The British government is proposing to enact a law requiring
that all new puppies be electronically tagged. They say it will make it easier
to prosecute the owners of dangerous dogs.
I find several things about this further foray into nanny statehood
disquieting, but I suppose the biggest one comes down to the simple question:
Is it such a big step to go from tagging puppies to tagging
human babies? I’m sure they could come up with plausible excuses for that, too –
at least, plausible enough to persuade the sheep who are now soundly
conditioned to having their every movement in public watched.
Do we really want to be going down that road?
2 comments:
Well, we do that here. It's not demanded of us yet. It's called micro-chipping.
I think it's a good thing, because if a dog (cat) gets lost, he can be easily identified by any vet, law enforcement agency, shelter. That may make a dent in the huge number of shelter animals.
I agree, up to a point, but it has to be by the choice of the owner. When a state makes it mandatory, it becomes yet another level of state control. It should be a matter of education, not statute.
And to extend the argument, you could say that tagging babies would be useful, since it would then be easier to trace lost children and kidnap victims. But it would also make it much easier for Big Brother to watch what everybody is doing, and the occasional benefit doesn't come close to justifying the radical loss of personal freedom. It would be running slap bang into the middle of 1984.
Post a Comment