On May 30, 7:26 pm, "Daniel T."
earthlink.net> wrote:>> "Daniel T."
earthlink.net> wrote:>>> Hmm... I'm calling them whim buyers, you are calling them
>>> ignorant buyers. Given this, it seems that we can both agree that
>>> people should be taught to study the impact of a purchase before
>>> making it. The root problem then is that they don't do that.
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> Would removing shelters force us to deal with this root problem?
>>> Of course not, that "problem" is what drives a capitalist society.
>
>> The question I'm pondering is whether the problem would worsen in
>> the short-term, forcing society to deal with root problem by
>> instituting mandatory educational programs in the public schools.
>
> Well, we agreed above that the problem is that people don't study the
> impact of a purchase before making it. I think it is unreasonable to
> claim that if shelters didn't exist people would start doing that,
Right, but I didn't claim that.
> or
> that government would be inclined to educate them into doing it.
Why is that unreasonable? Isn't it in fact the norm that governments
in general don't really do anything until the problem becomes bad
enough so they are forced into action? Are governments *ever*
proactive? (Katrina comes to mind). Unfortunately, I think that is the
reality.
>> Of course, I would prefer that these programs be instituted without
>> making the problem worse in the short term, but we don't seem to be
>> doing that now, do we?
>
> No we don't, hence the reason the shelters exist.
>
>> So what exactly does this have to do with capitalism?
>
> One of the primary drivers of our society is people purchasing things
> they probably shouldn't purchase.
You can get animals for free in every town in America. But regardless,
I don't see the economic push to sell dogs . . . have you ever seen a
tv commercial from a breeder? Certainly places like Petsmart advertise
their accessories, but I don't see any big marketing blitz to sell
dogs (probably because it's not necessary).
