and mean Marines once in a while steal an animal and are willing to face the consequences.
Claire, you are arguing that the intuitions of your gut shall be the law of the land. You are imposing your religion at the point of a sword, and you will sometimes personally wield the sword that enforces your laws. Your only claim to moral authority is that a majority have the same gut-feelings. What you are doing is called government, and it is not any better because it is not yet housed in a building with Roman columns.
Woody, every enforcer will suffer the consequences of their acts, that’s why they are called “consequences”. The consequences to a US federal government enforcer are usually small. That you have emotionally prepared to suffer the consequences for your animal rescue does not detract or balance in the slightest for the immorality of your act of theft. A good illustration of this separation is the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy shootout with the crying, feeling your pain, yet still psychopathic cops.
“Then tell me where it leads when you live in a society where people stand around and watch people abuse and torture animals and say, “See what a great property rights respecter I am!””
This libertarian worldview is not a new one. When John Wayne said in a movie “it’s a free country, isn’t it?”, that’s what that meant.
Oh the horror — that when faced with the choice between allowing harm to a living, feeling creature or violating some thug’s property rights, one should allow personal morality to determine which of two values is higher. Yes, far better that one should merely submit to the libertarian Borg.
The correct purpose of a ZAP legal system is to defend dog abusers from aggression by their liberal neighbors. My right to dispose of my property is not supposed to be subject to your approval, your weighing-of-the-scales, or your anything else. That gives me an idea: use animal abuse as bait to catch statists red-handed. I bet lots of LINO who would leave a religious commune alone would steal an abused animal.
What is the libertarian “worldview”? — that we are free to make our own choices? That we have a right to judge an action based on an individual’s concept of morality? That property rights include humaneness? Guilty as charged.
I haven’t heard anyone argue that their “gut-feelings” should be the law of the land, and certainly not at the point of a sword. The fact that you are outnumbered here is not because we are being told what to believe, but because several happen to believe as Claire does.
We will take the consequences of our actions, whether “moral” in your view or not; and see which one of us dies freer and more guiltless while undertaking those actions.
@Anonymous => troll.
I actually don’t disagree with what anonymous is saying. It is logically consistent. The problem is that I am not ideologically rigid enough to allow an animal to be treated cruelly in my presence even though I recognize that my intervention would be a violation of the animal’s owner’s property rights and possibly the Zero Aggression Principle. I suppose that puts me in the same general category with people who attack abortionists. 🙁 But different in degree, perhaps. I’ll accept the consequences of my acts and the condemnation of Anonymous and his fellow ideologically pure brethren.
Karel, I don’t think Anonymous is a Troll. Any time someone forces me to confront the consistency of my beliefs it forces me to think, and that is generally a good thing. I admit I’m suffering a little cognitive dissonance over this discussion. I still have no intention of allowing animals to be treated cruelly if I can help it but it has forced me to reexamine my core philosophical beliefs. For the moment I guess I’ll have to stop thinking of myself as libertarian.
Woody, I applaud your thoughtfulness. And I agree with you; it’s good to have our beliefs challenged. But let me differ with a few specifics.
IMHO, Anonymous’s viewpoint is logically consistent only if you regard living things as being no different than inanimate objects. And only if you think somebody who wants the law on his side one minute and claims the ZAP as his authority the next can be called consistent.
Also, I hope you would never change your definition of yourself because some anonymous stranger thinks you should (though I also think the particular label doesn’t matter much; was there an implied smiley after your final sentence?). Besides, you’re dealing with a stranger who just concluded that anyone — anyone at all — who would protect an animal against abuse is a “liberal” and a “statist.” I’d hardly be inclined to think his judgments are very nuanced or accurate.
I do believe Anonymous is a troll. I think it’s highly likely he’s the same person who posted so endlessly on this topic at that Mental Militia link under the handle “Disavowed Spook.” He probably won’t admit that, but he’s certainly DS’s twin. Both appear to be riding a hobby horse. Both are rigid purists who see only black & white. Neither shows any regard for living things — other than property owners. Both insist on “property rights” as if it were a religious chant rather than a concept that has a lot of real-world implications.
Another thing I notice about them both is that they seem obsessed with violence and to relish contemplating and describing violence. You’re a kind person, Woody. But to me, anybody who would suggest tormenting animals merely to perform some sort of philosophical purity test (as Anon just did) has gone well beyond the pale.
I’m going to choose to be grateful that Anonymous is obviously a talker, not a do-er.
Claire said ‘Anonymous’s viewpoint is logically consistent only if you regard living things as being no different than inanimate objects.’
I agree. Animals are not property. You do not own animals, you are their guardian.
Mary Lou said: “I agree. Animals are not property. You do not own animals, you are their guardian.”
I sort of agree with that sentiment except that I raise animals for meat. I don’t treat them cruelly, unless you consider killing them quickly as being cruel. I do feel that I own them. Were someone from PETA to come and try to ‘rescue’ them I would object. There in lies the source of my cognitive dissonance.
I view my pets in a much different light than my livestock but I understand that there are people who who don’t. When I steal (rescue) a mistreated dog how am I different from a member of PETA who steals (rescues) my rabbits or chickens?
I’m starting to sound like Anonymous and it’s bothering me because I feel we are fundamentally different in many ways, but intersect here somehow.
Woody, the difference between you and PETA lies in how you view the animal — how you treat it, and what you use it for. Don’t be led away from the issue here.
Property rights equals human rights, and humans have not just an ability to think through a situation, but to feel emotions as well — love, anger, compassion, to name three — and to understand what those emotions mean in the context of the moment. (And some animals — dogs, for one — also understand the urge to protect others, human or otherwise, from cruelty or other attack. And they understand love and compassion and respond to it in kind.)
Anonymous, for all that s/he understands “property rights” (and that’s questionable), does not seem to understand an individual’s right and compulsion to act on his own values. We have to weigh our actions against the consequences, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore our “gut-feeling” if an alternative action stands against what we are.
I think we get too bogged down at times in defining our –isms, so don’t allow ourselves space to be ourselves within that -ism. (Incidentally, I “understand” what Anonymous is saying, too — I just don’t agree with it.)
This comment thread is closed on account of vituperation. Apparently the post got linked at some site where people would rather shout, threaten, misspell things, and, cuss rather than discuss thorny questions reasonably. Rather than dive through the flood of muck looking for pearls, I deleted all comments that were awaiting moderation.
If you’ve posted before your comment should have automatically gone through before I drained the swamp.