Not only they are bad ideas, but the incentives are horrible.
I could see the point of prisons if there was “warranty”. If a person guess back to jail, the first sentence was useless and the prison should be financially punished. You’ll see then how quickly therapy and quality job trainings are implemented.
There is no ethical way for an individual to possess a billion dollars. The amount of harm an individual would have to cause to attain and retain assets of that magnitude should not just be criminal; it should be a capital offense.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding your comment, but killing animals for pleasure alone is already largely illegal in Western countries. And that includes hunting. You aren’t allowed to just hunt an animal for fun and then leave it unharvested. It is hard to enforce, obviously. But you can definitely be charged for killing deer, moose, ducks, even fish, without a license and at least the intent to eat it. For example, you can’t kill a bear, cut off its paws or gall bladder, and then throw the carcass in the bush. You also can be charged for killing or treating an animal inhumanely or in a way that causes it distress. That theoretically applies to all animals, including pets, livestock, aquariums, wildlife, and even small animals like mice and bats.
Yes, there is that. I am personally against hunting because I figure wild animals are already under enough pressure from habitat destruction and climate change.
Hunting is largely cultural now and isn’t needed for sustenance except in very remote places. At the same time, I’m not sure if it is fair to classify a cultural practice as being for mere pleasure. It is a bit more complicated than that. Certainly, in Canada, indigenous peoples and the descendents of early settlers think so.
Hunting is needed for wildlife management. We’ve killed most of the natural predators for the animals we have hunting seasons for so we need to fill that niche or those animals won’t have enough food to go around during winter. I can’t speak for the animals, but I would prefer being shot to death rather than starving to death. There’s also the factor of more deer (and other prey animals) crossing roads being more dangerous for everyone involved.
Agreed, at least for some species like deer. I can’t think of too many others, though, especially with global warming. Most of the animals that thrive despite human encroachment, like coyotes, crows, and raccoons aren’t animals that we hunt.
Smoking. It’s literally a drug and causes lots of health issues like increased lung cancer risk, but the worst part is that if someone smokes near you then you also inhale some of the toxins even if you yourself don’t smoke. And in my country it’s common to see people smoking on the streets. Combine this with air pollution and yikes
Reality proves enough that forbidding drugs doesn’t work though, it just creates a lot of other problems. Forbidding some parts of it like ads about them, selling to minors etc do have effect however
At the very least, do so for the infrastructure. I don’t mind companies trying to sell me the service competitively, but the infrastructure should allow for a competitive market.
Add comment