5 ms·

It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone to loneliness): https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-switzerl

It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone to loneliness): https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-switzerland/ https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-swi...

eps 9y ago
It is mentioned in the article.
wallace_f 9y ago
I am a vegetarian, but I'm more troubled by these totalitarian laws. Yes, I know they 'are just helping animals,' but throughout history, too often tyrants strip your liberties in the name of of moral righteousness.
- kranner 9y ago
  In what way does it strip one's liberties to be required to keep at least two guinea pigs if one must keep them? The "liberty" to keep exactly one guinea pig: that is just silly.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    That's exactly the point. The first steps in the path to illegitimate authority is to start legitimizing it using these low-hanging fruits. This is just textbook play calling. Removing net neutrality starts "we just want to help hospitals and police have faster internet, don't be ridiculous." Drug prohibition, the War on Terror, the TSA, police militarization. It all, every time, comes with "they're just trying to do something good and it doesn't seriously affect you." Except maybe thre TSA, because when someone starts searching you all of a sudden everyone is a civil libertarian.(1) The problems 1) One can always make the argument that "those are just not worthwhile freedoms." 2) The idea that using the threat of violence from the government to solve every problem is the actual path to tyranny. 1-https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie...
    - staticassertion 9y ago
      We already have laws about which animals can be kept as pets. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to prevent guinea pigs from being abused. It is not there to extend the government's power. What an extremely odd thing to argue.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        The concept is about 'what constitutes legitimate authority?' After all, consider your argument: >'we already have laws about which people can get married. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to protect children.' What you're advocating by disavowing the above, yet allowing the topic is to say you: "agree with authority when it happens to agree with my moral compass." Sayinf "disagreeing with this is an extremely odd thing to argue," reveals the fact that the original intentions of the founders of this country (assuming you live in the States), as well as those of Enlightenment figures, that government is only legitimate whwn it is limited, is so odd and alienating to you makes me think that no wonder humanity always turns itself in to tyranny, over and over again.
        badestrand 9y ago
        You might consider that Switzerland is probably the most democratic country on earth and "legitimate authority" quite directly means "the will of the people". If it wouldn't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a law change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term) and with enough inital support everyone can vote on the issue. They vote on far-ranging things several times a year, there can be no tyranny in this context.
        lawl 9y ago
        > If it wouldn't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a law change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term) Referendum to kill an existing law, popular initiative to propose a new one. They use different tricks when they're extending their power. This is definitely not one of them. Laws they suspect could be overturned by voters they create 2 simular but separate ones shortly after each other, so people get tired of fighting it etc. It definitely doesn't involve guinea pigs.
- stordoff 9y ago
  What liberty is being stripped here? The law should be considered for what it is, not a broad hypothetical generalisation of what it could be.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    The burden should not be on the people to justify every one of their liberties. Should a gay couple need justify to the state the merit, moral dignity, or in any way their choice to live as gay people to the state? No. It should never be that way. But to legitimize illegitimite authority you just need to win over the hearts and minds of the people that what you are doing is good, by first doing things that are, in isolation, good. Though its an awful path to go down.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      Of course the burden is on the state to justify the intrusion of liberty, but providing they can do so (i.e. the proposed action in isolation is a good thing), I'm not seeing the issue - preventing the government from making good interventions because of hypothetical future bad laws seems like an even worse path to take. Ultimately, how can you govern if good actions are just treated as a means to legitimise unspecified abuses?
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        You're misunderstanding this. The issue is with regard to what constitutes legitimate authority. It's because the government has a monopoly on violence. The time to leash that is when it oversteps its legitimate authority. Not wait until something awful happens when they're locking up communists, reading your email, or killing minorities.
        stordoff 9y ago
        I'll go back to my first question: in this case, what legitimate authority is being overstepped? It seems widely accepted that governments have the ability to make laws for the protection of animal welfare, and we seem in agreement that the ends reached here are a good thing. To me, this seems like a legitimate and proportional use of governmental power.
- ojii 9y ago
  This is Switzerland, if we Swiss had a problem with these laws or considered them "totalitarian" we could overturn them via a referendum.
- csomar 9y ago
  It only strip your liberties if you think you have full rights over the animals, and they have none. One can argue that humans are animals. Animals are protected by law and thus you should not harm any animal being human or from other species.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    It's not a comment about that. It's about thinking of where we should draw the line with allowing Western democracies to do things they were never meant to do.
    - smoe 9y ago
      It is always good to think where to draw the line in terms of government interference. But in this case the Swiss direct democracy is working exactly as expected by the people of the country. They voted decades ago that the government must be in charge and enforce the protection of the dignity and well-being of animals as well as update the law based on new findings. The new rules (which include the lobster stuff) going into effect are just the current iteration. For example, from the first of March all devices that automatically punish dogs for barking will be outlawed. This is an intrusion in personal liberty, but the Swiss as a whole seem quite fine with valuing the well being of the animals higher than their owners liberty to use those devices on them. If the Swiss are unhappy with the decisions made by the government here, we have the referendum as an quite often used instrument to stop it. You would need 55'000 signatures within 100 days if I remember correctly to trigger a vote on the national level.
myrandomcomment 9y ago
This is a reasonable thing. Prolonged harm is something that should be avoided. It is very likely that the need of these animals is not something that is well known. You are not trying to kill and eat your guinea pig.
dfbsdfd 9y ago
test
- grzm 9y ago
  You also get to choose your companions, or lack of them as the case may be. Given the choice, I suspect guinea pigs and parrots would choose the company of others. As pets they don't have that choice. Please note that I'm not saying anything about the keeping of animals as pets, or the social instincts of parrots or guinea pigs, or even whether or not the regulation is a good one. Just that the analogy you present here doesn't hold.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

eps 9y ago

It is mentioned in the article.

wallace_f 9y ago

I am a vegetarian, but I'm more troubled by these totalitarian laws. Yes, I know they 'are just helping animals,' but throughout history, too often tyrants strip your liberties in the name of of moral righteousness.

kranner 9y ago
In what way does it strip one's liberties to be required to keep at least two guinea pigs if one must keep them? The "liberty" to keep exactly one guinea pig: that is just silly.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  That's exactly the point. The first steps in the path to illegitimate authority is to start legitimizing it using these low-hanging fruits. This is just textbook play calling. Removing net neutrality starts "we just want to help hospitals and police have faster internet, don't be ridiculous." Drug prohibition, the War on Terror, the TSA, police militarization. It all, every time, comes with "they're just trying to do something good and it doesn't seriously affect you." Except maybe thre TSA, because when someone starts searching you all of a sudden everyone is a civil libertarian.(1) The problems 1) One can always make the argument that "those are just not worthwhile freedoms." 2) The idea that using the threat of violence from the government to solve every problem is the actual path to tyranny. 1-https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie...
  - staticassertion 9y ago
    We already have laws about which animals can be kept as pets. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to prevent guinea pigs from being abused. It is not there to extend the government's power. What an extremely odd thing to argue.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      The concept is about 'what constitutes legitimate authority?' After all, consider your argument: >'we already have laws about which people can get married. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to protect children.' What you're advocating by disavowing the above, yet allowing the topic is to say you: "agree with authority when it happens to agree with my moral compass." Sayinf "disagreeing with this is an extremely odd thing to argue," reveals the fact that the original intentions of the founders of this country (assuming you live in the States), as well as those of Enlightenment figures, that government is only legitimate whwn it is limited, is so odd and alienating to you makes me think that no wonder humanity always turns itself in to tyranny, over and over again.
      - badestrand 9y ago
        You might consider that Switzerland is probably the most democratic country on earth and "legitimate authority" quite directly means "the will of the people". If it wouldn't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a law change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term) and with enough inital support everyone can vote on the issue. They vote on far-ranging things several times a year, there can be no tyranny in this context.
        lawl 9y ago
        > If it wouldn't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a law change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term) Referendum to kill an existing law, popular initiative to propose a new one. They use different tricks when they're extending their power. This is definitely not one of them. Laws they suspect could be overturned by voters they create 2 simular but separate ones shortly after each other, so people get tired of fighting it etc. It definitely doesn't involve guinea pigs.
stordoff 9y ago
What liberty is being stripped here? The law should be considered for what it is, not a broad hypothetical generalisation of what it could be.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  The burden should not be on the people to justify every one of their liberties. Should a gay couple need justify to the state the merit, moral dignity, or in any way their choice to live as gay people to the state? No. It should never be that way. But to legitimize illegitimite authority you just need to win over the hearts and minds of the people that what you are doing is good, by first doing things that are, in isolation, good. Though its an awful path to go down.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    Of course the burden is on the state to justify the intrusion of liberty, but providing they can do so (i.e. the proposed action in isolation is a good thing), I'm not seeing the issue - preventing the government from making good interventions because of hypothetical future bad laws seems like an even worse path to take. Ultimately, how can you govern if good actions are just treated as a means to legitimise unspecified abuses?
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      You're misunderstanding this. The issue is with regard to what constitutes legitimate authority. It's because the government has a monopoly on violence. The time to leash that is when it oversteps its legitimate authority. Not wait until something awful happens when they're locking up communists, reading your email, or killing minorities.
      - stordoff 9y ago
        I'll go back to my first question: in this case, what legitimate authority is being overstepped? It seems widely accepted that governments have the ability to make laws for the protection of animal welfare, and we seem in agreement that the ends reached here are a good thing. To me, this seems like a legitimate and proportional use of governmental power.
ojii 9y ago
This is Switzerland, if we Swiss had a problem with these laws or considered them "totalitarian" we could overturn them via a referendum.
csomar 9y ago
It only strip your liberties if you think you have full rights over the animals, and they have none. One can argue that humans are animals. Animals are protected by law and thus you should not harm any animal being human or from other species.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It's not a comment about that. It's about thinking of where we should draw the line with allowing Western democracies to do things they were never meant to do.
  - smoe 9y ago
    It is always good to think where to draw the line in terms of government interference. But in this case the Swiss direct democracy is working exactly as expected by the people of the country. They voted decades ago that the government must be in charge and enforce the protection of the dignity and well-being of animals as well as update the law based on new findings. The new rules (which include the lobster stuff) going into effect are just the current iteration. For example, from the first of March all devices that automatically punish dogs for barking will be outlawed. This is an intrusion in personal liberty, but the Swiss as a whole seem quite fine with valuing the well being of the animals higher than their owners liberty to use those devices on them. If the Swiss are unhappy with the decisions made by the government here, we have the referendum as an quite often used instrument to stop it. You would need 55'000 signatures within 100 days if I remember correctly to trigger a vote on the national level.

myrandomcomment 9y ago

This is a reasonable thing. Prolonged harm is something that should be avoided. It is very likely that the need of these animals is not something that is well known. You are not trying to kill and eat your guinea pig.

dfbsdfd 9y ago

test

grzm 9y ago
You also get to choose your companions, or lack of them as the case may be. Given the choice, I suspect guinea pigs and parrots would choose the company of others. As pets they don't have that choice. Please note that I'm not saying anything about the keeping of animals as pets, or the social instincts of parrots or guinea pigs, or even whether or not the regulation is a good one. Just that the analogy you present here doesn't hold.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]