Hard Drives and Horses

I'm sure that my two readers have been wondering where I've been. Well, Tuesday morning, I turned on my laptop to be led to a blue screen of death (I have a Dell, FYI). After restarting a couple times, I was eventually able to get to my desktop by starting in safe mode. After restarting again, I was even able to get to my desktop in normal mode, but things were definitely not working right. So, I spent roughly two hours on the phone with tech support, after which the tech concluded that my hard drive was dying. Because my computer was still under warranty, he ordered up a new hard drive for my computer.

I don't want to drag my story out too long, but I have a couple complaints about things. First, I got the hard drive but no instructions for how to install it. While I'm not afraid of computers, I don't have that kind of knowledge about hardware. So, I called tech support and it was certainly easy to install. After reinstalling Windows and everything on the two CDs that came with my hard drive, I found that I couldn't connect to the internet. So, I called tech support again. Apparently, I didn't have the drivers for that. Why? Because they didn't send me a CD with the necessary drivers. I was supposed to go to dell.com and download them. Hmm, does anyone see a problem here? Luckily, I was at work and had access to other computers, but nonetheless, this is a stupid problem.

So, I wasted much time this week both at work and at home dealing with everything related to my hard drive. And I'm still not finished. Uggh.


On to a more serious matter: the slaughtering of horses. Yes, I know, this subject has certainly been at the top of your agenda, as well as everyone else's, for years now. Iraq? Massive budget deficits? Nuclear proliferation? Such worries are only for those of small minds. No, Congress, with only 15 legislative days left in the year (don't you wish you had only 15 workdays left in this session?), has decided that it must work to ban the slaughtering of horses for meat. Great. Fantastic. There goes my horsesteak burger I was planning on having.

To be a little more serious on this subject, I am actually bothered by the passage of this bill. I first learned about it from Andrew Cohen's blog on the Washington Post. He also wrote a rather emotional opinion piece on this as well. What is clear from his blog and his responses to the people making comments is that Cohen's opposition to the production of horse meat is rooted in a belief that horses are "special" and, therefore, not only should other people not produce meat from them, but Congress should specifically ban the production of such meat.

In the past, I have found Cohen to be a reasonable guy. He's the Post's legal/constitution blogger. This time, however, he's violated one of the principles that he usually espouses -- namely, that the government shouldn't interfere with people's business unless said business interferes or affects others. I, for one, agree with such a principle. To say it in another way, my rights extend until they begin to infringe or interfere with your rights. At that point, the government can step in. To be clear, I don't want to push this principle too hard, but I think it's an excellent starting point for evaluating laws that regulate people's behavior.

So, let's look at horse meat production. Much of Cohen's objections is centered on the method of killing the horses. He finds the method to be inhumane. Fine. But if the issue is the inhumane method of killing, shouldn't he just be pushing for rules that make sure the killing is done in a more humane manner? Unfortunately, despite his readers' question on this, he never explains this issue. Instead, one can only guess from his column that, in fact, he objects to the production of horse meat in its entirety, regardless of whether the methods of killing are humane.

It is that last part that violates how I believe Congress should legislate behavior. While I don't eat horse meat, I don't see why I should infringe on others' rights to eat horse meat or, in this case, produce horse meat. For the most part, people's arguments on this point have centered on the idea that horses are "special". Apparently, cows, pigs, ducks, chickens, rabbits, deer, bison, turkeys, and many other animals are lacking in this "specialness". Some have argued that horses are "pets" and that we don't eat pets. To that, I have to ask: Do you think that the people who sold their horses to the slaughterhouses regarded them as "pets"? If the statement "we don't eat pets" is true, then it seems unlikely that these horses were regarded in such a way.

Some have argued that horses are "special" in our country's history and, therefore, should not be used for meat. Well, OK, I'll let George Washington's horse have a pass, but why does this apply to these horses now? Moreover, does this mean the turkey (which Ben Franklin wanted to be the national bird) isn't important? Really, aren't any animals that we rely on for food important? Cattle and bison are unimportant? Again, this is a silly argument to make.

One could argue that eating any animal is wrong. If, however, one believes that, then this principle should apply to ALL animals. Although Cohen never explains, he appears to be specifically against the production of horse meat. The House of Representatives appears to be in a similarly unprincipled place.

People have made other spurious arguments for banning horse meat production as well, such as the meat is being produced for consumption in other countries (a complete non sequitur if I ever heard one) and the government is subsidizing the horse meat production industry (uh, can't that be fixed without banning things? -- isn't the subsidy Congress's fault in the first place?).

Frankly, I could argue ad nauseum agsinst every one of the points being made by people against horse meat production, but ultimately, what these people's arguments show is that THEY regard THEIR horses as things that they would not want to be eaten. Such preferences and viewpoints, however, should not be foisted on others. BTW, I own two rabbits and I'm not supporting the banning of the production of rabbit meat. Does this mean I don't regard my rabbits as "pets"? Is there something wrong with me for not trying force everyone else to follow my own personal regard for my rabbits?

Ultimately, as I do not have any overall objection to the consumption of meat, so long as horses are killed in a humane manner, I see no reason why we should ban the production of horse meat. If someone has a clear, logical, cogent, principled, consistent argument for such a ban, I'd love to hear it, but frankly, I doubt anyone could meet those five criteria.